First, is in relation to adherence to the “rules-based global order” that Australia promotes. The US-led military action against Syria short-circuited the “official” process whereby the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons conducts its own investigation of a suspected breach of the Chemical Weapons Convention , before reporting to the UN for any UN-sanctioned action.

In this case, OPCW confirmation of chemical use at Douma would probably have gone nowhere because of Russia opposing any military action against Syria.

The question of course is whether this justifies the US’s breaking of international rules and taking upon itself the punishment of a “wayward” member of the UN.

Second, is whether we should be prepared to support all US military actions when they are sometimes questionable or poorly thought-through, particularly when they could include a request for Australian military involvement – which was not the case here. Our military contributions will never be large enough to make a difference to the US, so it is essentially a desire on the part of the US to make a US-led military coalition look more credible internationally - and an ANZUS-propping up activity on our part.

The downside for Australia is the commonly-held international perception that we do not have an independent Australian strategic posture or that we invariably modify our policies to ingratiate ourselves with Washington.

With regard to our 2014 involvement in the US-led coalition against Islamic State, there was always the potential for a violent backlash by IS sympathisers in Australia, and by IS-affiliates against Australians elsewhere. That probability did not seem to be part of the decision-making process prior to our commitment. We might still have felt a moral obligation to act given the brutal excesses of IS - but its “caliphate” was far removed from our main areas of strategic interest.

We therefore need to think very carefully about what is in our national interest when it comes to our overseas military commitments and the next American military adventure, whether it be in the Middle East, North Asia or elsewhere - particularly if it puts Australia on a strategic collision course with China.

Third, US military actions in the Middle East can of course have knock-on economic effects for Australia, particularly when they affect the price of oil. Australian oil consumption has been increasing while our production has been declining to the point where our consumption is more than double our production.

Most of our refined product is imported from Singapore which gets 80 percent of its oil from the Middle East. Any situation that creates Middle East oil supply jitters will inevitably hurt Australia when the price of imported oil goes up. The US is not so much affected as it has become more self-sufficient in oil production and its oil imports from the Middle East have been declining.

In conclusion, we should also to be wary about being dragged into historically-based adversarial relationships between the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia on the one hand, and Iran (and now Turkey) on the other. At the same time, in North Asia, we have the US, Japan and South Korea on the one hand, and North Korea and China on the other. Both adversarial situations have the potential for miscalculation and escalation to the detriment of Australia’s national interests.

The US has overwhelming military power and its global military dominance will continue well into the future. By comparison, the US State Department is a relatively small and underfunded department. There will always be a temptation therefore for US Presidents to take military action to achieve US objectives - rather than taking the more cautious and slow diplomatic route that would likely take longer than a presidential term in office. Americans are also by nature a people who like quick results.

We Australians tend to be congenial companions, along for the ride.

Clive Williams is a visiting professor at the ANU’s Centre for Military and Security Law and an adjunct professor at ADFA.