Was the intervention in Libya a....

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It was awfully executed. The coalition exceeded it's "no flying zone" mandates and after Gaddafi was killed they declared mission accomplished and left the whole mess.

I did support some sort of international intervention, but it should've been aimed at separating the two sides and forcing a truce rather than joining one. Given the complexity of Libya regional and tribal loyalties, we'd simplify things by looking at this as a classic "freedom fighters v. bad dictator" situation.

Libya no longer exists as a functioning state and NATO bears a share of responsibility for this. Especially now, with the ISIS filing some of the void.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I must agree with Green Line about half measures. It appears Washington thought they'll sent some planes to support the rebels and once Gaddafi's out of picture everything will be just honky dory.

There's some funny bipolarism regarding American administrations and going to war. At one hard, deeper commitment, especially with a ground troops, is like a taboo (pretty much since Korea), while they think they can do just all right with limited commitment.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/war-weary-libyans-miss-life-under-kadhafi-055129690.html?.tsrc=jtc_news_index

I guess we all, whether we supported or opposed the original intervention, can agree it was a botched job.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I think my favorite part is how similar the excuses made for Libya line up with the excuses made for Iraq....but from the exact opposite sides.  (not that the same mistakes were made in both, clearly there are some key differences....but the excuses often oddly line up)

Just imagine what if Iraq happened under a Democratic President. We'd have our resident hacks defending it to this day.