TALK of diplomacy conjures up images of discreet conversations between knowledgeable men and women, drawing on years of experience. Whether this sort of statesmanship ever existed, it is in sharp contrast to the almost cartoon-like negotiations over Syria in the past week. The United States is still holding the threat of military action over the heads of President Assad and his government. On Wednesday, President Obama made the use of chemical weapons in Syria a domestic affair - an essential move if the American public is to be engaged. "Our ideals and principles, as well as our national security, are at stake in Syria, along with our leadership of a world," he stated. At the same time, the late arrival of Russia into the fray has effected a significant shift in attitude in the Syrian leadership. The memory of Saddam Hussein is still fresh. It is unlikely that the United States will believe much of what Syria pledges to do. Given the US public's ambivalence, however, negotiation is now being favoured over force. The consolation is that negotiation, with or without a little coercion, is almost certain to be more successful in destroying the Syrian stocks of chemical weapons than air strikes would have been, especially as the Syrians have had plenty of warning to disperse their supplies.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion in all this that too much attention has been given to "ideals and principles", such as President Obama's "red line" with regard to the use chemical weapons. In their efforts to rally support for military action, before the Russian alternative was suggested, the President's team circulated photos and videos of child victims of the alleged chemical attacks. At any point during the Syrian conflict, similarly moving footage could have been produced. The implication is that it is acceptable to kill children and their parents - 100,000 of them - in mundane ways, catching them in the crossfire, bombing their homes and villages, forcing them on to the road as another winter approaches, just so long as Western protocols about particular sorts of weapons are observed. President Obama said: "America is not the world's policeman. Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong. But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act." The question is raised: might the same modest effort stop the bombing of children? The greatest mistake in the present crisis would be for the Western nations to accept a face-saving climb-down over chemical weapons, and then leave the Syrians to their fate. If the Russian-backed move to remove chemical stocks succeeds, it shows that a concerted but peaceful approach - with a "modest effort and risk" from the US and elsewhere - has the potential to bring the Syrian conflict to an end.