You would be welcomed by Obama as one of his spinmeisters.
Assuming you know what Assad thinks and wants is a risky thing, for you and the State Department.
Saying the objective was met at this point cannot be supported.
Face palm. Ok, lets see if we can discuss this matter without the brain draining effects of the fox news school of cognition.
First I do agree that nothing concrete has happened, so yes saying that the objective has been met is premature. Although I don't expect Assad to disrupt the removal of the chemical weapons an American attack is still very much a possibility.
Now to highlight Obama's role in all of this (because clearly you're unable to see other aspects of this issue that don't involve Obama):
In no way was he proactive in finding a peaceful solution. He took the path of jingoism as expected of all American presidents and that reflects poorly upon him. Also just to be clear, this "red line" business is not an Obama issue per se. it's an American problem. We do not elect presidents unless they make all sorts of idiotic commitments in the Middle East for the sake of Israel (in spite of the fact that all of this is counter productive).
When the Syria issue first appeared on the horizon Obama went the gung ho route. It wasn't until later when he realized that maybe this is not the best way to go because 1. lack of public support and 2. He probably became more attuned to the sheer futility of getting involved in Syria. Yet he persisted for the sake of his foot-in-mouth "red line" commitment. Him and Kerry were willing to waste the tax payer's money on a pointless endeavor just to make a point. But then Obama started stalling and backtracking by going to congress (and hedging his bets). Then Kerry made a gaffe and that led to an inadvertent potentially peaceful resolution.
Now if it's possible at all, and I know this may be very difficult for you, but let's see if we can analyze the outcome of these events as Americans.
What is the outcome if Assad does go through with total removal of chemical weapons?
1. We don't get involved in a futile conflict
2. We don't start another war which a majority of the people don't want.
3. We save a lot of money
4. The American president for once pretends like he believes in the democratic process when it comes to foreign policy
5. Islamic radicals will remember that it was Putin who supported Assad and go after him when the dust settles instead of us
6. Our silly chemical weapons issue is resolved (many more people have died and will die due to conventional weapons to which we have no commitments)
That this situation may work out without military intervention is a very good thing
for the nation. Obama deserves no direct accolades for this. Yes, he was sensible in stalling, but he did it using cowardly political tricks. If he were truly a man of conviction he would have had the courage to openly say that Syria is a hopeless case and we have nothing to contribute and we ought to let the people of the Middle East handle their own problems. But he didn't. In the end he just got lucky.
Then again, nothing is set in stone yet, Assad could renege and then Obama will use the military to strike because he's just that vain.
Now, do you see how this benefits the United States or are you still hung up on Obama?