.

You make some necessary and important points, and have obviously researched thoroughly. Nothing you have put forward is incorrect as far as 'what happened' goes. I think that some of your conclusions, especially about intent, are off though - presumably because of the vast amount of context you left out, if I may respond.

Let's not forget that during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan the US had very good strategic reasons to oppose the USSR, and was also helping defend a Muslim nation from communist annexation, with brutal indiscriminate murder of Afghans par for the course. The Saudi and other Gulf monarchies matched US/CIA funding dollar for dollar. The mistake made during that conflict was at the end, where the US 'left them to it'. Was it reasonable to foresee that the people they helped would turn on them so viciously a few years later? You speak throughout of the cold war as some annoying US viewpoint while ignoring that it was literally everything until the collapse of the USSR. Did the US have anything to fear from 'socialist' regimes in South America? Cuban Missile Crisis is the source of understanding that idea. Let's not leave out that the US backed Saddam in Iran/Iraq, (and the USSR against Nazi Germany). But they turned on Saddam when he invaded his neighbor. Again coming to the defense of a Muslim land, as they did in Somalia and Bosnia - for which they've never received a word of thanks.

The no-fly zones and sanctions, which any decent minded person finds appalling - were not in place so the US could bully and punish the Iraqi people - but because Saddam refused to yield. He was the one scooping up 'oil for food' money and building 19 Palaces while those children starved. He was the one obfuscating international WMD inspectors while cracking down internally to the point CIA lost all intelligence sources from within Iraq in 1998, so the inflated claims of Iraqi exiles and administration hawks could make the case for war in late 2002 without refute.

It was Al-Zarkarwhi's Al Qaeda offshoot targeting Shia who ignited the vicious first Iraqi civil war, not US occupation. Bremer's insane firing of the whole army and government notwithstanding... US money built the entirety of Saudi Arabian infrastructure, but owns no assets in the Kindgom. It rebuilt both Germany and Japan after defeating them in WWII to be the major players they have since been on the world stage. They do not occupy those places. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have cost trillions of dollars and thousands of US and coalition lives - and while many mistakes, even really stupid ones, have been made - it's not so the US can 'bully people they don't like' or who 'don't do what they want'. Why would they want Assad out? Could it have to do with all the sanctuary and support the regime has given various groups who used such cover to strike at US targets in Iraq? Boy didn't that one backfire. Syrian rebel funding/training was woefully done, and too late to stop various other forces hijacking a secular anti-corruption revolution to turn it into a Jihadist chaotic nightmare that included the horrific 'Caliphate' - and, like Iraq and Afghanistan is ongoing. So who is funding those fighters now? Is it still western fault? Much of the Syrian horror is attributable to Iranian and Russian involvement to prop up Assad, which involves other regional players in that war. Obama famously was committed to NOT becoming involved - even withdrawing strikes against regime targets when his own 'red line' had been crossed in 2015. It's very convenient to blame the US for all the chaos - but to act like there was simply no reason to become involved in any of these conflicts, and that it is some form of global hegemony misses much about intent, and asks nobody else involved - many of whom have acted appallingly in ways the US never has - to take any responsibility.