re: #39 goddamnedfrank

The difference between the two is that in Libya there was an active, well organized and comparatively secular rebel movement already fighting Qaddafi. Simply letting the entire country twist in the wind could plausibly have gotten far more people killed. The problem as such was in the follow through, we should have devoted far more money and resources in rebuilding the country and providing security for the new government.

“Comparatively secular”? That’s an interesting interpretation of recent history, considering how Islamists saw their fortunes rise with the fall of Gaddafi and now Islamic State controls a significant part of Libyan real estate.

And I don’t see how not intervening would have led to far more people killed, Gaddafi was about to win the war. Instead, we intervened and the fighting continued for months, and the resulting destabilization led to further conflict in Mali and a second civil war in Libya that is still ongoing, with a large ISIS presence.

It was just an idiotic decision to intervene in Libya, on par with invading Iraq, albeit in a less populous part of the world resulting in comparatively fewer deaths.