Syria again - the cost issue

There is growing opposition in the US and around the world to a "symbolic strike"against Syria, and that is a good thing. Not only is the aftermath unpredictable (retaliation against Israel?  Even more hatred of the US in the Arab world?  What if he uses chemical weapons again?), but the costs are enormous.  Assuming we use Tomahawk cruise missiles for a stand-off strike, at something like $1 million apiece, not counting probably as much additional costs per missile in the costs of running and maintaining the navy ships that would fire them, a modest strike on Syria, that would probably have no real effect on the ongoing struggle, might run us $150-250 million or more.

Is this really a wise use of money at a time when we have real economic problems? Yes, I know Congress wastes money in the billions every year. But still, $150-250 million or so just so the president can say he did something, even if it is ineffective???