state that is hostile to our interest, it is a very, very heavy lift. it s an extremely difficult task. and it s proven out in syria because just a couple of years ago, we were told that a level of trust is involved. it s also more the operational side of actually verifying what s happening on the ground. we were told the chemical weapons were out of syria. thanks to the russian involvement. i d ask people to be aware of that fact in also considering the problem we ve got with iran. scott referred to iran. the fact we have this iranian nuclear deal that s based, according to secretary kerry in the past on verification. it is the most difficult aspect of this whole program. what we re seeing in syria, i would argue, we ve got the same problem with iran and their nuclear deal. i feel the two of you have solutions for this problem but don t necessarily want to put it out there directly because you don t want to be held accountable for it. maybe you ll i am perfectly i suspec
think, will come on board with this. one of the cautions i have, i do believe, while i think this strike was proportional and needed we need a policy and strategy that s worthy of the courageous men and women that are going to implement it. we need to take a look at iraq and afghanistan and this whole regime change thing. that s f that if that s the road we go down we need to think broader and deeper beyond when the dust clears. that s one thing we ve not done well. whatever coalition we put in place, we need to ensure we re prepared to do the long haul on this. because think about a strategy that s going to require post regime change iraq and syria. this is not something we can be casual about at all. and who is in that coal cision really going to matter. michael, you want to weigh in. scott is absolutely correct on that point. i would also say the two things. two things to keep in mind. when it comes to verifying, to assessing and verifying the weapons cape annuabilitcapabili