Whereas a more intelligent analysis would instantly realize that most of the targets at a military airstrip are in fact buildings, that only a small number of the missiles would have targeted the runway, that runways are actually a priority target type in war, and that there is nothing at all about Tomahawk missiles that makes them unsuited to that role.
I don't know about you but when the vast surface area of an airbase is runway and simultaneously also being the least replaceable, you'd think hitting the runway is the most important thing. I mean it's not like mobile command centers, tents, and mobile radar stations don't exist--oh wait they totally do!
that only a small number of the missiles would have targeted the runway, that runways are actually a priority target type in war, and that there is nothing at all about Tomahawk missiles that makes them unsuited to that role
You mean besides the small blast radius of a Tomahawk compared to miles and miles of runway? I mean it's not like the Tomahawk was designed for surgical strikes--oh wait they totally were designed for surgical strikes and not area-wide destruction. I guess that would make them unsuitable for taking out a runway. You know if someone were to design a weapon specifically for runways, that would help.
The choice between a tomahawk or a laser-guided bomb is based on if you want to fly over the target and save money, or stay safe and just use a robot bomb. It has nothing to do with target type other than it probably needing to be stationary to use the cruise missile.
False dichotomy. The most effective weapon against a runway between a Durandal and a Tomahawk is certainly a Durandal. It has nothing to with the guidance system of the weapon. That is unless you don't really care about actually destroying a runway.
And given those types of choices, the Durandel would be an idiot's alternative; that is something you drop from low altitude to destroy a runway after you've established air superiority.
So your assertion that the objective of attacking an airfield is not to render the airbase ineffective. What kind of idiocy is that? Why would you attack an airbase if you didn't want to destroy it. Destroying the buildings does nothing to make sure the runways are useless.
Second, you are aware that using Durandal is not a binary choice in that you must use a Durandal exclusive of all other weapons. You use other weapons to take out the tower, the radar, the enemy aircraft AND use a Durandal to take out the runway.
We're not in open war with Syria,
And hitting a Syrian airbase with 59 Tomahawk missiles isn't considered an act of war for most countries? So if Syria hit a US airbase with 59 missiles you'd think that there would be open warfare?
we haven't closed their airspace, they're not banned from military flights, and in fact numerous countries are flying military aircraft around the place meaning that there are lots of different anti-aircraft facilities that in operation, many of them legitimate defensive positions that would not be appropriate to attack without cause. So there are lots and lots of reasons why that weapon would not be used here, or even considered.
I ask you again: what is the point to attacking an airbase if you don't render it useless. Sure you destroyed some buildings. Sure you destroyed some aircraft. Have you actually affected the target's operational capability? If that airbase is operational within a few days, all you've done is spent $90 million dollars and done nothing to affect Syria.