The following editorial appeared recently in the Los Angeles Times.

Disparate, simultaneous crises around the world have put the Obama administration's foreign policy on trial in recent weeks. The forward march of Islamic State insurgents in Iraq has led to renewed military action in the very country the president so vehemently sought to leave when he took office. In Israel and Gaza, the limitations of American power have been on full display. In Ukraine, the U.S. has failed to prevent Russian President Vladimir Putin from trying to destabilize the country.

So it was a rare bit of good news to hear from the administration this week that the United States had "finished neutralizing" hundreds of tons of the most deadly chemical weapons belonging to the regime of President Bashar Assad of Syria. This was a milestone in the diplomatic process that began a year ago this week when the Assad government was accused of using sarin gas to kill more than 1,000 people in a rebel-held suburb near Damascus. Obama had previously promised that the use of chemical weapons in the country's civil war would constitute a "red line" and would change his "calculus." So when the accusations were confirmed, the president was under enormous pressure to punish Syria militarily.

But rather than launch airstrikes, as he had prepared to do, Obama agreed at the last minute to a Russian proposal under which Syria would voluntarily surrender its chemical weapons for destruction. Conservatives assailed the plan as naive and feckless. Obama's supporters called it a fulfillment of his campaign promise to negotiate with those who were willing to talk in good faith.

It would be foolish to declare the mission accomplished. As Secretary of State John Kerry pointed out, there are still "discrepancies and omissions" to be addressed in the information Syria has provided about its weapons arsenal. Furthermore, Syria still has "production facilities" that must be destroyed.

But this week's announcement was promising, and we are inclined to reiterate our position that negotiation and diplomacy are a better alternative to what would otherwise have been airstrikes followed by likely civilian deaths and a worrisome creep toward war.