Over a decade ago, former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum confessed to this publication that he’d misjudged the power of his position. “I always believed as a speechwriter that if you could persuade the president to commit himself to certain words, he would feel himself committed to the ideas that underlay those words,” he told writer David Rose. “And the big shock to me has been that although the president said the words, he just did not absorb the ideas.” One imagines that speechwriter and advisor Stephen Miller, articulator of many of Donald Trump’s clearest expressions of nationalism over globalism, has been encountering similar non-absorbency. Despite all his past declarations of staying clear of Syria, Trump sent 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles its way as punishment for an alleged chemical-weapons attack by the government of Bashar al-Assad against civilians in rebel-held areas. If this was surprising to the Trump non-faithful, it was mainly because of the speed of his reversal and abandonment of previous statements. People had barely slept on the news of the chemical attack before the bombs were flying.

There were lots of good reasons to avoid taking the bombardment approach, and they included policy and politics. Syria didn’t attack the United States and posed no serious threat to U.S. interests. Russians are operating in the region, and even an unintentional casualty of one could lead to a crisis. Launching an attack without a U.N. Security Council resolution is a violation of international law and domestic law. Investigators have not yet confirmed what happened or who was to blame. Most important, other U.S. interventions in the region have been disastrous.

When the cannons start firing, one thing can lead quickly to another. When George H.W. Bush tried to supply Somalians with food in 1992, he left Bill Clinton embroiled in that country’s civil war. When Clinton was teaming up with NATO to bomb Yugoslavia, he also hit the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, creating millions of new enemies of the United States. When Barack Obama pushed for a no-fly zone to protect civilians in Libya in 2011, it quickly morphed into a campaign to unseat Muammar Qaddafi altogether. The more you do, the more you wind up having to do.

Then there’s politics. Trump has already alienated many his supporters by attacking erstwhile allies among Republicans in the Freedom Caucus. Now he has created an even deeper rift. “Media THRILLED that Trump is destroying his presidency,” tweeted Ann Coulter, voicing sentiments that were echoed by countless prominent voices across the MAGA Twittersphere, including radio personality Laura Ingraham and conservative warrior Mike Cernovich. Remaining Trump sympathizers at The American Conservative have also been put off. “Donald Trump is looking more and more like a phony,” wrote editor Robert Merry. “He’s also looking like a weakling. And a political ingrate.” Trump has stuck it to his base, and that’s a costly thing to do. With his divorce from the Freedom Caucus and his willingness to enter into conflict abroad, Trump has traded in his foul-weather friends for a much less reliable base of support.

And yet, as little joy as there may be in admitting it, Trump’s decision could work out for him. Unlike Trump’s senseless attacks on the Freedom Caucus, which only did Trump harm and served no purpose at all, bombing Syrian airfields might bring benefits along with the costs—again, both in policy and politics.