I wouldn't object nearly as much to occupying Libya as to what Obama actually did. Namely, intervene just enough to force Gaddafi out and leave a huge mess.

Actually I would still object, but that's because Gaddafi had previously abandoned his WMD program under US pressure. So getting rid of him now sends a very bad message to other thrid world dictators contemplating similar programs.

As compared to what alternative?

Well, not intervening in Libya for starters.

I am pleased that major combat operations were ended in two theaters, and that no new ones were launched.

So what about Libya? What about the fight against ISIS? The former was a quick-strike operation that caused the country in question to go to hell fast. The latter is an example of things going to hell so badly after a "successfully ended operation" that we had to intervene again.