He was going to head a meeting on human rights and that was what was cancelled. That was to get more movement on that before Obama's trip, which he is going on. It was cancelled because Kerry was busy AND because there was not enough progress.
As to the Atlantic article, two things. One it is Golberg, who was for taking Assad out. The other is that anyone, Obama included, aims to make themselves look good. As to the decision, Goldberg has a problem with Kerry's speech. However, consider its goal. Obama had made the decision to make a targeted strike. The goal was to explain that unpopular decision and to sell the country on its need.
As to the decision, Obama had already set that as a red line and thousands were being killed. This is where many left humanitarians like Powers advocate force. Kerry, in public, spoke of the same thing quoted here. That a response was needed. He argued that it could be targeted and designed to put enough cost that Assad would not use chemical weapons. In Europe, he spoke of an unbelievably small attack. Kerry is not a war monger, knows the cost of war, but also was never a pacifist. Here, he was against US troops, but thought something needed to be done.
Where it likely gives Kerry too little credit is where he quickly slides over the negotiations that removed the chemical weapons. From accounts at the time, no one worked harder to make that work than Kerry. Not to mention, the idea had been raised earlier, and Russia had not jumped to play their needed role. It was the threat of a US attack that put that option into play, but if Obama had not opted to delay, it would never have happened.
I am not sure that Obama or anyone comes out great in this. Obama set up the problem with his red line, which Assad crossed. He then initially decided to attack and had his admination advocate for it, including himself. It was lucky that the stars aligned and the chemical weapon deal could be the solution. It is something both Kerry and Obama are proud of. It is also clear that it was not a planned result from the beginning.
It does show that Obama was reluctant to go to war, but look at Libya. The two together show he was ambivalent, rather than resolute on this. Iran and climate change were foreign policy wins and both were things Kerry both pushed to do and he negotiated against the odds. He was told that climate change accomplishments were unlikely before he took the job.
= new reply since forum marked as read