You make excellent points really, and nothing that in principle I disagree with. The problem boils down to the fact that when the US gets involved, you can have reasonable assurances that when the dust is settled, they'll leave the country to their own devices and don't try and bully them into falling into line. In fact, that's probably one of our greatest weaknesses that was demonstrated in Iraq for example. As much as people, probably like yourself, would love to argue that we did it "just for the oil" the moment we were able we hauled ass out of there. And incidentally, the majority of Iraqi oil goes to places like China than it does the US. With Russia however, they have a long track record of trying to impose their will on their neighbors that dates back to the Soviet Union. And as much as I'd love to say those times are long past, we know that's not the case from the way they went into Georgia, Annexed the Crimea and Sevastopol, and then continue to support and arm the rebels in Ukraine.
The US is going to make mistakes from time to time, but I'd argue to the end of the time that at least when we go in, we're doing it for not just our interests, but of everyone involved, including the enemy. I can't say the same for the Ex-KGB running the Kremlin, and I do believe history backs me up.
