Tonight i ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield in syria from where the chemical attack was launched. Using a deadly nerve agent, assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women, and children. It was a slow and brutal death for so many. Even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack. No child of god should ever suffer such horror. The Syrian Government, however, claims charges they were responsible for the chemical attack were fabricated, while the u. S. Official confirms the russians who backed Bashar Al Assad ahead were warn to have had missile launch. More than 200 members of congress, including the beginning of eight that includes both democratic and Republican Leaders of the house and senate were briefed prior to the strikes. However, new reaction this morning from moscow with putin sp spokesmans saying putin considers it an aggression against a sovereign country, violating the norms of International Law and under a trumped up pretext at that. So now the question, is this just a retaliatory strike or the first step in a greater incursion in syria . To delve into this i want to bring in medal of honor recipient colonel jack jacobs and nbc calipari. To both of you, its been a very long evening as we walk ourselves through this. With many asking now, especially in the last hour, what is next . What is next for this administration. But there is also the question of what is next in the immediate future and what is next in the long run as far as the strategy overall and our goal. Well, i think its proper to ask what the strategy is. And i think the answer is we dont actually have one. I think thats one of the reasons why general mcmaster is a National Security adviser. One of his principle tasks is to put together strategies. And particularly this one we better be working very quickly to put one to determine where does it end. Where do we want to wind up and how are we going to get there . You have to start at the end and work backwards. You to articulate what it is youre trying to accomplish before you allocate resources to do it. If you do things in the piecemeal manner, as we discovered long throughout our history, you wind up down a road you dont want to be. Im old enough to have fought in a war in vietnam where we incrementalized everything with no real overall strategy, no longer term objective toward which we were working with the means that we had at our disposal. And we have been doing that in this area for a long time. I think one of the reasons that mcmaster is in that job, one of the reasons that general mattis recommended him to the president to be the National Security adviser is because first and foremost, general mcmaster is a strategic thinker. Whether or not hell be allowed to do that is a different story altogether. I think if he is frustrated, he wont continue. But he is heavily focused on starting at the end and working backwards. He has always done that in every job he has had. You lived in the middle east. You actually interviewed president assad twice. You spent a lot of time in syria. Help us understand the syrian mindset today when president assad wakes up. Has his calculus changed . Do you think this is going to in some capacity deter him from what he has been doing all along in the Syrian Civil War . I think this is a man fighting for his survival, literally. So no. I dont think this is going to deter him in his quest to take back control of this country with the help of the russians. Why now i think is the question to ask. We had this horrible chemical attack. But weve had horrible Chemical Attacks in the last few years. Its not the first nor the worst. Not the first nor the worst. Weve had 7,000 air strikes on this country since 2014. But the first against the assad regime or an asset of the regime. Directly, yes. Most of the targets have been at least as i understand a target against isis or al qaeda affiliates. But if it turns out we killed four syrian soldiers and we limited air strikes for a short period of time, my question is was this literally the least we could have done this we didnt put any u. S. Troops in danger. There was no manned flights. The tomahawk missile flies short off the deck. Its hard to shoot down there. Is no manned aircraft there. Limited damage. Weve got a response from the russians that is a verbal response, not a military response. So this feels like a very calculated strike, which is probably a testament to general mcmaster who wrote the book, we should say, literally wrote the become on how to advise politicians during times of war. So hopefully this is the beginning of a strategy. Unfortunately, it does today feel like it was the least we could do to send a message, a very Important Message that should not be lost here. A very Important Message that chemical weapon hoss not be aloud. Thats why i want to bring colonel jacobs back 23in. You start at the end and work backwards. What does it tell you about this particular strike, an airfield where were targeting hardened aircraft shelters, petroleum and ammunition supply bunkers, knowing that can be easily rebuilt down the line or other means can be used as well. Well, its a message to the assad regime. I dont think they theyre probably not any time soon going to use chemical weapons again because were going to do that again. And they dont want us to do that again. Its a message to assad. Its a message to the russians. Its a message to perhaps korea, north korea. But its also a big message to the american people. How would that what is the effectiveness of that message . Weve heard in our last hour our guests saying all right, maybe it may give assad a reason for pause. But overall, not deterred. Hell continue to use that. So what is the effectiveness of that message . Look, a lot of it is driven by domestic politics. Almost everything in every country is driven at least partially by domestic politics. The president couldnt say that assad crossed the line. Many lines. Many lines. And just like obama, im not going to do anything about it. He couldnt do that. And so this is the least he could do under those circumstances. Its not going to change the arc of the war in syria. It just isnt. There are a lot of other things that might. But were not going to make a commitment to be there as part of a Multinational Force for two decades or any of that kind of stuff. You heard senator mccain today make the argument that the u. S. Should go ahead with the strikes and should even contribute to the rebuilding of syria. A suggestion perhaps that he wants the u. S. To do more to force the ouster of president assad. Thats not likely going to happen. This Administration Early on signaled that even we heard it again reiterated today with the comments from Rex Tillerson that the fate of president assad will be to some extent up to the Syrian People. Which is ridiculous. I mean, listen, you asked what do the Syrian People want today as they wake up . They want an end to the six years of war that has crippled this country and caused a refugee crisis of biblical proportions. Half a Million People are dead. Millions of people are on the move. They want to go home. So if this helps that in any way, great. If this sets it back, thats a problem. And thats an international problem. And thats what we may see in terms of what is next. Well keep asking whats next of this administration. But what is move in upping the ante for the assad regime as well. Again, more images that weve seen of these children with a mask, convulsing that brought us to this plays the first place. If you want assad gone, if thats what you want, there are probably only two groups of people who can make it happen. One is the top of the food chain among the syrian military. And it doesnt mean necessarily any replacement is going to be any better. And two, the russians. The russians have having an increasing amount of influence there. And if anybody is going to make that happen, its going to be the russians. But i dont see that happening. And that has been a bloody horrible war for everybody. The russians want out of it as bad as anybody. Circumstances there an irony here that President Trump evoked images of innocent civilians in syria, young children, women, even elderly that were killed as his reason for action, but those very same people are banned from coming into the u. S. Because theyre deemed to be too dangerous . Well, i think he is compartmental he compartmentalizes ideas in his mind. Immigration to the United States involves the United States directly. So thats one box. But i think he was genuinely moved by these horrible images. And i think it affected him deeply. But why now . You genuinely dont believe he was aware of these images before . Exactly. Knowing this is the first time and knowing that there have been worst attacks where weve seen war. And maybe these images will suddenly trigger that . Im not going to psychoanalyze the guy from a great distance or even up close for that matter. But his statements in 2013 sorry to cut you off. His statements in 2013 were very clear. Dont waste your powder on syria. Not a smart move. Illegal to do it if youre not getting authorization from congress. He is the guy in charge now. And i think you have very different look at it when youre the guy in charge. The guy in charge with the 35 Approval Rating. Thats whats changed. Thats not to be discounted. What is the point of the domestic Approval Rating . What is your point . Well, listen, he is flexing his muscles. He is a commander in chief. He failed with the Domestic Health care plan, failed with an immigration plan. Youre reading the headline. What you just said is going to be the headlines in papers across the arab world. The president who is bombing the very people that he is trying to keep out of the country. This has been the ghost that American Foreign policy has been running from for 20 years. Well seem to lash out with our military, and were pulling back on soft power. Were not running air drops to people who are starving in syria. Were sending 59 tomahawk missiles into one target. But use also look at here at home and the politics in play after this. You have senator tim kaine who is basically calling this illegal, saying the president going through these strikes without a vote from congress. The constitution says war must be declared by congress. Congress will work with the president , but his failure to seek congressional approval is unlawful. Strikes could lead to nuclear war with russia. But then on the other side you have praise. From chuck schumer, you have marco rubio saying yes, or that this was, you know, not symbolic, but there was Strategic Value to it. So the politics at play here well continue to see. Yeah. And ill tell you this. Youre not going to get the congress to act on this in any case. I remember back in the war in vietnam there was nothing but veit tup rati vituperation that came from congress. Not once, and if it did it failed, to cut off funds for the war. At the end of the day, the congress can control how many checks are written by the treasury of the United States to pay the bills. If the continue doesnt want the president to be able to do this, the congress can make it not happen. So the congress is out of it. And dont forget, president obama went to congress and said decide. After that big decide. And congress balked. And part of that is the shadow of iraq. No one wants to take on the unintended consequences of a strike in syria. The difference that i would argue is you have a humanitarian crisis of biblical proportions. Whether or not we had anything to do with starting it, thats the reality on the ground. Better late than never i suppose. But what does today bring . I dont know. Let me ask you guys a question from a critical mindset, perhaps even a skeptical one. Is this at all a distraction from some of the internal domestic challenges the president is facing with the russia investigation . Is this the moment when youll see americans rally behind the bullpen. Were now engaged in another military conflict . Well, im probably the worst skeptic in the world. But i think thats an ancillary benefit to the president in the circumstances youre talking about. But its not going to have any lasting effect in any case. Because all this stops and people stop talking about it, its going to be business as usual as the investigations continue. I wanted to add one other thing about the use of the military instrument of power. Because you mentioned is this the least thing that he could do. And the answer is yes. When it comes to risk. Exactly right. This has the least possible risk in using the military instrument of power. And all other things we could possibly do with the military instrument of power are all extremely dangerous. And then you will get the congress involved saying were not going to do it. Youre talking about putting lots more people on the ground and people we aint doing that. So this is he can get away with using this part of the military instrument of power. Keep in mind we have the capacity today to do something on the ground there are marines on the ground and there are special Operations Forces there. Yeah, the u. S. Can certainly change the dynamic of the battlefield. Certainly change the tempo. That will open up again domestically here at home, capitol hill as well. Stay with us. Colonel jacobs, calipari, as always so we can get back with you. For now, we want to talk to a former fbi double agent. So thats going to be coming up, about a how President Trump is handling Russias Putin who is a firm supporter of syrias assad. That tangled web, next. Breaking news. We are following overnight. The United States launching military strikes in syria. Well continue to follow it here on msnbc and hear from an fbi double agent as were getting world reaction on these strikes. Keep it right here. Tonight i ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield in syria from where the chemical attack was launched. It is in this vital National Security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons. That was President Trump just hours ago, announcing his decision to strike the assad regime just days after that horrific chemical weapons attack that killed over 80 women and children in syria. That was an attack that the u. S. Blames squarely on assad and his forces. Here with an early read on how President Trump has handled this first Major Military thus far, naveed jamali, senior fellow in the program at National Security at the Foreign Policy research institute. And i should say a former fbi double agent. Naveed, its good to have you with us. Lets talk about this from a few different perspectives. One is i want to ask you about the overall strategy here. You look at what happened tonight. You say to yourself what is the purpose, what was the gel of tonights strike in the larger battle in the Syrian Civil War. If we go exactly with what the president said, which is to limit the ability of syria to use and to deter them the ability to use chemical weapons, im not exactly sure how weve accomplished that. We havent actually impacted either the chemical weapons, the infrastructure that supports them. Well didnt target those. And, you know, as the colonel has said, 59 tom headquarters while it seems like a lot, and we double tapped, which means we hit targets twice, its one airfield. We now know that, look, when you do this type of stuff, you telegraph, taupe the russians to make sure there are russians that are inadvertently hit, im sure if the russians had any personnel and equipment, they moved them out. If the russians are moving out, guess what . The syrians are moving out as well. I wonder from a tactical perspective how effective this strike was. And i certainly am fairly confident it had no impact in assads chemical weapon capability at all. And naveed, let me play devils advocate for a second and take the mindset of somebody in the middle east watching this, the United States making an accusation that an arab leader used chemical weapons, and for that reason were intervening to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction. We havent seen any evidence from the u. S. To say that syria did this definitively. Should we be even skeptical of that claim by the white house that it was assad an his forces that used chemical weapons against his people . No. I think that that is im sure that there are people that are going to call this fake news there are people that are calling it that. I dont think thats i think that we have the right to do something here. And i dont mean that in a legal sense. I mean that this is the United States has always been the weve had a moral compass. And i think that, look, you just watch those videos and any normal person is going the want the see something happen that doesnt mean that you dont have a strategy. What im concerned about is this is very much a shoot first, ask questions later there is no followup to this. It is very much doing something for the sake of doing something without a larger plan. And i think its that second part, the context of not having a plan that i think is frankly disturbing to me. Disturbing to you without the plan. You also have the kremlin coming out with the reaction, calling this air strike aggression against a sovereign country that violates International Laws, saying this distracts from the many civilians who are dying in iraq as well. And also, you have senior r