The way I see it, Obama is stuck between a rock and a hard place. On one hand, striking Syria will lead to major issues that quite frankly I don't think the U.S would be able to handle well. As shaska said, we will most likely lose since it will lead to war (WWIII?). On the other hand, doing nothing will undermine the ban on chemical weapons, which may result in the future use of them. The right approach would be the lesser of two evils, but what that may be is subjective. In this case I'd go with the less absolute option. If we strike Syria, there is absolutely no doubt war will occur. But if the ban is undermined it's only highly likely that there will be more cases of Chemical Weapons being used. The odds aren't good for either side, but overall I think it's best we stay out of this one.
Isn't Obama going to make a speech today in regards to this? Should be interesting to see how he'll try to convince the nation striking Syria is the better option.