I am generally with you, the one exception being Syria. Time will tell if we were on the wrong side in Syria. If you understand Russian geopolitics, just taking Russian interests for account alone (not trying to wage some third party war with the US), it absolutely makes sense for them to have supported Assad. There were other ways to take him down, most of them were diplomatic. Instead, the US decided to fund Islamic Extremist mercenaries which don't necessarily have a great world wide reputation, either.

Generally, I am not a fan of the US's "regime change" strategies, at least in the middle east. They were unmitigated disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan, Libya is still struggling with warring factions, Syria would have descended into chaos with 3 interested parties struggling for control (pretty safe to say the Saudi-backed fighters would have won, after another bloody conflict, of course), and of course, it will remain to be seen what happens in Yemen which curiously has very sparse media coverage here in the US.

Warning - my own opinion - I think historically, American regime change efforts were more likely to be accepted and succeed when the values of America roughly aligned with the values of the nation in conflict. This is clearly not the case anymore in the Middle East (maybe once was in the US, but not anymore) One thing Western Cultures just can't seem to be able to grasp is just how large the resistance of a country that takes their faith seriously to the liberal agendas that have taken root and are antithetical to Islam. It's the one thing governments fail to understand time and time again.