Libya better w/o Gaddafi or not?

[spmetla]

The argument that they can't fight back due to lack of ammunitions is somewhat morally bankrupt...
Not to forget that the current situation was mostly established by your intervention.

They can fight back just fine, the point about the IEDs is in how generally destructive they are to everyone in the local environment. The biggest victim of IEDs in Iraq was not the coalition military but Iraqi civilians. The terrorists there had no qualms about regularly killing and wounding dozens of civilians and destroying infrastructure in attacks against coalition vehicles.
In iraq it also created an actual IED manufacture industry in which professional bomb makers would essentially make these weapons for which ever group wanted to buy them.
The enemy not having such destructive weapons does help though :P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrT2lwEk8cg#t=00m27s

I fully understand the current situation is due to that intervention. That intervention I'm sure you can agree was half baked. As Pannonian said all interventions are toxic, I'll agree to that but with caveats. In regards to Libya, the intervention is already done but only in regards to killing Gaddafis regime, next to nothing was done to prevent the current descent into violence which I feel was the bigger crime than intervening to prevent Gaddafis squashing of the Arab Spring revolt. If there were a ability to go back in time I'd be completely against Sarkozy leading NATO into Libya but seeing as time travel isn't possible playing should've isn't the best.
As I've made clear I think it's in the interest of the EU and regions of north and central Africa to 'fix' Libya. That unfortunately won't happen on its own. Allowing the current situation to fester allows it to descend into the Somalia and Yemen levels of instability.
As for imposing a western style system, I wouldn't go that far. A stable country or countries that at the very least don't harbor terrorists, smuggle people into Europe, and enslave refugees and migrants would be nice for starters. So long as the resulting government isn't essentially at war with the west it would be a good result, preferably in the form parliamentary democracy of sorts. Seeing as democracy takes time to work and requires that the opposing parties don't have armed militias to contest unfavorable results is why I'd see a period of occupation and management by EU or UN powers as necessary.

The current situation has the country essentially split into a East and West as it has been historically (half is culturally more berber and looks to North Africa the other half toward the more arab middle east). My proposition is largely to legitimize this and speed along security and rule of law.

Also, if you think "Iraq" isn't really a response, let me present to you exhibit A, which is entirely typical of the argument. NB. the article is how exit from the EU will degrade the UK's economy to the point where it will be more difficult for any Labour government to fulfil its domestic promises. I'll quote some of the comments.

I'm not advocating for the UK to step into the mire of Libya and I fully understand why any government would not want to step into there. It is a shame how Blair's reputation went from great to war criminal over Iraq seeing as he largely led the US into forming its policies to stop the Yugoslav civil wars as well as bring about more liberal governments in Africa.
This is very much a problem directly for the EU nations, especially France and Italy. The UK since 1964 has surrendered its old role in the middle east outside of supporting the US and I certainly don't expect them to try to regain that level of influence again.