President Trump announced “mission accomplished” after Friday night’s missile attack on Syria, and he’s right if his goal was merely to punish Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons. But if Mr. Trump also wants to deter Russian and Iranian imperialism, reduce the chances of another Mideast war and keep Syria from producing global terrorists, he needs a more ambitious strategy.
Even narrowly defined, the military strike was valuable in enforcing the longtime taboo against chemical weapons—all the more so after Barack Obama drew his famous “red line” in 2013 and failed to enforce it. Criticism of the strike from the Obama gallery that failed so utterly in Syria can’t be taken seriously.
The 105 Tomahawk and standoff air missiles, launched from three directions into Syria, did tangible damage to Syria’s chemical-weapons R&D and storage facilities. Lt. Gen. Kenneth McKenzie told reporters, “no Syrian weapon had any effect on anything we did,” including Russian-supplied missile defenses.
The damage might have a deterrent effect on Assad’s use of chemicals, given that Mr. Trump said Friday he is prepared to enforce the ban again. Mr. Trump lost credibility on that score in the last year after his Administration concluded several times that Assad had used chlorine gas but took no action. Next time the attack should be even more punishing.
The military contribution from Britain and France was useful in demonstrating a larger willingness to prevent the normalization of WMD. And the strike could have a demonstration effect on North Korea as Mr. Trump heads into his perilous summit with Kim Jong Un.