“I suspect there was probably a lighter option even than the one we took,” former Supreme NATO commander retired Adm. James Stavridis told NPR. “This is like Goldilocks and the three bears, right? Little bed, big bed. I think we picked exactly the right bed for this moment in time. It was a well-structured strike and, I think, a good decision.”

THE MATTIS TOUCH: The strike plan was carefully calibrated to avoid civilian casualties, or striking Russian forces. The targets were “carefully selected with proportionality discrimination and being specifically associated with the chemical program,” said Defense Secretary Jim Mattis an hour after the strike ended. ABC’s Martha Raddatz reported that new national security adviser John Bolton was advocating for a broader strike. “But I’m told in the end, Bolton was respectful, listened to the variety of options, and presented those options to the president, which is exactly what he is supposed to do,” Raddatz said on ABC’s “This Week.”

MACRON, LE CHARMEUR? In a television interview in France, President Emmanuel Macron claimed he personally convinced Trump that it is “necessary” to remain in Syria “long-term,” and that the allied strike should not go beyond hitting chemical weapons sites.

“Ten days ago, President Trump was saying the United States of America had a duty to disengage from Syria … I assure you, we have convinced him that it is necessary to stay for the long-term,” Macron said, according to AFP. “The second thing is that we have also convinced him that he must limit his strikes to chemical weapons, at a time when there was a media furor via tweet, as I’m sure you noticed.”

THE WHITE HOUSE RESPONDS: Last night press secretary Sarah Sanders pushed back on Macron’s statement with a statement of her own. “The U.S. mission has not changed — the President has been clear that he wants U.S. forces to come home as quickly as possible. We are determined to completely crush ISIS and create the conditions that will prevent its return. In addition, we expect our regional allies and partners to take greater responsibility both militarily and financially for securing the region.”

TEXTBOOK PERFECT: Technically and tactically the coordinated attack was — as Trump tweeted — “a perfectly executed strike.” According to the Pentagon, all 105 missiles hit their targets, at nearly the same time, with no reported civilian deaths. No missiles were shot down. By the time Syrian air defenses reacted by firing anti-aircraft missiles, the strike was already over. “I’d use three words to describe this operation: precise, overwhelming and effective,” Lt. Gen. Kenneth McKenzie said at a Saturday morning briefing.

MORE THAN A PINPRICK: Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford called the strikes “qualitatively and quantitatively different” from last April when the U.S. claimed to have taken out 20 percent of the Syrian air force in a U.S.-only strike against a single airfield. This time the Pentagon claims to have set Syria’s covert chemical weapons program back years, by destroying a research and development center, and two other sites. “We are very confident that we have significantly crippled Assad’s ability to produce these weapons,” said Dana White, the Pentagon’s chief spokesperson.

BY THE NUMBERS: The 105 stand-off missiles represent an 81 percent increase in firepower compared to the 58 missiles launched into Syria last year. Here’s the breakdown, as provided by U.S. European Command:

• USS Monterey (Ticonderoga-class cruiser) – 30 Tomahawks
• USS Laboon (Arleigh Burke-class destroyer) – 7 Tomahawks
• USS Higgins (Arleigh Burke-class destroyer) – 23 Tomahawks
• USS John Warner (Virginia-class submarine) – 6 Tomahawks
• French Frigate Languedoc (anti-submarine warfare) – 3 missiles (naval version of SCALP missile)
• 2 U.S. Air Force B-1B Lancer bombers – 19 Joint air-to-surface standoff missiles (first use in combat)
• Royal Air Force Tornado and Typhoon jets – 8 Storm Shadow missiles
• French Air Force Rafales and Mirages – 9 SCALP missiles

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED? While Trump was exuberant the morning after the strike tweeting “Could not have had a better result. Mission Accomplished!,” it will take some time before we know if the strike has convinced Assad to never use chemical weapons again. In the immediate aftermath, he seems unbowed. Television pictures showed him going to work as if it was any other day, and Russia’s Interfax news agency quoted a lawmaker who spoke to the Syrian president who said he was “in absolutely positive spirits … in a good mood.”

THAT’S MISSION WITH A SMALL ‘M’: Trump bristled at criticism that he was declaring premature success, as President George W. Bush did in 2003. Bush later expressed regret that he gave a victory speech on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln under a “Mission Accomplished” banner, just weeks after the invasion of Iraq. “The only way the Fake News Media could demean was by my use of the term ‘Mission Accomplished.’” Trump Tweeted. “I knew they would seize on this but felt it is such a great Military term, it should be brought back. Use often!”

On Fox News Sunday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N Nikki Haley explained further. “As a military spouse, I know that mission accomplished means you have one task currently in front of you and when it’s completed, it is mission accomplished,” Haley said. “Politically, mission accomplished means something broader. And I think the president was referring in military terms.

“We, of course, know that our work in Syria is not done. We know that it’s now up to Bashar al-Assad on whether he is going to use chemical weapons again. And should he use it again, the president has made it very clear that the United States is locked and loaded and ready to go.”

EVIDENCE OF SARIN: The White House released a fact sheet laying out the case that Syria used not only chlorine gas, but also the deadly nerve agent sarin, in the April 7 attack. “Doctors and aid organizations on the ground in Duma reported the strong smell of chlorine and described symptoms consistent with exposure to sarin,” the document stated. “The symptoms described in reporting from media, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and other open sources-such as the WHO-include miosis (constricted pupils), convulsions, and disruption to central nervous systems. These symptoms, in addition to the dozens of deaths and hundreds of injuries reported, suggest that the regime also used sarin in its attacks on April 7.”

CONVENTIONAL BOMBS OK? On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace asked the question that bothers a lot of people outraged by Assad’s murder of hundreds of thousands of his own people. “Doesn’t the president’s policy allow the mass murder of women and children to continue as long as it’s carried out with conventional weapons and not chemical weapons?” he asked Haley.

After protesting that it was “a very unfair question,” Haley tried to tackle the contradiction. “I don’t think we’ve ever said it’s OK, period. There is no way that any American or the president would ever say it’s OK to kill women and children,” she said. “I think that we have a lot of issues in the world and I think we’re trying to put out as many fires as we can. We can’t control what a country does to its people. We can condemn it, we can acknowledge it. … We’ve never sat back and watched bad things happen. We do wait and use military force as a last response to that. But we’ve always acted in every way related to every incident in some form just to let them know how much the United States condemns it.”

Good Monday morning and welcome to Jamie McIntyre’s Daily on Defense, compiled by Washington Examiner National Security Senior Writer Jamie McIntyre (@jamiejmcintyre), National Security Writer Travis J. Tritten (@travis_tritten) and Senior Editor David Brown (@dave_brown24). Email us here for tips, suggestions, calendar items and anything else. If a friend sent this to you and you’d like to sign up, click here. If signing up doesn’t work, shoot us an email and we’ll add you to our list. And be sure to follow us on Twitter @dailyondefense.