There's a huge taboo in the United States against explicitly pointing out the economic agendas behind foreign wars. You can go up on a soapbox and talk about 'humanitarian concerns and defending democracy abroad' (typical neoliberal-Democratic drivel) or 'patriotism, national security and fighting terror' (typical neocon-Republican drivel), but noting that war is a huge profit center for various interests, that's not really allowed.

For example, the Iraq War really was related to oil - Saddam had no WMDs, no ties with Al Qaeda, but he was moving his oil money out of the petrodollar recycling system, which was a huge threat to global dollar hegemony and the balance-of-payements issue (see capital accounts vs. current accounts). Plus, it was a huge cash cow for government contracts and the military procurement system, which always gets hungry during peacetime. GW Bush and the neocons of course sold this in their preferred manner.

The same thing happened with Libya and Syria, only now it was the other set of talking points - although again, Qaddafi was promoting pan-African unity, an alternative currency, independence from Europe and the USA on oil sales, closer ties to Russia and China, etc. Assad backed out of a Saudi-USA-Israeli pipeline deal in 2009 and went for the Russia-Iran pipeline instead (plus lots of electricity integration with Iran), so Obama signed off on the CIA overthrow/regime change directive. If you want more strong evidence that their 'humanitarian democractic' rhetoric was nonsense, look at how they treated the pro-democracy protests in Bahrain (crushed by Saudi tanks) or the Saudi assault on Yemen.

It's all pretty farcical. Just admit that maintaining a global financial empire is pretty difficult without engaging in covert regime change and military dominance, already. Stop pretending it's about self-defense or good works - I mean Ukraine is all about control of natural gas sales to Europe, plus another multi-billion injection into the domestic weapons manufacturing complex.