I'll just quote what I posted in the other thread. Short answer: neutral, for now.
If we in any tangible way diminished the ability of the Syrian military to use chemical weapons against their citizens, then I support tonight's strike. But that doesn't mean there aren't reasons to have grave concerns about what this means for the United States going forward. What do we do next time Assad commits an atrocity? How many times can we dip a toe into this conflict before we get sucked all the way in? Do we have a plan going forward? You can support this strike in principle and still have serious reservations about the implications.
I agree with this. I'm trying to withhold judgement until the dust settles both literally and figuratively and we can find out 1) if we actually achieved any military goals and 2) whether this "warning shot" so-to-speak effectively hampered Assad's enthusiasm to use chemical weapons.
The wild card is Russia, and whether this changes their stances of "Assad must be defended pretty much regardless," and "meh, Trump's okay compared to these other guys." This is the first time those two mindsets have been at conflict with one another.
Poll
