US Syria strategy begins in Iraq

Strategically, the recent U.S. attack on the Syrian airfield ordered by President Trump will have little value if it is not followed by steps that change the dynamics on the ground.

At best, it sends a signal that, unlike Barack Obama, the use of chemical munitions could trigger a military response from President Trump, even though conventional ordinance has caused far more injuries, death and destruction.

The "signal," I think, was meant more to differentiate between Trump and Obama than the weapons used.

The only justification for a single Tomahawk missile strike on a single airfield resides in what follow-up actions will be taken to secure whatever U.S. interests are affected by the Syrian civil war.

So, are there any major interests that would dictate any U.S. intervention?