This is a Cato Special Podcast. I'm Caleb Brown. A new attack in Syria leaves the

president reversing himself, apparently, on the need for the United States to

disengage from the conflict.

The Kito Institute's John Glazer says it's a good time to examine the authority the

president has, and notably does not have, to launch new attacks in that region.

We spoke today.

So a few days ago, images were released online

of an apparent chemical weapons attack

in a rebel- held territory in Syria.

It elicited international reaction as would be expected, part of which was several Trump tweets indicating that, strongly implying in fact that he might take some military action in response to this. It hearkens back to roughly a year ago in April 2017

when a similar chemical weapons attack, evidence of one emerged, and about 60 hours after that news, Trump had a missile strike,

ordered a missile strike on a Syrian air base.

Now, this also comes in the context of some very mixed messages that Trump has offered in recent days and weeks. He said last week I think that he wants all US troops

withdrawn from Syria. He wants that to be expedited in fact and he got some pushback from his national security advisors.

And then today, of course, or yesterday he issues these tweets strongly implying that he's going to take military action.

So it's kind of, you know, it doesn't signify to me that he's thinking thoroughly through

these ideas and it also doesn't signify that he has much control over his own foreign policy.

But, you know, the strikes in April 2017, its words remembering, had no tactical or strategic utility whatsoever.

They didn't improve the humanitarian situation on the ground.

They didn't alter the balance of power within, you know, on the battlefield within the

serious civil war.

It didn't further U.S. interest. It was merely a pinprick strike meant to be punitive

...