and so i think that's a very salutair aspect of the strategy as well. and third, i would say that it's a good strategy for focusing on the long term. a lot of strategies that are less effective focus on short term challenges and this is very focused on the long-term challenge reflecting the shift of power to asia over the next 10 or 20 years. so i'd say there's three very strong aspects of the strategy that should be praised. >> but as we then look about this troop cut, i mean, there are some folks who have sort of suggested that it's somehow -- you know, america is lessening its commitment to europe and that it diminishes somehow america's u.s. war-fighting capabilities more broadly. what is this cut and what is the impact? strategy and your question is sort of directed at that. first, i wary a bit because it's the return of the large pentagon bureaucracy to a symmetric adversary and that is the chinese military as a threat and while that military is gaining gaining symmetric tactics. this is the pentagon's comfort zone and the world doesn't tend to be