This sounds to me like the three monkeys approach combined with a heavily rose-tinted set of lenses:

We look forward to supporting the National Coalition as it charts a course toward the end of Assad’s bloody rule and the start of the peaceful, just, democratic future that all the people of Syria deserve.
This sounds downright horrifying:

The opportunity now, rebel supporters say, is for a much more coordinated strategy perhaps led by Washington.
And this sounds fairly pragmatic, noting that it makes no specific reference to anything being promised:

They "are waiting for the West," Salman Shaikh, a former adviser to the Qatari royal family and now director of the Brookings Doha Center, said via video link. "They don't want to be in this alone. Only the U.S. can bring this about."
I agree that the Libyan intervention was not a failure: as you say, it accomplished the objective of removing Gaddafi without committing the US to a ground presence or another miserable state-building effort, and achieving an objective is not failure. Syria isn't Libya, though, and like David I don't see the US wanting to be involved in any major way. Possibly in a limited role, if there's a way to achieve the objective without commitment to another miserable state-building effort, but that's a big "if".