As a Baby Boomer, I was weaned on the righteous glory of World War II, then chastened by Vietnam, a misguided, confused conflict that still haunts many Americans, as well as many Vietnamese.

Since 1945 our military forces have done what they’ve always done, discharged their duties with loyalty, courage and skill. But their dependability hasn’t always been matched by the quality of their civilian leadership.

This breeds in some of us a reflexive skepticism about military action, and the wars of the 21st century haven’t helped. The attack on Afghanistan in 2001 was justified but poorly executed. After years of combat a successful outcome still eludes us.

And Iraq? After 14 years of suffering and cost, one of our greatest foreign policy miscalculations is far from resolved.

Thus the irresistible satisfaction generated by our missile attack against Syria’s Bashar al-Assad last week — no one deserves it more — is tempered by the same ominous feeling that many had in March of 2003, when George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were mounting the assault on Baghdad.

Skepticism about the Tomahawk missile strike against Assad’s Al Shayrat airfield seems particularly justified since it is in such startling contrast to policies that the Trump campaign ran on and that seemed to inform Trump’s administration until only a couple of days before the attack.

Furthermore, President Trump’s decision seems to have been driven partly by emotion rather than by a well-considered strategy with clear goals. Trump isn’t known for his appreciation of subtlety and nuance. In fact, he’s more likely to be moved by impulse than by careful calculation.

In addition, the ancient Shia versus Sunni divide serves as a complicating backdrop to Syria’s civil war, and any steps we take can easily be seen as choosing sides in a conflict over which we have no control. And then there’s ISIS.

How carefully were these factors weighed during the 63 hours between Assad’s chemical weapons attack on his own people and the Tomahawk attack on Al Shayrat by the Trump administration, which has yet to find its footing in the White House?

Of course, none of this means that the missile attack was a mistake; Trump’s instincts could be correct. But how could he have assuaged the well-founded concerns of citizens who have witnessed our record of futility when we attempt military intervention in parts of the world we don’t understand?

Here’s where our nation’s current hyperpartisanship is so damaging. Indulge a fantasy: a phone call from President Trump to former President Obama. Few have spent more time thinking about Syria, Iran, Russia and ISIS than Obama. Indeed, the complaint against Obama is that he spent too much time thinking and not enough acting.

But Obama had his reasons for choosing a diplomatic course rather than a military attack against Syria in 2013, after Assad perpetrated a much larger chemical attack against his own people. I suspect they had nothing to do with indecision, incompetence or timidity. Obama was unrelenting in his pursuit of al Qaeda and ISIS leaders, and he was willing to risk his presidency to kill the SOB who took down the World Trade Center.

But things have changed in Syria since 2013. Assad is winning and Russia is more deeply involved. A missile strike may have been his best option, but Trump could have built confidence in the attack with public coordination between his administration and the one that has been grappling with the Syrian civil war since its beginning.

Alas, we do not live in the happy land where this kind of bipartisan coordination is possible. And we’ve traded a president characterized by caution, deliberation and diplomacy for one inclined toward emotion, impulse and instinct.

President Trump should accept help in finding a prudent middle path between these two poles wherever he can find it.

John M. Crisp, an op-ed columnist for Tribune News Service, teaches in the English Department at Del Mar College.