I also wanted to ask you. You mentioned, you know, what is the endgame here? Is

it clear to US forces what the mission is here? Is that mission regime change? Does

The US still do that?

That's a terrific question. I can remember being a young lieutenant in 2012 in Afghanistan patrolling

Taliban contested villages in Southern Afghanistan. And as a lieutenant giving commands to my platoon and

not being able to nest that mission statement up into a higher commander's intent about what

is it that we're trying to do here. And when you do that, you undermine, readiness

and esprit de corps within the armed forces, and you make it harder for commission officers

to execute their writ. This president owes a clear rationale to congress, and then congress owes

the American public a debate. So for example, with regime change, if that is the president's

stated intent, he already lied to the Iranian protesters once. He said help was on the

way. This time around, what is the nature of the support he wants to provide? Does

that mean boots on the ground? Does that mean cyberattacks? Does that mean covert action? Does

that mean overt action? Congress should have to debate that and justify it to our own

constituent.