This piece at The Atlantic is good on the pros and cons of this type of action

I spoke with Zenko, who was a frequent critic of Obama’s use of drone strikes, about the reasons countries undertake “limited strikes” such as Thursday’s cruise missile attack in Syria. Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Alvarez: You’ve mentioned that in the 36 cases of limited U.S. strikes you’ve studied, the U.S. has achieved its military goals just over half of the time. Under what circumstances do governments achieve military goals through the use of limited strikes?

Alvarez: What about the fear of punishment? Does that sometimes motivate decision makers in international affairs?

Zenko: I think it does. In the strikes [Thursday], I’d say punishment is the unstated reason. Individuals, pundits, policymakers, government officials, who have been watching this brutal, internationalized civil war for seven years—they just become tired of it, they become exhausted of witnessing the suffering, with the perception that America is “doing nothing.” They just want to strike, but they don’t want to put U.S. forces at risk and they don’t really want to alter the battlefield calculation. And so, standoff cruise missile strikes are a great way to punish without raising the cost or the consequences—both with U.S. forces or to change the outcome of the civil war. I think that’s a common reason of supporting such operations.

rmrd

re: There is no military solution to Syria

I've seen you say this several times on related threads. Who are you arguing with? I don't see any of these people saying that there is. This strike was about use of chemical weapons.

Probably the closest to saying that there is a military solution is Hillary as she is suggesting limiting the air power. As if once you do that, no one involved can get access to air power. The problem with that is: other countries could then aid with their air power. I.E., Saudis, Iran, Russia, the U.S., Nato, Turkey, France....