I find this back and forth weird. It seems to me that you are saying that the air strikes did not make the revolution successful because it also needed troops o

I find this back and forth weird. It seems to me that you are saying that the air strikes did not make the revolution successful because it also needed troops on the ground to be successful. You are also saying that they were not material in its success. I would argue that the revolutionary ground troops would have suffered more losses if Gaddafi had had air support but the revolution didn't. Nevermind the tanks and such destroyed by NATO via air strikes. Potentially enough to make the revolution fail. Is that not material?