Certainly. I think this is, to me, the clearest case for why the US has a moral imperative to contribute to mitigating the ensuing problems in that region (just as western Europe has one for much of the MENA region, ...), including hosting refugees and asylum seekers seeking protection in the US, providing aid when it is done accountably and constructively, etc.
Considering past history, I’d strongly recommend the US to not attempt to help, with the possible exception of the removal and prosecution of their puppets.
Western Europe has some things to make up for, but the US isn't involved in MENA? Remember Iran? I would blame Libya on Europe, but not the other wars.
I didn't say, and wouldn't say, that the US wasn't involved in MENA. I can understand how my previous comment may have implied that, for which I apologize, so it's worth clarifying. There's simply a difference in scale of involvement, as far as I can tell. Since you mentioned Iran, it looks even worse for the British than it does for the US by my reading. The coup in 1953, for instance, was spearheaded by the British who solicited US assistance, and was only the end of a long line of British exploitation of Iranian leadership (and oil) and the start of a slightly-shorter line of American exploitation of Iranian leaders.
Most of North Africa would probably be shared by the British and the French, Afghanistan seems to be shared by most of the "Global North" at this point, and so on. I definitely wouldn't say that the US doesn't have any responsibility here.
