Draken55,
Don't think anyone doubted that air would make the difference
There are plenty of doubters out there - including many of our Army brethren who stick doggedly to the notion that only boots on the ground, or the threat thereof, can have an effect on ground and territory. The only recent example where air power, unsupported by the threat of ground intervention, can be said to have achieved its aim was the northern Iraq no-fly zone from 1991-2003, which allowed the Kurds to achieve a degree of self-rule under Saddam. The southern no-fly zone didn't save the Marsh Arabs, and the air action over Kosovo was backed up with the threat of ground intervention.
The Libya conflict could finally provide a definitive example of an air-only* campaign. Indeed Gen Dannatt has been backtracking on his comments, made whilst CGS, about RAF fast jets; understandably the 2 surviving FJ fleets are enjoying the attention and perhaps allowing themselves a quiet "I told you so". Meanwhile, the politicians are appreciating the ability to make a military intervention without the accompanying daily headlines of Pte Bloggs getting blown up; a low-political-capital option indeed, but with a price tag to compensate: hopefully PR11 will account for that!
* The purist would define sub-launched TLAM and carrier-based aircraft as "air power" - strictly, "sea-based air power".