Should we Consider becoming a Benevolent Protectorate?

   I wonder today on the wisdom of whether the U.S. should become an occupant nation, go in, take over Syria . . .
   And rule it.
   Be a benevolent ruler, but a ruler the same.
   I am not ready to say we should do it, but I believe we should consider it.
   Some estimates put the death toll at 400,000 in that war. An estimate 6 million have been internally displaced, and an estimate 4.8 million have become refugees outside of that country. We, as Americans, find ourselves crying out, wanting to help.
   But, if we rid Syria of Bashar al Assad, who steps into the void? Will ISIS gain control? Will another despot rise to power? If we step in, militarily, and rid the country of both ISIS and Assad, and then let them have a democratic election, will they just elect another despot? And, if a decent person is elected, will he and his nation remain under attack from ISIS or someone else? The scenario of Iraq should haunt us. We call it a free nation, but war remains and shows no signs of going away.
   What if we just stepped in as a benevolent protectorate? Coul we afford it? Would we just be putting ourselves in harm's way? Would war remain, just with us more at its center?
   Or, could we go in, put up all the anti-missile systems and all the defense systems to keep the enemies at bay? How many soldiers would we have to keep there? How much money would we have to spend?