It leaves room for many things. I agree, if we get involved we should do it right. What I disagree with is the idea that troops on the ground would be doing it right. Who do you think Belhadji et al would be fighting now if there were NATO troops in Libya? They & Gaddafi would have made peace with each other (a temporary peace of expediency, I'm sure), & combined against us. This is the crucial point you don't seem to grasp.
There is a chance (definitely not a certainty) that Libya will turn into a fairly stable Western-friendly state without the several years of ghastly bloodshed, thousands of deaths of Western soldiers, & continuing suicide bombings, etc. that Iraq had & has, but if we'd intervened in the same way as in Iraq, I'm sure that Libya would now be starting down the same nightmarish path.
The time when Iraq could, perhaps, have liberated itself with Western help was in early 1991, BTW, when the Shi'a south rose up against Saddam. We'd have had to intervene firstly to stop Saddam crushing that rebellion, & then to restrain the victorious Shi'a (easier if we were their benefactors), but better that than 12 years later liberate them from Saddam & find that their gratitude was tempered by memories of us standing by while their families & friends were slaughtered.
So, we have one group some of whose members (very small numbers claimed) are or were affiliated with Al Qaeda. One of them (claiming to have broken links with Al Qaeda) is now in a prominent position in Tripoli. But he's heavily outnumbered & outgunned by other armed groups. We'll have to keep a close eye on him & any similar others, & see how it goes. Helping the democratic tendencies, & the armed groups who support them, won't go amiss.
Remember, backing dictators on the grounds that they're anti-Al Qaeda is a surefire way of increasing Al Qaeda support. It's a standard mistake, which we've fallen foul of that before, as have other governments, with all sorts of extremists & dictators.
