Syria: no good options

It looks like we are in a countdown to cruise missile strikes on strategic targets in Syria.   But Chris Harmer, a senior naval analyst who drew up the plans months ago, has serious misgivings about carrying them out. 

"Tactical actions in the absence of strategic objectives is usually pointless and often counterproductive. . . . I never intended my analysis of a cruise missile strike option to be advocacy even though some people took it as that. . . .  

"I made it clear that this is a low cost option, but the broader issue is that low cost options don't do any good unless they are tied to strategic priorities and objectives. . . .  Any ship officer can launch 30 or 40 Tomahawks. It's not difficult. The difficulty is explaining to strategic planners how this advances U.S. interests."

President Obama and his advisers have been debating this at great length.   They are not naive.   I'm sure they're examined this argument from every conceivable direction.   They know the risks.

Add to that the fact that at least one poll showed less than 10% of Americans support military action in Syria.  The problem is that the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian military against its own people cannot be ignored by a humane world.  Ideally the U.N. should respond, but that's not likely to happen.

So where is the good option?   What if we blast them with missiles and it doesn't change anything?   What then?

Ralph