Let me try one more time...

Rewind to before we decided that using airpower as a means to establish a no-fly zone was the proper course of action regardles of where it lead...

What SHOULD have been done to try to reconcile the competing desired end-states the various participants had (have)? Is it the US gets to pick becasue we have the most toys? Should Italy becasue Libya used to be Italy's? France because its "neutral"?

What if there is no singular desired end-state but a range of possible outcomes that can all have a pro-adversary tint to them or a pro- good guys tint to them?

Do you acknowledge a dichotmy in strategic method MIGHT exist?



Also shows how Slobodan Milosevic did not just mysteriously collapse, it was done with Airpower.
Again the issue is not airpowers importance or effectiveness. I read Col Owens book on Deliberate Force. The take away was that it took WAY longer and was WAYYY more expensive than the Air Force predicted, but Airpower (with a little bit of pressure from a marginally effective KLA ground force...) did come through in the end.

You kep inserting things in the discussion that we are not disagreeing on in response to what we do disagree on.