It doesn't seem one bit 'wild' to me. The effect of foreign policy under Obama (Clinton) was the promotion of radical islam and the destabilization of islamic nations which were, to put it bluntly, behaving themselves. Individually, that seemed relatively minor, but in concert, the entire North African coast and Egypt, the Levant, and Syria all attempted to be pulled into one pan Islamic, and circum Mediterranean caliphate, with Iran, Iraq, and the 'stans.
Khadaffi,as noted, was no longer a threat, and his regime had moderated significantly, becoming more western in practice. Libya was a significant pil producer, accounting for some 1.65 million BOPD in 2010. Relations with the West were reasonably good.
Egypt, despite past conflict with Israel, also had its eyes on western tourist dollars and research money, and similarly was stable, and hardly an area where Americans feared to go.
State Department policy under Obama destabilized the entire region, and the obvious winner was Islam, especially the more radical varieties. ISIS, IS, ISIL all flourished under this, and attempts to convince Americans to depose Assad were commonplace, but unsuccessful. (Not saying Assad is a "nice guy" but in the middle east, with the various tribes which must be made to get along, it's the meanest mofo who often ends up being the boss and keeping the intertribal squabbles at a minimum--Assad was effective at that until the destabilization got going in the entire region.)
Keeping in mind we're dealing with students of Alinsky tactics, putting pressure on Assad to use more stern means to keep control plays right into Alinskyite thinking. Make the 'establishment' use escalating force to maintain order, to the point where the issue becomes the force used, then use that issue in the international arena to bring other power to bear against your adversary. Saul would have been proud of them.
