After all, President Obama is no pushover. In 2013, he decided not to implement his "red line" threat to use force if Syria used chemical weapons again, overruling his secretaries of state and defense. On an earlier occasion, he overruled his entire national security team's proposal to arm and train the Syrian opposition. For better or worse, American intervention in Libya was Mr. Obama's decision, not Mrs. Clinton's. It is called the Obama administration for a reason.

Second, as to why Libya deteriorated so dramatically after Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi's fall, Mrs. Clinton worked as hard as anyone to stabilize the country. But in doing so, she was operating pursuant to restrictions imposed by the president, who established strict limits on the United States' military role. The president has come to regret limiting the American contribution to certain air assets and other unique capabilities needed at the outset of the air campaign. In an interview with Thomas L. Friedman, he said the lesson he learned in Libya is "the need to come in full force if you're going to do this"and that "there has to be a much more aggressive effort to rebuild societies."

Third, the report's biggest flaw is the scant attention given to the consequences of inaction back in 2011 and the plausible policy alternatives at the time. Knowing Colonel Qaddafi's track record as a sponsor of terrorism and a brutal dictator (psychopath?), Western leaders had good reason to believe the regime's threats of mass murder.

Five years later, in Syria we also have the clearest possible evidence of what happens when a brutal Arab dictator is left unchecked during a democratic uprising. The consequences of inaction there have been immense, with hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children killed and refugees overwhelming the region and destabilizing Europe.

The truth is there were not a lot of options back in 2011. Once the Libyan uprising led to the Qaddafi crackdown, civil war became inevitable. The West did prevent that war from becoming a mass slaughter, which should be a source of satisfaction. The Libyan people certainly don't blame America for the chaos they are living through. So why are the administration's critics doing so?