In a word, yes. (edit: Do) You accept unchallenged the popularized American characterization of Gadhafi as “brutal and deranged.” (?:edit) Yet both he and the “brutal and deranged” Sadam Hussein led countries that exceeded their US-friendly neighbors in health, education, and distribution of national wealth from national resources. All the ruling powers of all the nations there are brutally repressive of their traditional sectarian enemies. It is a seemingly endless cycle of hatred and violence. As for deranged, much of that evidence has been conjured through mis-quotes, misunderstanding of foreign cultures, and outright propagandist misrepresentation. Vilification of the US enemy du jour is one function that our media does with exceeding brilliance and absolute efficiency.
It is surprising that, if memory serves, the French and the Brits, but I’m not sure about the Italians, supported the regime-change reality of the NATO intervention. French culture is in turmoil already because of their large immigrant Muslim population; what did they think would happen? Did they learn nothing of farcical US leadership from the Iraqi disaster? The Brits don’t care because the poor suckers can’t even make the passage from Libya to Italy, so not much possibility they’ll make it to merry old England.
Now if you happen to be of the ownership class, taking out Gadhafi was probably a good thing as it can only enhance your holdings of defense stock.
edited: because I appeared to assume to know what you think. I do not.