The article is about the state of discourse in African American thinkers, not a history of the Libyan Civil War. In that sense, I wouldn't judge Patel too harshly.
Reading it in the full context of the article, the two statements about "Obama's bombs" and destroying Libya may not be connected. "Obama's bombs" may be referring to the Obama administration's air strikes not just in Libya, but worldwide including Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and other countries. In that sense, the claim that "Obama’s bombs took tens of thousands of civilian lives" has more validity. I believe it's more to express frustration with continued military imperialism under Obama than a lesson in military history.
The total question can rapidly get into opinion, especially trying to read the intent of an author making a quick statement on an Internet argument, so I'll focus on the verifiable statements as asked by the OP.
His military intervention in Libya destroyed the country with the highest standard of living in Africa.
As we'll see below, this was not Obama's intervention, it was an international effort spearheaded by France and taken up by NATO.
The NATO military intervention began after the country was already in a state of civil war for a month. As we'll see below, it was remarkably low on civilian casualties. The damage to the Libyan economy was from the 2011 civil war and the ongoing civil war.
Using the Human Development Index as a standard, Libya was hurt by the civil war, but not destroyed. It's still has one of the highest standards of living in Africa.
Just before the civil war in 2010, Libya did have the highest HDI in Africa. Libya's HDI index in 2010 was 0.756 ranking 53rd in the world. The civil war brought this down to 0.706 in 2011, but 2012 saw it recover to 0.735. It's been in slow decline since, the in 2016 Libya's HDI was 0.716 ranking it 102nd.
This is still considered "High Human Development" with nations such as China and Brazil. It's now the 2nd highest HDI in Africa, behind Tunisia. It is experiencing a 20% unemployment rate, but that has been steady for the past 20 years.
The slow decline Libya is experiencing is a result of the ongoing 2nd civil war and resulting chaos.
It was truly an international effort.
@tj1000 already pointed out the problem with blaming Obama. This was a NATO operation and authorized by a UN Security Council Resolution calling for a No-Fly Zone.
The Libyan Civil War had already been going on for a month when NATO intervened. The UN No-Fly Zone was called for by the Libyan National Transition Council, France, Canada, UK, US, Lebanon, the Arab League, and Libyan Protesters to avert a humanitarian crisis by Gadaffi's air force. UN Security Council Resolution 1970 condemned the use of force by Gadaffi on protesters and referred the matter to the International Criminal Court.
If there was any single figure who was pushing for air strikes it was then French President Nicolas Sarkozy. He was the first to ask the EU for sanctions. France recognized the Libyan NTC. He pressed the G8 and the US to intervene. French aircraft were the first to begin bombing on March 19th, quickly followed by coalition forces. French aircraft flew 35% of the sorties (though not necessarily of strike sorties), the highest percentage.
NATO took over within days.
...took tens of thousands of civilian lives.
All civilian casualties of the entire war which are estimated to be 5,000 to 50,000, depending on who you ask. So the idea that NATO bombing alone took tens of thousands of civilian lives is already a stretch.
The UN's Human Rights Council reported 60 civilians killed and 55 wounded due to NATO bombing. Human Rights Watch's investigation found "NATO air strikes killed at least 72 civilians, one-third of them children under age 18."
For this report Human Rights Watch investigated eight NATO air strikes hitting residential homes in which 28 men, 24 children, and 20 women lost their lives. Dozens of other civilians were wounded.
Based on extensive field investigations throughout Libya from August 2011 to April 2012, the report looks at all sites known to Human Rights Watch in which NATO strikes killed civilians. Strikes that resulted in no civilian fatalities—though civilians were wounded or property destroyed—were not included. Altogether, NATO conducted roughly 9,700 strike sorties and dropped over 7,700 precision-guided bombs during the seven-month campaign.
Given the number of NATO strikes, 72 civilian casualties is astonishingly low. Even the Human Rights Watch report admits NATO did a very good job minimizing civilian casualties.
NATO says it took extensive measures to minimize civilian harm, and those measures seem to have had a positive effect: the number of civilian deaths in Libya from NATO strikes was low given the extent of the bombing and duration of the campaign.
In contrast, the NATO air strikes probably saved civilian lives and limited the destruction by shortening the war and hastening the fall of Gadaffi's regime. A prolonged war could have been much worse, as has played out in the Syrian Civil War.