If we decide to attack Syria (and I have not heard a compelling reason why we should...) then we absolutely should not limit ourselves as to what options are available.
right, I agree. If it is a “moral imperative” then why limit yourself.
That is reasonable. Unfortunately, too many Presidents look at bombing of a foreign country as a drive-by shooting. There must be a high threshold for a war; but once that threshold is exceeded, the war must be powerful, decisive, and short.
The goal of war is simply to force the other state to accept the will of the victor. It's not to "teach a lesson." But if Obama bombs Syria now, acceptance of what will can we expect? That Assad shouldn't poison "his people?" (Lots of fighters are not Syrians anyway.) But, quite likely, Assad was not even guilty of this particular use of chemical weapons. The whole military action has no purpose - except that is a typical drive-by, to get the enemy scared and for themselves to feel all-powerful.