You forgot the positive outcome part.
Iraq is hanging in by a thread.
Libya is just another Afghanistan of tribal warlords, last I heard.
You did mention there was a positive outcome to U.S. invasions and interference in the internal affairs of Arab and Muslim nations. But I never saw any. Iraq had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks, but the Bush II administration broadly hinted that it had.
The Bushies kept up this lying drumbeat until it managed to convince even the most reluctant individual in Congress that destroying Iraq was the proper thing to do. Because Saddam Hussein was evil. Bush II didn't know there was a difference between Shi'ites and Sunnis. But a whole lot of people were evil to George W. Bush. Hugo Chavez and of course, John Kerry.
Make sure you add anybody who demanded proof of those mythical Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Nearly everything the U.S. did in the Middle East was to ensure its own hegemony, protect its main oil source and lately, to follow Israel's dictates. Why the slop was the invasion of Iraq even needed? Because Saddam punished Kuwait, whose leaders believed the oil under the sands of Iraq was actually theirs?
Why do the birdbrains in Washington think that bombs, missiles and the starving of national populations through sanctions represent great foreign policy? It dosen't. It's the export of irrational race hatred and a belief that only your culture and desires count.
And it will continue.
The United States has no right to dictate what type of government a people should have and how they choose their leaders. Especially when the U.S. makes a mockery of Equality and its own so-called Right to Vote.