[adventured]

While I'm an advocate of the US entirely removing itself militarily from the Middle East, none of those properly qualify against the parent's point.

The parent referred to starting wars. The first one doesn't qualify at all.

The US and NATO have intervened in the two civil wars (along with numerous other countries; with France recently pleading with the US to remain in Syria). It's an overreach to claim the US started the Libyan Civil War or the Syrian Civil War, neither is true. The US was opportunistic in trying to squeeze Syria's dictator Bashar al-Assad out (with Russia on the other side, trying to prop up the dictatorship). Those civil wars are the inevitable result of decades of extreme oppression by dictatorship, which will always end in armed revolution.

[ghthor]

It's likely that the US intelligence was involved in stoking the flames of civil war as a cover to make a military intervention publicly palatable.

[DenisM]

> The US and NATO have intervened in the two civil wars

It might have been a civil war at the start, but after that it was a war of the US against two sovereign states. Nothing civil about that.