Pheasant
Here's a good example of strategic Air Power effecting a total outcome without any Navy or Army input...
God knows how many lives would have been lost trying to take Japan with 'boots on the ground' and multiple littoral manouevres subject to Kamikaze attacks!
Warfrare changes and we need to get used to it - trench warfare died 100 years ago with the introduction of Air Power and tanks. Fast forward 20 years from that point then our 'boots on the ground' were c0ck all use following a total beasting by Blitzkrieg - only our Navy and Air Force bailed us out and stopped the rot that the land forces couldn't.
QRA is strategic if you consider the strategic assets that it is up to defend against - no need to shoot anything down, just the meer capability to meet the ASM carrying assets outside of the ASM's WEZ is a very good example of strategic defence. It negates other weapons systems that might be brought to bear (including the use of airliners as flying bombs!).
The Iraqi No Fly Zones shaped Saddam's behaviour significantly and he knew that he did not have freedom of manoeuvre above/below the parallels. Again there was strategic intent in keeping Saddam at bay inside his own borders, which is why he started fiddling about with chemical weapons and making (now known to be) empty threats to the Coalition. Quite simply, it was all he could do as Air Power had him hemmed in and neutralised any conventional effect he might want to use.
But sadly I think I am wasting my words on you - you have your opinion and I have mine!
LJ