We likely have at least some goodwill with whomever rises to power due to NATO's support of the rebellion. I don't see this as anything but a net gain.
"Some" goodwill is "nothing but a net gain"? Really? This is little more than a male version of bunny rabbits and pink unicorns.
I'm not necessarily antagonistic toward your views, but I find you (like most) to be abysmally myopic when it comes to foreign policy (especially middle east) realpolitik.
First, of course the "goal" as espoused by our President will be couched in terms of human life. But the real goal is how the regime change affects the long-term US relationship not only to LIbya now, but to Libya in the future and to the region (both now and later).
The fact is we (the US) are involved in those countries. Maybe a little, maybe more than a little, But we are there. And our presence is not predicated on "helping" them. That is a nice byproduct when it can be arranged, of course, and it's always a good PR ploy to use, but we have to be ruthless in assessing the situation.
So Gaddafi "terrorized" the US? So what? He merely joins a long list of scumbag dictators who did the same thing. As if that's a reason to kick him to the curb. I admit, it's a strong emotional plea and plays well in Peoria (and hornfans, too) but we have to look at the (very) big picture.
The only thing we can say about Gadaffi's death with any certainty is that it's a good thing we (US) didn't directly kill him. Other than that, from a strategic viewpoint, we just don't know. If you can't see that then I think your analysis is short-sighted.
