Most of the time history repeats itself- sometimes it doesn't.
I seriously doubt that we are going to get "carried away" with doing more miltary actions around the world. And I do think our miltary power is strong and actually has been strengthened by this action of changing the Iraq's regime. [One way to look at our invasion of Iraq is as "a training excercise": rather than focusing on the dollar cost of this operation (as a loss) I think if you look at as "very realistic" massive live fire training excercise you "almost" come to the conclusion that the US should pay Iraq money for this opportuny.] One significant "cost" was the risk (of repeating the history you mentioned). But this risk wasn't "reckless", there were HUGE potential profits in terms of a better world. The other significant cost of this war was the lives of the reg Iraqi army personnel (but not so much the lives of illegal combatants or even the "elite" Republican Guard)- and I believe our miltary planners have taken steps to reduce these regular Iraqi army losses.

Having a strong miltary doesn't increase our chances of engaging in further miltary operations (call this the Reagan doctrine). I think it does increase the chances that our politicians might become lazy & stupid by quickly using a threat of miltary force, instead looking hard for compromises and negotiations. [And having any miltary power [or economic power] allows us to have an opportuny to be a player that "works towards" improving the world through compromises and negotiations.]