It was a mistake to remove him. A serious mistake.
I would argue that it was the best thing to do, considering he was going to basically burn the rebel-controlled towns to the ground and slaughter thousands of his own people (or so he threatened), far more than have died in a Gaddafi-less world.
The problem the US made was not following up and contributing support to the secular-ish types and forcing the Islamists to back down.
Like in Iraq?
Putting an end to that mass murderer is yet another wonderful accomplishment of Barack Obama.
Would you say the same if Bush did it? I somehow doubt it.
HP regardless.
The difference with Iraq is that we ignored the rebels the first time, and then when we finally got rid of Saddam in the second war, there wasn't really any rebel forces we could have supported. We just went in and attacked, essentially. At least in Libya there was a clear, non-Gaddafi opposition that at least appeared democratic.
I see where you are comming from. With hindsight bias of course, would you have supported an overthrow of Saddam back in 91 using the Shia/Kurds/anti-Saddam elements as auxiliary ground forces?
Probably. The religious sectarianism wasn't as bad then, and when there's a legitimate opposition that's literally asking for help (and doesn't appear to be as brutal as the current dictator), toppling the dictator should be at least considered. Perhaps it shouldn't be done, but considering the option is good. And in any case, if the dictator throws a punch at a neighboring country, definitely push him out.
That's one of the reasons why (for example) I wouldn't support an immediate overthrow of Saudi Arabia, as vicious as they are; there is no organized resistance. However, if North Korea (as another example) attacked South Korea, I think that there's a legitimate argument for toppling the Kim dynasty while in the course of throwing them out of South Korea.
Poll
