US soldiers are occupying Eastern Syria and facilitating the theft of oil and other resources to--among other places--northern Iraq, which the US also aggressively invaded much less than 60 years ago.
The situation is a hell of a lot more complex, and is certainly not driven by "theft of oil".
Yes, the US are in territory formerly ruled by the Syrian dictatorship. The US are:
1) opposing Russia (remember Syria is a client state of Russia, another autocracy, & Assad survived protests from his people only due to Russian intervention),
2) keeping a lid on ISIL resurgence, and
3) supporting the Kurds who have lived in that area for centuries and have been seeking to maintain self-determination, despite having been overrun by multiple dictators.
The IS destroyed most of the oil infrastructure when they were there. The US helped defeat them. To the extent that the US has helped rebuild the infrastructure, yes, the Kurds are benefiting, and yes, their territory also extends into northern Iraq. The Kurds have a better claim to any of these resources than either the dictatorial regimes of Assad/Putin, or of ISIL.
You think that we should simply withdraw and leave the Kurds to whichever of two murderous regimes, Assad/Russia or ISIL, can murder them and take the oil first? Or are you just taking cheap shots mischaracterizing the situation?
Even a casual glance at the situation shows that someone should be in there helping the Kurds, and keeping the lid on authoritarian regimes. I'd be happy if they can do it alone, or if someone else could help in our place.
But again, it is key to be better armed, prepared, and allied than authoritarians if democracy is to survive. The Kurds are key regional allies (and the US under Trump did screw the Kurds badly, in this area). Helping them is important to maintaining democracy.
It certainly is not as simple as your ill-informed pot-shot 'argument'.
What mental gymnastics! These are literally the same (well-founded) arguments of Moscow proponents. Observe:
Russia, in territory formerly ruined by the Kiev puppet regime, are
1) opposing Washington/NATO (remember Ukraine is a client state of Washington, another plutocracy, & Kiev survived protests from its people only due to American intervention),
2) keeping a lid on neo-Nazi/fascist resurgence, and
3) supporting the ethnic Russians who have lived in that area for centuries and have been seeking to maintain self-determination, despite having been overrun by multiple dictators.
It is absurd to pretend that Washington has any moral high ground over Russia.
The main difference between the two is that Ukraine is on Russia's doorstep. What business does Washington have arming the Kurds or Banderites, on the opposite side of the planet?
You are not well informed.