Strike Syria?

If there were ever a case to be made that the institution of the Presidency is far too dangerous for a single person to control, it couldn't be made better than by looking at Barack Obama's upcoming decision about what to do of the chemical weapon attack in Syria.

Consider this:

• American's strongly oppose military intervention in Syria, by nearly a 2-1 margin.  
• Though the constitution mandates that the power to declare war lay with congress, they are unlikely to get a chance to vote on it.  For the long standing practice of having undeclared wars, I would say that an act of war is as strong a declaration of war as there is.  If the Japanese had said after Pearl Harbor, "just kidding"... would that have slowed down our response?  
• It won't be internationally recognized by the United Nations either, as they just rejected a call for military intervention.  

And yet, warships steam towards what seems like an inevitable destination to drop their bombs.  I think everyone agrees that what the Syrian government did to its own people is outrageous, and deserves international intervention.  But I more strongly believe the will of the people should hold the day.  Does this even remotely look like Democracy in action?

----------------------------------------------------------

Edit: Looks like Congress will get its chance to vote on a strike in Syria.  While I thank the Obama administration for seeking the consent of American's in committing an act of war, I still believe he very well could have carried out the strike had he wanted to... for instance, he never sought a vote in attacking Lybia.  Because of this, I stand by my previous opinion that too much power lay with the institution of the presidency.