The Tomahawk is not an anti-runway weapon, and I have never heard of it being used in that role, even with the BLU-97/B warhead. Yes, some of the missiles created a few craters at Shayrat, but anti-runway penetration bombs (such as the Matra Durandal) would be required to disable the runways, delivered of course by fixed-wing aircraft. I don’t see how you can conflate punching through a hardened aircraft shelter with burrowing underneath and tearing up a runway. They are very different effects.
The objectives were to punish Assad and to “degrade” his ability to launch CW attacks, thereby deterring further such atrocities, not to destroy his ability to do so.
As for Assad’s chemical weapons, they would be the most secure part of his arsenal. Attacking their storage directly could result in their capture by other factions, including Al Qaeda and Daesh, and/or possibly the release of CW agents.
Ask CrowBat
Did you imagine that the U.S. would commence an intermittent air campaign to keep Shayrat disabled whilst Assad rebuilds the runways and Putin fortifies the base with air defenses?
A signal to Putin, Khamenei, Xi and Kim, as much as Assad. As for Assad, it remains to be seen whether he will dare to use Sarin again.
RE: Signaling to Assad
With respect to the “further action” and references to “barrel bombs”, it is clear that Washington is looking to deter Assad from terrorizing Syrian civilians, which is: (a) the best recruitment tool for Al Qaeda and Daesh; and (b) the primary reason for Syrian refugees. Washington clearly wants to both deter Assad and avoid providing “red lines” that he and his sponsors can challenge.
Bookmarks