Not only do you glide over the clarity I brought to your ridiculous "19 nation" claim
Your very strange.
Your source detailed the military participation of 19 nations to either the naval blockade, or the air strikes, or actual land forces... What do you think is ridiculous about a nation sending a squadron of fighters or a frigate to the blockade?
As for the rest.
It comes down to Obama Opposition Syndrome.
Whatever Obama did, had to be wrong.
If he foes in to Libya without Congressional support, he's wrong.
If he refrains from intervening in Syria because he Congress isn't supportive, he's wrong.
Yes, with no plan for what would come after. Brilliant.
Libya and the 2011 NATO intervention there have become synonymous with failure, disaster, and the Middle East being a “shit show” (to use President Obama’s colorful descriptor). It has perhaps never been more important to question this prevailing wisdom, because how we interpret Libya affects how we interpret Syria and, importantly, how we assess Obama’s foreign policy legacy.
Of course, Libya, as anyone can see, is a mess, and Americans are reasonably asking if the intervention was a mistake. But just because it’s reasonable doesn’t make it right.
Most criticisms of the intervention, even with the benefit of hindsight, fall short. It is certainly true that the intervention didn’t produce something resembling a stable democracy. This, however, was never the goal. The goal was to protect civilians and prevent a massacre.
Critics erroneously compare Libya today to any number of false ideals, but this is not the correct way to evaluate the success or failure of the intervention. To do that, we should compare Libya today to what Libya would have looked like if we hadn’t intervened. By that standard, the Libya intervention was successful: The country is better off today than it would have been had the international community allowed dictator Muammar Qaddafi to continue his rampage across the country.
Critics further assert that the intervention caused, created, or somehow led to civil war. In fact, the civil war had already started before the intervention began. As for today’s chaos, violence, and general instability, these are more plausibly tied not to the original intervention but to the international community’s failures after intervention.
Shifting U.S. interests in the Middle East
The very fact that the Libya intervention and its legacy have been either distorted or misunderstood is itself evidence of a warped foreign policy discourse in the U.S., where anything short of success—in this case, Libya quickly becoming a stable, relatively democratic country—is viewed as a failure.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2 ... yre-wrong/
Further, has there been another chemical strike by Assad?
This is a measure of a successful outcome?
So, to be as successful as the solution arrived at in 2013, Assad will have to refrain from chemical weapons use for another 3 years from today.