On Tuesday, senators were given a classified briefing from Trump military officials on the Syrian airstrikes of last week. Those that received that briefing emerged from it nonplussed; their concern wasn't due to arguments over whether the strike was legal or whether it was effective, but that the administration policy toward Syria was, still, nonexistent. Senators from both parties charged that the Trump plan for a quick strike and subsequent rapid withdrawal is effectively a plan to cede Syria to the Assad regime and to Russia.
[Sen. Lindsey Graham] told reporters that the administration has no military strategy to counter Iranian and Russian influence and seems willing "to give Syria to Assad, Russia, and Iran."
"I think Assad, after this strike, believes we're all tweet and no action," Graham said [...]
Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware left the meeting and told reporters, "The only thing worse than a bad plan on Syria is no plan on Syria, and the President and his administration have failed to deliver a coherent plan on the path forward." [...]
[Sen. Bob Corker] went on to say that, “Syria is Russia and Iran's now. They will be determining the future. We may be at the table, but when you're just talking and have nothing to do with shaping what's happening on the ground, you're just talking."
Lindsey Graham is a hawk among hawks, so you'd be wise to take anything he says with a grain of salt, but the charge that the Trump administration is effectively rudderless on Syria is difficult to dispute. Both before and after Trump's small strike, he has been widely reported to be demanding a rapid withdrawal of U.S. troops currently providing support to anti-ISIS forces, a rumor that was met with special alarm in Kurdish-majority regions. A complete U.S. withdrawal puts any who have allied with those forces in new danger, in a region where infighting between the Assad regime, ISIS and a host of other militant groups is forever threatening to erase whatever fragile stability had previously been attained, in any given locale; it may well be the case that the new order in the nation will be whatever Assad's most powerful remaining world backer, Russia, is willing to foot the bill for.
The charge that the strike itself was a token effort also appears to be solid, with the New York Times reporting that it was taken primarily so that Donald could defend his own angry tweets on the subject. Which is a hell of a thing for the papers of the day to be reporting, but here we are. Again.
So yes, the only “plan” Trump has managed to craft on Syria, Assad, and ISIS indeed appears to be a token show of force, now considered done, followed by abandoning the field and letting the chips fall where they may. Critics may charge that once again, Donald Trump just happens to have stumbled into the United States policy most conducive to Russian President Vladimir Putin's own strategic designs, but that is probably overthinking things. It's more likely that Donald simply doesn't know what the hell he's doing, again; is furiously uninterested in learning, again; and is taking the path that he believes will allow him to get in the most games of golf. Again.
There is no "plan" to speak of; the plan is to do whatever is necessary, each day, to dodge having to craft one. But the plan may be different tomorrow, or next week: It depends on what Donald Trump watches on TV.
Again.