Counter-guerrilla airpower is in most circles considered almost by definition as destructive. It isolates and kills the target. Highly mobile, rapid response, overwhelming firepower, intensely concentrated, counter-guerrilla airpower is a very effective tool in the arsenal of any organization engaged in a war of attrition. We should not forget that 9/11 was a display of the awesome capability of airpower in this type of war.
Thinking on the flipside of airpower however reveals numerous weaknesses. Highly dependent on real-time intelligence, easily defended against by simple maneuver, inability to penetrate civilian shields, relative isolation of inserted boots, all are major drawbacks with using airpower to combat guerrilla warfare.
In my experience with the USAF the most awesome results ever attained by airpower were not through its destructive force however. A C-130 delivering aid achieves far greater results than an F-16 delivering JDAMs.
That is a simplification. We can't send care packages to aQ. I'm not suggesting such. We can however realize the potential for airpower to be more than a tool in a war of attrition. This is especially true when the cost to destroy the enemy is greater than the gain realized by their destruction.