posted by Crowbat

Please define 'we' - first.
You are certainly in that category, and the rest of your post was largely unintelligible and overly emotional. I'm responding to what I think you're saying, but to be frank it isn't clear.

Yeah, 'great solution': describe what happened at the start, so to get the argument that's in your interest - and then black out whatever happened subsequently.
Explain? I think I focused on what happened subsequently, and don't pretend to claim what would have happened if we intervened, but I can refer to recent history and point out our interventions have made the situation worse, which to me makes claims that "we" have to intervene seem unfounded in logic and bit hubristic. Intervene to accomplish what?

The Western intervention in Libya has opened a way for reorganization of the country - which was entirely impossible during the previous dictatorship. Between others it brought to power a government that was most cooperative and supportive with the West in the entire Middle East. Thus, that intervention was start of a specific, and usually rather 'lengthy' process, yet a very successful one.
I agree with you to a large extent, and I'm not ignoring the fact that we removed a dictator and stopped him from using his mercenaries to slaughter his own people. However, I think our mingling in the political process afterwards didn't achieve its goals, and this is where I'm arguing we don't understand the region. Military arts are military arts, we know how to defeat most adversaries militarily, it is the political and social dynamics we don't understand, and our nave approach of insisting on immediately establishing a democratic government in the midst of post war chaos that has resulted three times in recent history in pulling defeat from the jaws of military victory (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya). Democracy is a long term objective that doesn't need to be pursued immediately. Non democratic governments can be both good and effective and ultimately enable a peaceful transition to democracy if that is the way the people desire to be governed.

Similarly, you're not going to mention that two years later, and with another character in (supposed) charge of US foreign policy, you've got a situation where there was a military coup by somebody renowned as supported by specific 'other' circles within the USA.
The character in question coupped himself to power with explanation that this was necessary in order to 'battle Islamists'. But, once in power, he did nothing of that sort: on the contrary, he turned against militias that were already fighting the Islamists...
Show your facts, I'm not familiar with this, and blogs on the internet where kids and imaginative adults make wild claims are not facts. Furthermore, if this is true, it would support my argument that we don't know what we're doing, so even if the intentions are good we won't be effective, which calls our desire for intervention into question.

If now there would only be no people with memory better than that of the fish...
Enlighten us, where we have we in recent memory intervened with our military and attempted to reform a country's government that resulted in a better peace?