Momar was a bad guy, and was killed. But it seems that was more about revenge or pride, because Libya has been dysfunctional since then. Cooperation has apparently allowed the oil production to increase (causing a price drop in international markets), but now there are hundreds dead in fight for Benghazi. Good? Bad? Neutral? Should we care since Momar is dead?
They are falling into the same pattern pretty much all revolutions fall into. Some dictator is toppled, a power vacuum is created, and then various strongmen fight to become the next dictator. The American experience with revolution is a real outlier (though probably not the only one). I think the average country should expect 100 years of off-and-on fighting before they can have a stable democracy. France took 100 years, Mexico 90ish, Russia about 80 but they've slid back into a dictatorship now, Germany 75 counting just the west or 130 till reunification. And you could say the US didn't really count until 1865. Given that Libya became independent in 1951, I'm expecting it's going to be rough until 2050, give or take. Yeah, the fighting sucks, but they probably couldn't move on from Ghadafi without the turmoil. Of course, that's easy for me to say from here since I'm not living it. But, I don't think Libya is on us, even if we did bring the airpower to turn the tide. Libyans chose this.
I was counting from the original unification in 1870, though you could count from 1918. It's not really about being right or wrong here, but a question of historiography.