Let me take the first question first, because they're two different questions.
Your question about what NATO should do if the Security Council is paralyzed, I think, is highly relevant. I foresee a very difficult period ahead for the Security Council, but currently we have no other form of accountability for the council other than political accountability. It was very interesting, for example, that you saw the UN General Assembly in August passing a resolution that was incredibly strongly worded, criticizing the council for the failure to act. The council needs to manage the downside that comes with the failure to meet the expectations of the UN membership. That's unfortunately the strongest stick we have.
I am one who believes that it doesn't mean there can never be any action. I think we need to begin to investigate those alternatives, and to simply say it's either Security Council authorization or nothing is really not to address the problem. We may be going back to an era not unlike what we saw in the 1980s, with the council unable to fulfill the weight of expectation that's been placed upon it. Let's think back to the eight-year Iran-Iraq war, back to India-Pakistan, years where the council did nothing.
The council's longer trajectory has been inaction, not action; this needs to be seriously considered by NATO countries in particular, but also by other regional actors.
On your second point about what combat-capable forces would look like, I do think from the perspective of an optimist that Afghanistan, while it is derided, did provide an opportunity for the Canadian Forces to develop an adaptable, flexible army. That is, I think, a highly prized capability that should not be squandered lightly. I do think that is an important capability that would be traded off if we're in a world of fixed resources whereby an investment in something like the F-35 means that instead we're banking on having interoperable air capacity.
I come back to my point about Libya: can you protect solely from the air? If the kinds of operations we're thinking about do include civilian protection, then it may be that we have to consider what kind of land forces we could actually mobilize.
There is, of course, the whole other dimension of what we need on the North American continent, but I think your question was more directed at what we need to do globally.