Since Donald Trump’s ill-considered attack on Bashar Assad’s forces in Syria, many of those who hoped his presidency would be different from previous ones, ardent and luke-warm supporters alike, have come out in opposition to the sudden change of course in Trump’s foreign policy. They cite legitimate concerns over the seeming lack of U.S. national security interests in Syria, the possible assistance this military action has rendered to ISIS and other Islamist forces in Syria, and how this may very well have squandered whatever chance there might have been for rapprochement with Russia. All of these disadvantages and with very little if anything to show for it in return. These are all good points. Indeed, they are not wrong. However, it is unfortunately the case that those elements of the American leadership which have maneuvered Trump into this mess are looking at a very different set of considerations and performing their cost-benefit analyses of potential courses of action against an entirely different system of measurement.