Quote (ThatAlex @ Nov 1 2016 03:09pm)
There is good reason to think that.
The most stable condition Libya could be in would overthrowing Gaddafi and occupying Libya with thousands of American troops for many years, which would have been the amount of intervention required for the initial invasion to work like Obama described - an investment Obama's administration clearly and wisely didn't want to make.
The least stable condition Libya could be in would overthrowing Gaddafi and then not providing significant ground support to stabilize the region, which is exactly what we did.
I don't think either is true, tbh. NATO(and America) could have done a number of things to help the transition without occupying Libya for years with tens of thousands of troops.
There's always a tradeoff between stability and mass killing/genocide. Sure, maybe after Gaddafi spent years rounding up every rebel(including their families) and massacring them, Libya would be more stable today. There's experts that believe that would have been the worst option possible.
Here's an interesting article:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2016/04/12/everyone-says-the-libya-intervention-was-a-failure-theyre-wrong/I think most experts were in favor of intervening, and the real division was focused on what to do after Gaddafi fell.