- Brian Williams, MSNBC, March 6, 2017That's right. Brian Williams described the 59 Tomahawk missiles that were launched at Assad's al-Shayrat airfield as "beautiful pictures." The mystification of imperial goals hides the realities of empire, but it captivates the dullest of sensibilities. Sometimes banality paints the clearest picture of current events. Unlike what some commentators are saying about an escalation of U.S. war in Syria, or even an impending World War III, Donald Trump's decision to Strike Assad was a symbolic gesture of empire - both to his domestic critics at home and foreign opponents - that departs little from the Obama administration's policy on Syria. The only difference being that while Obama and Clinton would have immersed themselves in briefings before the attack, Trump was watching Rogue One: A Star Wars Story Despite the coincidence that last Thursday was the 100th anniversary of the United States entering World War I, an impending world war is not on the horizon. This sort of "gloom and doom" argument purportedly demonstrates the consequences of realpolitik, but it exaggerates the reality of world affairs. Under global capitalism, international corporations and financial institutions deploy significant influence in nation states to avoid conflicts that might stifle their accumulation of profit. This sort of apocalyptic hyperbole gets old quickly.The Trump administration's warnings sent to Russian officials prior to the attack are the biggest sign that the strike was symbolic, not practical. It is very likely that Russia warned the Assad regime of the impending attack, to minimize their ability to crush opponents of the Assad regime. The efficacy of the strike is called into question by the fact that less than 24 hours after the tomahawks were launched, Syria launched a bombing run from Al Shaybat airfield against rebels . Additionally, the strike is rumored to have damaged mostly hangars and older Russian overstock military equipment supplied by Putin to Assad. The leaders of world powers such as France, Germany, and China are praising the attack as a responsibility that Assad must bear for the gassing of his own people. Still, the Russian state's remarks that consequences for the United States' attack will be " extremely serious" and could result in a clash with the Russian military , should not be taken at face value. Just as Trump is using the bombing to muster domestic support, Putin is using the megaphone of condemnation to save face at home.Domestically, this attack could be the event that normalizes Donald Trump's Presidency. as many of his critics fall behind his decision. Republican opposition to Trump, represented by figures such as Lindsay Graham and John McCain, championed the launch of 59 Tomahawk missiles from warships in the eastern Mediterranean. McCain went farther by saying that "this is a beginning, and a lot of hard things have to be done, but without this, those things couldn't have been done either." Essentially, McCain and othrs are giving the green light for further action. It's interesting to note that McCain is quite close with National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster. In this context, the ousting of Michael Flynn and Steve Bannon from the national security apparatus suggest that the Trump administration is shoring up support from mainstream Republicans. If these efforts are successful, the Republican consensus around the Presidency may be forming. Hilary Clinton's call to take out Assad's airfields earlier this week are part of a narrative that demonstrate how little of a departure this action was from the Obama administration's policy. There is no "grand design" for regime change in this case. In fact, it's likely that Trump admires Bashar al-Assad, just like he adores other strong men like Vladimir Putin and Rodrigo Duerte of the Philippines. In the fight against the over-exaggerated Jihadist antithesis, Trump sees Assad as a lesser evil, despite the murder of his own people that has reached genocidal proportions. I'll never forget the first time I readby the brilliant and groundbreaking historian William Appleman Williams, who was one of the major critics of American foreign policy emerge out of mainstream academia at the height of the Cold War in the 1950s. Williams made me realize that American foreign policy is not entirely about crass material interests; its about- the interventionist world view that our foreign policy elites have because of their positions of power at the top of the most powerful empire, which is largely invisible to them.