if you look at undergoverned spaces, ungoverned spaces, the probably of civil wars, the probability of long-term instability i'm not sure why they draw the conclusion. i would argue from a u.s. perspective we certainly do have an interest in maintaining a capability to address instability in places like the maghr maghreb, transsahara, the middle east and in asia. i wonder about the planning scenario by appears to be hirks-text but ignores the lessons over the last few years. my concerns are focused on the innovative partnerships. if the u.s. is going to focus on technology, who is going to handle the rest of the issues? we have something called global training equip in the department of defense to train military forces around the world to handle counterterrorism operations and stability operations. will we see an increase in that activity? are we going to depend on partners whether it's the united kingdom, whether it's mali, to address some of the concerns that really we have the capabilities now to address, but we might not in the future because of this transition so that's something