Ok Ake... I've been reading thru that CNN article. Then I looked up the author of the article,

http://www.cnn.com/profiles/stephen-collinson

It is always prudent to look behind long articles which take a negative position...(just like one tries to discern the motives when some person or position is excessively praised.)

I seems that Collinson was 'recently' hired to cover the 'stuff' around the 2016 races. A quick look at the topics, plus reading some of them shows a certain trend...perhaps best explained by this blurb about Collinson.

"The network announced the news series this week, rolling out the debut episode from Collinson's native England where he's covering the UK elections. Collinson, a former AFP White House correspondent, promises to give viewers a fun and easy-to-understand guide through a series of fascinating and complex political races and issues each week. CNN says a second episode is slated to hit tomorrow."

The closest I can come to a brief analysis is that Collinson was hired to "stir the pot" and be provocative... something which various UK commentators seem to relish.

That needs to be considered just as carefully as the raw details ABOUT Libya and the various roles different individuals had in determining policy about possible intervention and what it should include.

In Collinson's article, this appears:

"it is clear that Clinton and other top administration aides perceived an agonizing dilemma: Should they take action to avert human carnage or stand by and be accused of abetting genocide?

"Imagine we were sitting here and Benghazi had been overrun, a city of 700,000 people, and tens of thousands of people had been slaughtered, hundreds of thousands had fled," Clinton said on ABC's "This Week" in March 2011. "The cries would be, 'Why did the United States not do anything?' "

In more than one situation in the last few years, that is exactly the cry that we heard. You in the UK heard cries asking "why did WE get so deeply involved with these impossible fights among Arab powers?"
When any attempt to intercede is not ultimately successful, or only partly so, there are always complaints about the money spent and lives lost.... no matter what altruistic (OR political) motives are stated.
Ms. Clinton's judgment was part of the process... she was Sec. of State! It is still clear that she asserted her desire to save lives and **try** to help make Libya independent and able to function. Those who spin that to make it seem like she was mostly concerned about 'her legacy' ...and laying Libya's later problems at her feet are taking the negative view that 'If it doesn't work as hoped, it should never have been tried, and her entire judgment was flawed and/or based on her desire to enhance her legacy.'
History is full of good ideas which failed... and many that succeeded! When MacArthur landed at Inchon during the Korean war, it could have been total disaster due to tides and weather. Afterward, it was hailed as brilliant. When Eisenhower gave the go ahead to land at Normandy, it could have failed even worse. At least back then the issues were clearer and the enemy was obvious.
Now, it is hard to even sort out who we are for or against, and intervention is often based on the possibility of just easing things for innocent non-combatants...(yes, with the hope that IF things settle down, it will ease diplomacy for us in the long run.)

You may interpret as you please, but I have no reason to doubt Clinton's stated intent. IF Libya was now settling into a sane, viable state, would you still claim her decisions were flawed... and call her a hawk? To me, a 'hawk' is one whose first response to any conflict is to 'send in the Marines and bomb anything that looks like like a problem'. Dick Cheney and John McCain come close to that, but I shudder to imagine what Libya would look like today if McCain had been elected. We know what the middle east looks like after Cheney & Bush made their decisions.

So...that's about as 'impersonal' as I can be. I don't expect that it will change your mind one whit.. but I often need to see my viewpoint in print, and reading and debating helps ME better work out what I think.