We have no business even thinking about unilateral military action in Syria. If it's about chemical weapons, there and elsewhere, that's for a coalition to handle, not the U.S. alone. After a decade of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, at enormous cost in treasury and, of our most-treasured, while now foolishly drawing-down our own military-might, it's ridiculous to contemplate a military encounter with Syria, no matter how (quote) "limited," the action, with revenge-attacks on American interests likely, including Israel, and expansive-consequences to follow.
As the virus of militant Islam reignites throughout the region, you may remember Libya and Egypt. Post-Ghadfi chaos now reigns in Libya, amidst the stain of Benghazi, with murdered Americans, and a hoax to explain it. Then Egypt, where we helped dump a solidly pro-American dictator, to usher in a Muslim Brotherhood-government, with creeping Sharia Law, thankfully now delayed, if not ended, by military coup. American power and credibility the loser in both. The AP quotes Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, an Iraq War veteran, speaking against a Syrian strike: "As a soldier, I understand that before taking any military action, our nation must have a clear tactical objective, a realistic strategy, the necessary resources to execute, including the support of the American people, and an exit plan. The proposed military action against Syria fails to meet these criteria."
In any well-planned military action, often, the plans, themselves, become the first casualty, since the enemy, too, gets a vote. That said, you may recall an attack by air back in 1941. The target: Pearl Harbor. A "limited" surgical strike. No boots-on-the-ground. Do remember how that turned out…….