The White House and the president's acolytes claim that the credible threat of military action against Syria has brought us to where we are now, presumably a desirable position. But where are we now and what about that credible threat?
If there was ever a "credible" threat of military action (how credible is a shot across the bow and pinprick), that threat disappeared when, for whatever reason, President Barack Obama punted to Congress, and Congress and the people spoke loud and clear. There was no credible threat when Vladimir Putin threw Mr. Obama a lifeline, not to help or save Mr. Obama but to achieve his objective -- which, I submit, it looks like he will achieve at the expense of Mr. Obama achieving his.
Mr. Putin's objective: Bashar Assad remaining in power. In the past, Mr. Obama's stated objective was that Assad must go.
Chemical weapons are a sideshow; does anyone really believe that in the near term, or even long term, somehow Assad will no longer have enough of these weapons to serve his needs?
In return for some unworkable agreement on the weapons, we will agree not to bomb Assad or provide military weapons to the rebels. Kind of like the Cuban missile "victory" where Russia agreed to remove its missiles and we agreed not to try to oust Fidel Castro and not introduce missiles into Turkey.
Actually, this will result in what should have been our position in the first place -- let the parties doing the fighting decide, while devising plans based on either side winning. So, I guess one can say that Mr. Obama's (what turned out to be) non-threat of credible military threat is what will cause the most desirable result. And who said he didn't know what he was doing?