Sir, thank you for the question.
You're quite right that in this operation two services primarily did the force generation, the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Royal Canadian Navy. What was different from Afghanistan, in simple terms.... The air force, of course, has a very specific characteristic that allows it to do things more rapidly: it's got aircraft. So its ability to get into a theatre, to have effect, to be in place quicker is just self-evident by its capability. Likewise, the navy has always had a readiness capability that allows it to deploy. Again, this is a CEFCOM activity, so it would be best if you talked to the commander of CEFCOM in terms of his views.
In my view, from a sustainment perspective, just back to what we did to assist, the reality—not challenges—of operating in Libya was that a lot of the air force basing was in Italy. There was goodness in that because it was a NATO nation. In fact, I had previously signed with Italy what we call a mutual logistic support arrangement, which means in essence that with NATO nations we can use—not barter—services and on a cost-recovery basis pay for those services. In fact, I ended up augmenting the task force going in, very much air-force-centric, based on the Italy piece, and just added capability to them as they put in place such things as the fuel agreements, contract agreements, and then the basing agreements and housing agreements and such. So that was probably primarily where I would have provided assistance at the front end.
And then, very clearly, there is the sustainment piece. So once the operation is up and running, for the most part, again focused more on the air force—ships tend to be very self-sufficient, except when they come alongside to refuel and replenish—it was the sustainment piece of the air force elements that became the focal point for that operation.
Again, it was very dynamic. One of the things I have learned is that the pre-existing agreement structure is—I won't say essential—very beneficial for being able to stand up and operate in a very complex and demanding environment. So even though it was a NATO nation, even though it was in Europe where we have worked on occasion, I'm sure it was very challenging for those on the ground.
But, again, I would suggest comments from the commander of CEFCOM would be more appropriate, in terms of views.