Well that would be on the Trump level, if there's a war with North Korea next week.
The thing is, starting a war with someone really puny but unpopular is kind of like a right of passage for a Republican president. And it's almost always someone small who later on we're like "meh, did that war really make any difference?" Nixon bombed Cambodia, Reagan had Grenada (among others), Bush I had Panama, Bush II had Afghanistan.
One common trait is that many of those events seems like live training exercises, Panama was basically a trial run for doing Iraq is my guess. Afghanistan was a trial run for Iraq II.
So what would be a likely double-whammy for Trump? North Korea => Iran would be one possible pattern, but also ISIS => North Korea could be viable. North Korea puts pressure on China, so Trump might like that.
if anyone remembers, there's a transcript in which the American ambassador said that Arab-Arab wars were none of America's business, specifically in relation to Iraq vs Kuwait:
We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.
Basically, they set Iraq up. They signaled that the Secretary of State had given the OK on the invasion (and remember they'd encouraged Iraq to invade it's neighbors before this). At the end of the Cold War, Noriega in Panama and Saddam in Iraq (two of the nastiest US client states) both became liabilities, thus they had to be gotten rid of. So the first two invasions after the Cold War ended were of allies, not enemies.