In case you're curious about what JMA actually did advocate, it's here:

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...=12821&page=12

Two cruise missiles is all it will take...
With this as clarification:

Don't think you were there when I first raised this in the 'Ivory Coast' thread, so here we go:

Quote:
It is time to stop pussy-footing around and apply JMA's 3-Cruise-Missile-Option.

With some sections of the army wavering (it appears) the first missile targets the barracks of the most loyal unit to Gbagbo - do it now, tomorrow.

The second with 12 hours warning targets the current location of Gbagbo himself - he won't be there but will get the message strength 5.

Thereafter the word is put out that there's a $1m for the person who provides Gbagbo's location as a target for the third missile.
JMA never explained what he expected the outcome of this proposed action to be, so on that score your guess is as good as mine.

My own guess is that the outcome would have been Assad going to ground, his army moving out of their barracks and dispersing their assets, and a combined message telling us to stick our demands where the sun don't shine. That of course would leave us with a choice between backing down and escalating, neither appealing.

Obviously nobody knows what would have happened if... but somehow that proposal seemed to me unlikely to achieve much.

I mention it only on the principle that people who accuse others of "getting it wrong" really ought to be able to offer a convincing suggestion of what "getting it right" would have been.