US Position on Syria and Afghanistan

The Washington Times has three reports as follows:
Obama to push Syria escalation; most U.S. troops to leave Afghanistan by end of 2016.
Obama wants 9,800 troops in Afghanistan beyond 2014.
Obama to deploy U.S. military advisers to Syria.

We can dispose of all three in one fell swoop.
We have no "interests" in Syria. There is a civil war with no justification on our part that we should side with one position on the other. Assad was in power for many years and caused us no difficulty. Do we want to now make an enemy of him by sending in military advisers presumably to help the rebels? If we stay out, we make no enemies. If we side with one position or the other, we make an enemy. If we think that Syria is going to turn into a training camp for terrorists, we handle that when it happens by surveillance followed by drones to knock them out.
In Afghanistan, we said we were going to get out, which was a good decision. We should never been there in the first place. However, leaving 9800 troops or even one troop is not getting out. The Afghanis and Pres. Karzai do not want us there. We have no "interests" there. If we have a problem with terrorist training camps, handle them with surveillance and attack drones, as with Syria. If we don't like their production of heroin, use attack drones to spray their fields with herbicide.