https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_...
US, UK and France dropped so many bombs on Lybia they ran out and Germany happily restocked them.[2]
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-bombed-iraq-syria-pak...
[2] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/86...
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?
The airstrikes were absolutely crucial to the rebels victory, and no one with any idea of how the war progressed would try to claim otherwise.
Before the airstrikes qadaffis forces were overrunning the rebels and were well on their way to benghazi off the back of their armored corps and air superiority, it was the airstrikes that put a stop to that.
Why does America always get blamed for the Libya when we (and the rest of the world) were just spectators to a country falling apart due to an internal revolution? America supported the revolution, sure, they even provided some air support, but it was by no means much of a military player in it, it didn’t set it into action. China was only pissed off about this because they had lots of deals with Gaddafi at the time, they didn’t care how unstable the regime was (most authoritarian regimes that aren’t China are incredibly unstable) and got burned for it.
The same with Syria. Again, nothing started by the USA or any other country, internal revolution caused by unstable authoritarian regime, which coincidentally made a lot of business deals with China because everyone else was wary of dealing with them. We’ve seen this before, we will see it again. They’ll happen regardless of whether the USA or Russia get involved.