Thank you, sir.
There were no boots on the ground. Therefore, projection of power from air and sea became critical. A lot of people focused on the air participation because it's probably the most visible and the most dramatic. But I want to mention my colleagues from the navy, who spent a lot of time and did a lot of work, and, more importantly, kept the Port of Misrata open through mining and shelling. To be mindful, the last ship that was fired upon was during the Korean War. They showed great courage, sir, so if you'll allow me not to forget our naval capability and effort.... It was truly important.
The second part, though, is the team effort. I was in total disagreement with the term used by the U.S., which was “lead from the rear”, because it was not. My boss was U.S. His boss was U.S. There was a lot of activity on the international scene by the U.S. as well. They opted perhaps to even out the burden sharing from the military perspective. The U.S. provided capacity and capabilities that did not exist.
On an average day, I had over 30 air-refueler aircraft that were airborne. One of them was Canadian, and some British, but most of them came in from the U.S. They provided that air bridge, and we couldn't get there without it. That's the critical capacity and capability.
In terms of capability, there was also intelligence support, and I'll stop there. They provided a lot, but again the trick was not only to take what they could, but actually pull it all together and work it. In fact, that's what pool and share really is; it's NATO's future. It's not only about equipment, but intelligence and everything else. They played a key role.
From my perspective, on a weekly basis I spoke to my colleagues in Paris, in the U.K., and obviously I was talking to my colleagues through the U.S. and Canada as well. For me, there was continued dialogue on that. They didn't tell me what to do; I informed them of what I was doing. I wanted to make sure I was catching the national concerns that were going on to see how it affected the campaign, or whether the campaign should be affected by it. It was not because I was under orders from these countries, but more to make sure I didn't have a national action that would break the alliance.
The U.S. played a critical role. In the future I sense the message from the U.S. will be, “We won't go, but how much of this can the rest of Europe handle that we don't have to provide?” That's the rebalancing of the burden of sharing.