The U.S. has once again found itself embroiled in an active conflict in the Middle East. It has to be justified this time, right?
The U.S., arguably the only superpower in the world, has unfortunately earned themselves the title of “policeman of the world.” Wherever there is injustice, wherever there is a breach of human rights, we are there.
When the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, almost everyone was in support of military action.
According to Edward Wong of The New York Times, Saddam Hussein, the truly despicable despot of Iraq, was shown using chemical weapons against his own people, particularly against the Kurds in northern Iraq.
When the United States voted on the “AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002.”, the vast majority of Republicans and a substantial number of Democrats favored the invasion, James Love of the Huffington Post explains in his article.
When we see cruelty and violence being used against innocents, it is a natural feeling to want to help them. I believe this conviction (possibly combined with other less savory motivations) led to our invasion of a sovereign nation in 2003.
Yes, what Hussein was doing was abominable. Yes, he deserved to be removed from power. The question I want to pose is: Was/Is invading another country a fruitful endeavor? Do not take this as my advocation for isolationism. I just want us to critically consider whether our activities in the Middle East are the best course of action.
As we say, hindsight is 20/20. If we reflect upon our actions in the Middle East in the early 2000’s, there are many regrets and not many things to celebrate. 
Susan Sachs of The New York Times states how although we removed Hussein from power, cutting the head off the snake did not end the war and violence in the region. According to The Encyclopedia Britannica, the U.S. had boots on the ground for another 8 years, leading to thousands of military and civilian casualties.
When we look at the recent action in Syria, it is hard to imagine it ending well. However, I want to divorce my feelings on the matter from partisan politics.
Although President Donald Trump criticized former President Barack Obama on Twitter in 2013 for launching attacks on Syria without Congressional approval, something he himself did last week, this is not the main issue I have here. In fact, in another 2013 tweet, Trump made a great point, saying, “What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long-term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.”
I disagreed with Obama’s decision to get involved in Syria, and I disagree with Trump’s resumption of bombing last week.
In order to understand the issue with U.S. involvement in the Middle East, we have to look at the law of unintended consequences. 
According to the UN Refugee Agency, since 2011, over 5.4 million people have fled Syria, and around 6.1 million have been displaced within the country. This means 5.4 million people had to flee their homeland and integrate themselves into other countries. Matt Broomfield of The Independent describes how the majority of these refugees are stuck in refugee camps in neighboring countries, particularly in Turkey.
According to ORSAM, the squalid and oppressive conditions in these camps are the perfect breeding grounds for extremism and anti-American sentiment. In the minds of those displaced, interference from Western nations is to blame for their plight. Whether or not this is reality does not matter, because it is their perception of the situation that affects the actions they take. 
In trying to achieve their own foreign policy goals in the Middle East, no matter how noble they seem, the U.S. has succeeded in only one thing: creating a pervasive culture of anti-Westernism and support of Islamic extremist sects, such as the Wahhabist terrorist organization, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
Just as Al-Qaeda built their platform on pushing American forces out of Afghanistan, ISIL has built their platform on removing Western influence from the Middle East.
In their article, Khetam Malkawi and Omar Akour of the Associated Press expound on how although ISIL is not as powerful as they were in 2014-2015, the Jordanian military reports Syrian refugee camps are becoming a primary recruitment zone for ISIL. With the poor conditions in the camps, combined with a promise to retake their land from Western influence and interwoven with a common religious goal, it is not hard to see the appeal for restless refugees, and specifically for youth.
In short, if we continue to use drones and bombers to achieve our political goals, we will only create more issues regarding terrorism and opposition to Western ideals in the Middle East in the coming years.