Re. 'failed state': one can't know without giving Libyans the necessary time. Measured by experiences from much more favourable situation in the Eastern Europe (i.e. ex-members of the Warsaw Pact), reform of such countries, their society and economy can easily take 20 years. Libya hasn't got even a quarter of that - but is already declared a 'failure'?

...which allowed a massive amount of weapons to spread to other parts of Africa according to some empowering a number of groups such as AQ in Mali and enabled the BH to be better armed than the Nigerian military....
This is one of funniest parts of this affair: everybody is talking about 'massive amount of weapons spread' from Libya, but nobody can show any.

Surely, several shipments of Libyan small arms, ammo and even some light artillery have reached Syria, but with one exception every shipment containing MANPADs was intercepted while underway there. Actually, only a handful of ex-Libyan MANPADS ever surfaced anywhere abroad (in Syria); half of them were spent to shoot at SyAAF fighter-bombers and helicopters, the other half was non-operational. Re. AQIM and Mali: I've seen photos of their armament captured by the French and Algerians and sorry, but nothing of what I've seen was from Libya - rather captured from the collapsing Malian Army. I'm following the little-known campaign vaged against local extremists in southern Tunisia too (as usually: whenever there is an 'obscure' air force involved, I'm tracking what's going on): perhaps few AK-47s there are from Libyan stocks, even that's not sure.

Which is making me wonder: where is evidence of these 'massive amounts of Libyan weapons' being spread around Africa and similar places?

If we would be talking about Q's times, when he was delivering L-39s to Uganda (and deploying even Tupolev Tu-22s bombers there), MiG-21s to Mali, MiG-23s to the DR Congo and Zimbabwe etc. (not to talk about his deployment of an entire brigade of Chadian Army into the DR Congo, back in 1998), 'sure'. But since his fall?

Whatever, the point remains that the intervention of 2011 was successful in its aim - removal of dictator to open the country for reforms. The fact that these reforms were crudely interrupted by a military coup, means not that the intervention was 'wrong', or its results 'poor'.

That becomes especially difficult when it is the Islamists that are the best organized (politically and militarily) and they threaten our interests and the interests of others in the region. It is something we helped enable and now we can't escape it, and yes I think we would see a similar result in Syria and that mess would threaten Iraq even more and also Turkey and Jordan.
Say, an intervention resulting in a group like the IF coming to power in Syria wouldn't have threatened security of Turkey, because there is an equal Islamist in power there. On the contrary, it would be 'better' for Iraq, because IF is at odds with the ISIS.

Act yes, but after thinking through it. Frankly that should have been done by now, but instead we're responding to Iraq like it is a crisis (it is) instead of deliberately. That is what happens when you have a country that has divorced itself from strategy.
Agreed.