Let's assume that Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, since that is the most likely outcome.
Which country will she prove how tough she is by killing a whole bunch of helpless, brown-skinned civilians?

This is, of course, in addition to on-going wars that President Obama will leave in his wake, such as Afghanistan and Iraq.
This is also in addition to the on-going Global Assassination Program, known as the Drone War.

So who will be the lucky candidate?
As of right now, the polls indicate it will be Syria.

The woman expected to run the Pentagon under Hillary Clinton said she would direct U.S. troops to push President Bashar al-Assad’s forces out of southern Syria and would send more American boots to fight the Islamic State in the region.
Michele Flournoy, formerly the third-ranking civilian in the Pentagon under President Barack Obama, called for “limited military coercion” to help remove Assad from power in Syria, including a “no bombing” zone over parts of Syria held by U.S.-backed rebels.

Hillary was already on record for supporting the bombing of the Assad government in 2013.
Adding to this is an ongoing rift in the State Department of people who think we aren't generating enough carnage in our foreign policy.

An internal rift over the U.S.- Syria policy could be a headache inherited by the next president, analysts say, because the Obama administration appears unlikely to dramatically alter its current policy.
In a memo, 51 State Department diplomats indicated their dissatisfaction with the status quo, saying they back stepped-up military engagement that includes targeted airstrikes against the Syrian regime.
Many of those mostly mid-level employees are likely to be around during the next presidency, Atlantic Council Middle East analyst Faysal Itani said.
“The next president is going to inherit this internal debate within the State Department that has shifted at least the debate focus of U.S. policy in the run-up to the elections,” Itani said.
It is a view shared by Richard Haass, a former State Department policy planning director.
“Even if what they [the diplomats] have to say is rejected now, it might be welcomed by the next occupant of the White House – especially if it were to be Hillary Clinton, who, as secretary of state, showed considerable willingness to use military force in pursuit of U.S. foreign policy aims,” said Haass, in an article for the Council on Foreign Relations.

Syria, you are the likely winner of several thousand bombs, a foreign invasion, and the deaths of countless Syrian children. Congratulations.
What makes this especially interesting is guessing who we might be backing in this war, because it isn't clear.

A smoldering confrontation between Syrian armed groups backed by the United States but hostile to each other is escalating, complicating the fight against Islamic State in the war-torn country.
Syrian Arab rebels under the Free Syrian Army (FSA) banner say they are in a growing struggle against the Kurdish YPG militia that are helping the United States wage its campaign against IS in Syria.

Who will we back in this war? Who will be be? Why not both!?
Of course there are issues that will need to be addressed.

The result of understandable frustration, the recommendation of military strikes against the Syrian government — no matter how well intentioned — is, in the end, escalatory, and would likely result in more war, killing, refugees, less humanitarian aid reaching civilians, the empowerment of jihadis and so on.

In other words, disaster.

However, Syria doesn't have this all wrapped up.
Libya still has a chance.

When asked by the committee's chairman, Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, whether the U.S. had a strategy for Libya, Marine Lt. Gen. Thomas Waldhauser said he didn't know about one.
"I am not aware of any overall grand strategy at this point," Waldhauser said at his confirmation hearing to become commander of the Africa Command.

What could be better than a totally pointless and directionless war? You gotta admit that this is tempting.
Plus there is the fact that Hillary already knows how to destroy Libya.

As Secretary of State, [Ms. Clinton] blocked diplomacy that would have prevented or ended conflict, most notoriously concerning Libya, where even senior U.S. military officers were told to cut off their contacts with Gaddafi agents seeking a peaceful compromise.
...within “weeks of the revolution there were two valid cease-fire opportunities, one presented to the Department of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), and a second opportunity presented to U.S. Africa Command for direct military commander negotiations to effect Gaddafi’s abdication, in which I was personally involved. Both opportunities were rejected and shut down by Secretary Clinton [who] had already met with rebel leaders in Paris … and had committed to support their revolution.”
Ms. Clinton’s policy “resulted in the arming of terrorists, months of war and tens of thousands of causalities, the murder of the American ambassador and the deaths of three other brave Americans, continued civil war and the collapse of the Libyan economy, and a failed nation-state contributing to a tragic European migrant crisis.”

Another point in Libya's favor is that Trump's Libya policy is not significantly different from Hillary's.

So will it be Syria? Libya? Or some dark horse candidate that will surprise us all? Only time will tell who will receive our gift of death and destruction (in addition to Iraq and Afghanistan).
But one thing is for certain - it'll be someone.