APRIL 8, 2016 To the Editor: Your two-part series on United States military intervention in Libya, “The Libya Gamble,” twisted beyond all recognition the relative roles and responsibilities of President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (“ Clinton, ‘Smart Power’ and a Dictator’s Fall,” front page, Feb. 28, and “After Revolt, a New Libya ‘With Very Little Time Left,’ ” front page, Feb. 29).

That the articles would help Republicans attack Mrs. Clinton is to be expected, but supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders, like Prof. Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University, now say the articles’ revelations show that Mrs. Clinton is “the lead agent of every war that we’re in and the kind of wars that have created more and more chaos” (Mr. Sachs on “ Morning Joe,” March 31).

By contrast, your articles depict Mr. Obama as “wary” of the use of force. This is nonsense, closer to fiction than fact. First, the “lead agent” on Libya was President Obama, the commander in chief. Yes, at a climactic moment, Mrs. Clinton laid out the diplomatic landscape for the president, explaining that Britain and France were determined to act to prevent a slaughter of Libyan civilians and that the Arab League was even urging NATO bombing. Those were precise and professional judgments.

Regarding the wisdom of airstrikes, compared with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., both of whom were strongly opposed, Mrs. Clinton was surely more supportive. But according to eyewitness accounts, her support was careful, measured and directly linked to the diplomatic need to support close allies who were fighting side by side with American troops in Afghanistan at the time.

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? Political transformations of this magnitude take time. Indeed, this week saw indications that Libya’s struggle for power may be easing. If true, then it is possible to imagine in the not-too-distant future the emergence in North Africa of a relatively tolerant representative government with substantial oil resources and a population that will never forget America’s help in a time of peril.

JAMES P. RUBIN London The writer, assistant secretary and chief spokesman for the State Department under President Bill Clinton, is co-chairman of a study group at the Center for a New American Security in Washington on “Expanding American Power.”