"Hawks" you say, as in multiple, with it only fair to be mentioned that in the instance of the Nato intervention in Libya, this was complicated by British & Euro Nato partners jumping the gun, so to speak, for the French kicked off the air-support sot of thing...
Show me where multiple, so-called "hawks" (I assume those would be what the left call 'right wing') held up Nato intervention as direct model for Syria.
June 22, 2011 "http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/22/war.powers.libya/>
Washington (CNN -- Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, indicated Wednesday that the GOP-controlled House of Representatives will not back a resolution sponsored by Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, expressing congressional support for limited American involvement in the NATO-led military campaign in Libya."I don't think that's where the House is," Boehner told reporters on Capitol Hill. "The fact is the president has not made his case to the members of Congress. He has not made his case to the American people."
McCain's resolution, introduced Tuesday along with Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry, authorizes the commitment of U.S. forces for one year while stressing the lack of support for any use of American ground troops.
So you've got McCain. Big whoopidy deal.
The majority were dragging their feet, hardly holding Libya up as a model for how the U.S. should proceed in assisting the one "rebel group" in Syria (one out of out of three main groups fighting Assad) which were the so-called good guys.
All three of those groups expected U.S. air support. But that is ALL THE FAULT of the Executive branch -- Obama, Hillary, then Kerry.
They own THAT particular stinking pile.