Evidently Saturday’s brief flurry of cruise missiles against Syrian chemical weapons facilities sent “a very strong message,” as American Defence Secretary Jim Mattis put it. But to whom? And saying what?

Of course the action was accompanied by the usual pseudo-Churchillian rhetoric about unshakable resolve in the face of unspeakable crimes. Donald Trump called Syria’s latest chemical weapons use “evil” and “despicable … These are not the actions of a man; they are crimes of a monster instead.” So was this monster targeted? Um, no.

We’re assured the strikes targeted only known chemical weapons facilities. Which means that for years, despite endless bluster including Barack Obama’s infamous vanishing red line, Western powers have avoided taking out weapons they’ve known all about. Even this time, a senior Syrian military defector claims, important sites, including a depot called Taqsis, were not hit. Why?

In fairness, one reason is prudence. Before the attack, Russia’s ambassador to Lebanon thundered, “If there is an American strike, then we … will shoot down the missiles and target the positions from where they were launched.” Also known as American cruise-missile-carrying submarines, destroyers and cruisers, British subs and French frigates, as well as aircraft from all three nations.

You would never find the Americans, British or French rattling sabres this irresponsibly. And rightly not; superpower confrontations are very risky. But this asymmetry again raises the troubling question that has haunted us from the dawn of Mutual Assured Destruction. What happens when one side, aware of the perils, adopts a deliberately restrained posture the other recklessly exploits?

It is obviously not a hypothetical question. Russia has annexed Crimea, dismembered Ukraine, and armed and fought alongside loathsome war criminal Bashar al-Assad, while Moscow, and Beijing, have repeatedly sheltered him at the United Nations with Security Council vetoes.

Again, those vetoes exist for a reason and it’s not that people are callous fools. We’ve understood the dangers of major power conflicts since before Hiroshima. But excessive fear of such conflicts is also very dangerous, because if you signal impotence, even rational impotence, it shows fear to a bully and your adversaries push harder, forcing confrontation under even less unfavourable circumstances.

Following the strike, Trump underlined that Vladimir Putin had guaranteed a 2013 international agreement ridding Syria of chemical weapons. But doing so surely also underlined that Putin has taken our measure and found us wanting in resolve. Such irresponsible ruthlessness may speak ill of his character. But since it is his character we face across the table, we cannot afford to be naive or daffy.

The Daily Telegraph reported that before Saturday’s attack, Western powers told Russia what the targets would be. It does not take the diplomatic genius of a Kissinger to realize asking permission before hitting does not signal toughness. Or the military genius of a Napoleon to realize if you announce in advance what you’re going to hit, it won’t be there when you do.

Buildings, of course, cannot be moved, and some heavy equipment is hard to relocate quickly. But weapons and raw materials can be transferred. And, crucially, so can people. Thus there were no reported Syrian casualties, no airplanes hit, and Mattis assured Assad it was “a one-time shot.” This attack wasn’t real, it was symbolic.

It is of course possible that the real target of the signal, as opposed to the cruise missiles, wasn’t foreign at all. It may have been citizens of Western countries, who want to see their governments do something bold but safe. And there’s an even more unsettling possibility. In this post-truth world, the true recipients of the message may have been its senders. Virtue-signalling is like that. Perhaps May, Trump and Macron were assuring themselves they are real leaders, prudent but principled.

Once upon a time “signals” like the infamous head on a post meant we killed that enemy and we can kill you, too. Not any more. The National Post claimed Trump “said the U.S. is prepared to sustain pressure on Assad until he ends … a criminal pattern of killing his own people with internationally banned chemical weapons.” Ah yes, “pressure,” that colourless odourless gas that causes Western journalists to write headlines.

What about this episode will make a man, willing to kill hundreds of thousands of his own people in ghastly ways, stop doing it? Does he care if a building gets blown up? He’s blown up half his own country. Does he care if civilians die, or his own soldiers? The only person whose scaly hide interests him is himself. And he was promised impunity.

British Prime Minister Theresa May said, “This is not about intervening in a civil war. It is not about regime change.” So Assad can keep killing his own people. Just not this way. Unless he really wants to.

That message got through loud and clear. Unfortunately.