Should the U.S. topple foreign leaders?

[Jacobtm]

I would say our military should not be used as it was in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan to topple foreign leaders we do not like.

Practically I do not think it has had good results either for us or for the countries concerned, the only people benefitting are those making money off of the war/weapons manufacture. Perhaps they serve some greater geopolitical goal, but I fail to see how creating such chaos in countries that groups like ISIS can take over helps the U.S. strategically.

Many people here have expressed the idea that Qaddafi, Assad, Saddam, or the Taliban were "bad" and thus taking them out is "good" without questioning what exactly is the situation before and after these leaders. I say it's gotten worse, in each of these four cases.

However more generally I think our military should not be used to meddle in other countries' affairs, I think it will accrue many benefits to the U.S. in terms of not destabilizing governments and giving breathing space to terrorist groups.

[Jacobtm]

Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya were all completely different situations.

One was an instance in which the country was harboring people who attacked us, another was a war of choice, and the third was a humanitarian intervention.

They all have very little in common and should not be lumped together.

The commonality was a stable government which was toppled and led to the country falling into civil war and chaos.

How about instead of nitpicking you address the question though.