It sounds to me like it is not working very well.

I still have my doubts about that.

Mandating a higher end-strength without increasing funding would mean a hollow force unless you borrowed more money from modernization to pay for readiness.

It seems like a challenging balance to get back to the pre-positioned activity set.

I do think it is always important to remember that as troublesome as these flows of migrants and refugees are, it is merely a symptom, and the ultimate disease is the Syrian civil war. The U.S. administration bears responsibility for that…

Since Russia is arguably in violation of the Founding Act, why don't we permanently station forces in Eastern Europe?

Will the rotating unit deploy with their organic equipment and rolling stock or fall in on theater equipment?

Will an armored brigade combat team sufficiently improve NATO's ability to respond?

You said that Vladimir Putin is weaponizing immigration in Syria.

While there not be military application, it would be a convenient political development if Bashar al Assad, who represents a minority sect in Syria, were to ethnically cleanse much of his country of Sunni Arabs.

I do believe that one of the primary goals of Mr. Putin is to find a division in NATO and find a division in the European Union.