I grew up in the 1970's, a time when a lot of Americans post-Vietnam were questioning the value, even the sanity, of war. Opinions were certainly split on the subject, but one thing I remember is that the concept of "punitive bombing" was widely mocked and disdained. Which is why I find it amazing to see bipartisan, multi-country support for exactly this tired old idea as applied to Syria. Has bombing ever done anything but radicalize the bombed civilian population against the bombers? The reaction to the London Blitz was not to have the English suddenly decide that they had been wrong in supporting Poland. Nor did Germans or Japanese generally reprimand their leaders for the past policies as as result of our firebombing Tokyo or Dresden. Or look at drone strikes in Afghanistan -- do you get the sense anyone there is saying, "Boy, have we ever been taught a lesson."
In the comments, readers are welcome to contribute examples of countries who "learned their lesson" from punitive air strikes and changed their behavior.
PS- Apparently the reason we "must" have at least air strikes is that we have established a policy that we will "do something" if countries use chemical weapons. And if we don't have air strikes, the world will think we are weak, right? But the problem is that this logic never ends. If the country then ignores our air strikes and behaves as before, or perhaps performs an FU of their own by using chemical weapons openly, then what? Aren't we obligated to do something more drastic, else the world will think we are weak?