No, but we might be a involved in Venezuela, Yemen, and other places where we have troops. With John Bolton in there, there does seem to be less communicating and more sanctioning. I really thought Trump was going to declare an official end to the NK war and turn over that DMZ to SK, and let them overwhelm the North with a consumer economy. And we're still in Afghanistan. And I've never regarded Syria or Assad as an enemy.
Syria in the past was nominally a problem due to their antagonism with Israel — pretty well handled by the Israelis — and their alliances with Iran and Russia. The latter were certainly a headache for us, but, I agree, not to the point where I’d have called Syria an enemy we needed to topple.
The bigger problems with Syria came first when nitwits Hitlery & Obummer decided Assad had to go: That as we all know resulted in ISIS in control of much of the country, and growing. THAT could not be tolerated. So, we, the Russkis, Iran, and the Saudis (in a more clandestine way) set about ripping out that crop of weeds (ISIS). That IMO was necessary. It also ultimately saved Assad’s behind, but left Russia with more influence and personnel, and IRAN with a LOT more influence (more like partial control) and personnel, in Syria. The Russia part IMO we can still live with, but the heavy Iranian presence could get very problematic unless we have a pretty solid understanding with Russia that the Iranians will be kept in check...
Then there are the Kurds - do we just abandon an ally?
What a mess!
Thanks, Hillary!
(Is a “ /s “ necessary?) :-(