(Above: At the inauguration I listened to Donald Trump talk about his "America-first" foreign policy, outraging the establishment. Now he's gone over to the "America-last" side of the internationalists who want the U.S. to put countries like Syria first.)

On Sunday I got a call from Mike Doherty. The current state senator and former U.S. Army officer was livid about President Trump's about-face on Syria.

"In the 2016 campaign, his major promise was ending these stupid foreign wars," said the Warren County Republican. "If he breaks that promise with his base, I think he's finished."

As of early last week, Trump sounded like he was sticking to his promise to pull U.S troops out of Syria. On Tuesday, he met with his generals in what was supposed to be a private meeting on the issue.

On Wednesday, leaks from that meeting were widely reported in the press. The reports said his call for a rapid withdrawal of troops from Syria "faced unanimous opposition from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Pentagon, the State Department and the intelligence community."

News reports said Trump was enraged by the leaks.

"You got a bunch of generals with top-secret security clearances that don't mind leaking," said Doherty. "Heads should roll. They should find out who leaked that information and he should be fired."

Instead, by Sunday Trump had reversed his policy on withdrawal. Now he was in favor of intervention (just like Hillary Clinton was.).

Trump wrote in a Tweet that Syrian President Bashar Assad will face a "big price to pay" after reports of a chemical - or as he put it "CHEMICAL" - attack in rebel-held territory in Syria.

Trump's getting spun by the generals, said Doherty.

He noted that back when President Obama faced a similar situation in 2013, Trump Tweeted - again in all caps, "AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!"

Now Trump's promising to do some very foolish things of his own - and in a much more dangerous situation than anything Obama faced.

I got an assessment of just how dangerous when I talked with another former Army officer with whom I like to discuss current events.

"This time it could easily get out of hand," said Pat Lang, a former Vietnam Green Beret who later spent a couple decades in the Mideast. (See this debunking of the co-called "white helmets" on his site.)

Back in 2013 the war was mainly between the Syrian government and the rebels. Now Russia is a major supporter of the Syrian government.

"The Russians have made it very clear that if we attack Syria again that they're going to fight our attack," Lang said. "There will be a war between the United States and Russia over Syria."

Lang said Trump had it right when he was saying we should get out of Syria. But "the swamp captured him," he said.

"He'd have to be so strong to sit in the Pentagon and look at all these four-star generals and striped-pants idiots from the State Department and say, 'I don't care what you say. We have to be out of there in five months or you'll all be out of a job,'" he said.

Trump's problem, said Lang, is that he gives too much credence to the generals.

When it comes to generals, Lang had an assessment shared with Doherty, who oversaw an artillery unit in Germany during the Cold War. Far from being brilliant leaders, they tend to be "suck-ups" or "butt-kissers," both say.

Lang said the current crop is particularly bad.

"They can't remember when there wasn't a war to fight," he said. "Their reason for being is to fight."

As recently as a week ago, Trump was arguing that those fights costs us $7 trillion with nothing to show for it. Now he's ready to start what could be the real mother of all battles.

Doherty, who was the first prominent politician in New Jersey to back Trump, said the Donald's going back on the campaign promise that first drew him to Trump.

"My point is that Trump defeated 16 other Republicans on just this issue, to stop fighting those stupid wars in the Mideast," he said. "This is why he won the election."

Now that he's president, Doherty said, Trump should listen to his old speeches.

Back then he was noting, accurately enough, that our involvement in places like Syria and Iraq had actually helped the Islamic radicals organize the populations against the Americans.

But now he seems to be falling for the foreign-policy establishment's familiar refrain in favor of intervention.

Who knows? Maybe this time the generals will finally come up with the missile attack or bombing campaign that will finally make everything all right - after 17 years of failure since 9/11.

There's only one way to find out.

Let's hope Trump doesn't take it.

ADD - TRUMP'S AMERICA-LAST FOREIGN POLICY: As conservative Pat Buchanan notes here, Trump won the support of conservatives by promising to end the so-called "neo" conservative policy of meddling in the Mideast to promote the interests of countries other than America.

Now Trump is reverting to the discredited politics of intervention, he writes:

"The War Party that was repudiated in 2016 appears to be back in the saddle. But before he makes good on that threat of a 'big price... to pay,' Trump should ask his advisers what comes after the attack on Syria."

Buchanan also asks what proof the U.S. has that this attack was carried out by the Syrian government. So does Doherty:

"Assad has the rebels on the run and Trump says we're gonna leave Syria, and all of a sudden you have a chemical attack?" he said. "Assad wouldn't do it at this time. He won the war over the rebels. Why do the one thing that's gonna draw the U.S. back in?"

Like that attack last year, this one occurred in a rebel-held area where the U.S. has no reliable sources of information. TV fan that he is, Trump is relying on a video put out by rebel sympathizers who have every reason to try and sucker the U.S. into attacking the one man who keeps the Islamists in check.

That's Assad. He's doing what's best for his country.

As for Trump, he seems to be having a hard time figuring out just what country is his.