First this, hopefully you can access it without subscribing:

http://theweek.com/article/index/267...-dumpster-fire

How Hillary Clinton's 'smart power' turned Libya into a dumpster fire
Another successful intervention. Another failed state riven by chaos and Islamist gangs

Clinton claimed victory for her philosophy of "smart power," the self-regarding name for bombing people on behalf of rebel groups in a war that would be cheap and easily forgotten.
The decision to launch airstrikes on Libya was made in about 96 hours, by self-described "humanitarians" who took up the emerging international norm of "responsibility to protect" as their reason for war. To the applause of Bernard-Henri Levy and other munitions-grade faux intellectuals, they argued that Western governments had a duty to use military resources to help civilians who were being abused by their governments. Not in North Korea where the masses starve, or Zimbabwe where hyperinflation was rampant and the unemployment rate was nearly in triple digits, but wherever there seems to be a winnable civil conflict, with plausible-looking good guys who can be taught to say "democracy" and "human rights."
In the most obvious form of moral hazard, this pernicious "R2P" norm lowers the price of civil war in the developing world, encouraging rebels to make provocative attacks, then lobby for Western air support when the local bad guy punishes them for it. Uncle Sam or NATO deploys resources in a civil war these rebel groups could never win with their own blood and treasure. They often fail to win even when they do get help. The expectation of Western air power has exacerbated and intensified conflicts in Serbia, the Sudan, Libya, and Syria. As an international norm, R2P adds nothing but a noble-sounding gloss on getting more people killed than usual.
This is true, yet many argue we should do the same in Syria. History doesn't hold the keys to what is possible in the future, but it should inform us if conditions are the same and the plans to change them are the same, then just maybe we'll see a repeat of the same.

Fast forward to present

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/wo...ikes.html?_r=0

Arab Nations Strike in Libya, Surprising U.S.

Twice in the last seven days, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates have secretly launched airstrikes against Islamist-allied militias battling for control of Tripoli, Libya, four senior American officials said, in a major escalation of a regional power struggle set off by Arab Spring revolts.
The strikes in Tripoli are another salvo in a power struggle defined by Arab autocrats battling Islamist movements seeking to overturn the old order. Since the military ouster of the Islamist president in Egypt last year, the new government and its backers in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have launched a campaign across the region — in the news media, in politics and diplomacy, and by arming local proxies — to roll back what they see as an existential threat to their authority posed by Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.
American officials claim these strikes aren't helpful, but I doubt those countries that feel threatened by the Islamists give a hoot about how they feel. UAE is particularly aggressively in using military force to combat Islamists. According to some this is taking on a proxy war between UAW and Qatar which is interesting, and if you have to wonder if this extends to Syria and Iraq?

Qatar? What does Al-Jazeera say, actually very little.

http://america.aljazeera.com/article...-regional.html

While the Islamist forces are accused of receiving Qatari and Turkish support, the Zintan militias are seen by their foes as the chosen allies of the Emiratis. Renegade General Khalifa Haftar, who launched his insurgency in February, adopted a narrative that dovetails neatly with the one used by the Egyptian military in defense of last summer’s coup that overthrew President Mohamed Morsi — armed forces claiming to act in the national interest to oust Islamists, whom they accuse of bringing the country to the brink of disaster.

And in a weak state awash with weapons, the conflict is becoming increasingly deadly because none of the forces in the field has thus far been able to muster the strength to prevail over the others.
I suspect much of the above (all articles) is half-truths, but it does illustrate how little we really understand, yet we decide to take action anyway with little thought on whether taking action is ultimately in our interests or not. I guess with smart power you can't help but win, but winning sure looks funny sometimes.