Strategic bombing has never gained victory in any conflict. No amount of bombs brought Germany to its knees. In fact, Germany's industrial output rose during the heaviest of allied night and day bombing. Nuclear bombs, arguably the ultimate strategic weapons, failed to defeat Japan. Leaders of the Japanese Imperial armed forces were tempted to continue prosecuting the war even after atomic devices were detonated over two of their major cities. Likewise, strategic bombing of North Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and other small nations accomplished nothing. Dumb bombs. Carpet bombing. Smart bombs. Cruise missiles. Hellfire missiles launched from drones. All may temporarily demoralize an enemy and limit their ability to fight, but only an infantryman armed with a rifle can occupy and dominate enemy territory.
As the debate to win the support of Congress and the American public for bombing Syria advances, keep in mind these three tests: Is it militarily necessary? What is the military value of the proposed targets? Although nonmilitary facilities and personnel will be affected, will their losses be acceptable? Yes, the answers to every one of these questions is subjective. Although a consensus may be achieved, any decision will not be unanimous. However, we must all be prepared to accept the consequences.
Moreover, don't set your expectations too high. Like I said, strategic bombing has never accomplished anything by itself. All the enemy has to do is take a break (just as Ali rested against the ropes) while the United States flails away with its might fists until it tires itself out.