Personnaly I have a mixed feeling about Fuch and Bill statements:

Seriously; all the support the French are asking for from Western countries is about as serious as Turkey's request for SAM support: Nice to have, but 90% a symbolic demonstration of unity.
I think you got this one wrong, this is too big for France do do alone and they know it.
First of all, on the ground the first phase of the operation is getting quite good. French just took back Gao and they continue the bombing of Ansad Dine bases.

So I do not believe it's much about "combat capacity" we are talking about here. On that particular point, the requested engagement of NATO contributing countries is quiete symbolic, as Fuch pointed.
What seems obvious is the air logistic that is the real issue, as Bill pointed out.

I tend to agree with Bill and David on the fact that this demonstrates that NATO armies are all interdependant (in a good or bad way, let you make up your mind).

On a more "grand strategy" level, what happens in Mali is a concern for all Europ countries as Sahara is the door to Europ. But it is also a concern for the US as the spread of the Islamist threat in Africa is a threat for them too. But Africa is a strategic continent for all of us, including China (and Russia in a lighter level).
To me, what would be interresting is the impact of this on the expension of China over natural ressources on the continent. Leaving the "old colonial powers" dealing with the problems will come at a cost for both West and China. Could we imagine a Chinese involvement, even symbolic, in this? Or does that significates a containment of China in its already "historical allies" (Like Sudan)?