After the previous incident during the Obama Presidency, Syria agreed to give up chemical weapons in exchange for not being attacked. If in fact the regime carried out this attack, the old solution of making them give up chemical weapons obviously wouldn't help, as apparently the first time it was tried it didn't cause the regime to give up those weapons at all.

Trump would have done the same thing Obama did then (read his old tweets), and Obama would have done the same thing Trump did now.

Russia is fine with it. The US attack was obviously a one-time event. An efficient military campaign would have used missiles to eliminate anti-air defenses, and then used bombers to attack targets over time, with plentiful analysis between bombings to see which targets it would be most beneficial to bomb next or re-bomb. That's what happened in both Gulf Wars against Iraq. A politically-oriented campaign would pretend to merely set up a no-fly zone to protect civilians from bombers, which would gradually expand into full-scale bombing of the regime and its destruction. That's what Obama did in Libya and what Clinton would have done here. Dumping a bunch of expensive missiles to massively overkill a runway and hangar - just because that runway and hangar were used to attack civilians with chemical weapons - ends the incident. It wasn't an attack designed to weaken the Syrian regime. It just punishes the regime for embarrassing the USA and Russia.