"Hopefully, what’s going on in Libya now is similar to what the Egyptians did.
No, we did not kill him, We just did not save him.
Similar to the Shaw of Iran situation we often have unintended consequences as a result of past actions but it's complicated and may have occurred earlier or later but occurred anyway, who knows? We had decades of history with Kadaffi as we did in Egypt .
As to the civil war, which is what it is, I don't know how it will work out. I do know that this animosity that has spawned from a thousand years of Muslim infighting was occurring long before the US was even a gleam in American history's eye.
It's therefore, not our fault at the root causal level and many believe that it's also not our responsibility as some believe it is. Our foreign policy for many decades was just to allow them to kill each other, and ally with the more friendly sides that often changed with the good or bad fortunes of one bad actor or another.
After 9/11, the seriousness and just who was who, became a more important issue. Nobody in the West gave a tinker damn about Caliphates or Shia /Sunni relationships or anything else until after 9/11. So our relationships as well as our concerns have now changed and that of course affect Israel, the only Democracy ( solid western ally) in the Middle East. Since Obozo got control of the State department as part of his domain, he has employed a different political position where he supports the revolutionary side of every conflict as if it were a freedom struggle from oppression. This is a Marxist view point and will certainly not improve the situation and may lead to a outright disaster in the Middle East, as you indicated in your post and I agree..
Not much to say about McCain. he is of the old guard politician cabal that plows into regional and local conflicts without much thought of the consequences. That mindset usually led to disaster 50% of the time and is akin to a crap shoot to see where the dice fall.
I am not expert on the Muslim tribal relationships to add much to the arguments, but when I do comment on it, it is usually because I viewed what we did as a policy what a mistake, and that we either supported the wrong side, intervened when we should have stayed out, or stayed out when we should have intervened.
But it's easy to be a Monday morning quarter back. As to
” unintended consequences”
Totally intended - the raison d’etra.
O’bummer STARTED the whole thing - to get rid of one of our allies - who kept the muzzie brotherhood under control and who hated the tallies and helped us with intelligence on them and turning over any they got a hold of.
o’bummer was intent of establishing a huge foothold for the new Caliphate - and then there was also Qaddafi’s massive stores of gold (he didn’t trust banks (can’t imagine why) and kept the gold in country. He was encouraging - and had other countries in Africa ready to go with him - on establishing the gold standard, which would have been a big blow to us and most other countries.
And there was the super valuable oil pipe line from Libya, under the sea to Italy. (That was the prize for Italy going in with o’bummer.)
It was reported - and quaffed - soon after the beginning of the ‘kinetic’ whatever, the ‘rebels’ that we were arming were really al Queda run? I’m sure you remember that. No?
And there was the arms he had - a prize for al queda. ... you might remember something about what was really going on in Benghazi soon after Qaddafi was toppled? ?
And so, a handful of countries joined o’bummer - and they divided up the spoils. Old as history.
And we lost a valuable ally in the Middle East.