Shadi Hamid, VOX: Everyone says the Libya intervention was a failure. They’re wrong.
Libya and the 2011 NATO intervention there have become synonymous with failure, disaster, and the Middle East being a "shit show" (to use President Obama’s colorful descriptor). It has perhaps never been more important to question this prevailing wisdom, because how we interpret Libya affects how we interpret Syria and, importantly, how we assess Obama’s foreign policy legacy.
Of course, Libya, as anyone can see, is a mess, and Americans are reasonably asking if the intervention was a mistake. But just because it’s reasonable doesn’t make it right.
Most criticisms of the intervention, even with the benefit of hindsight, fall short. It is certainly true that the intervention didn’t produce something resembling a stable democracy. This, however, was never the goal. The goal was to protect civilians and prevent a massacre.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: Using this argument .... I can say the same about Iraq .... that if Saddam Hussein was kept in power the situation would be worst. But no one is saying that .... and for just cause. The Libyan intervention is a disaster because there was no commitment or long term strategy on how to deal with the country after Qaddafi was thrown out .... even President Obama is acknowledging that (see above video). The U.S./NATO intervention may have stopped Qaddafi from massacring his opponents .... but the story on what will happen in Libya is still being played out, and we do not really know what will be the end result when this is all over .... but by the looks of it .... a never-ending conflict that will continue for years (if not more).