Certainly everyone, including the Bush administration, prefers diplomatic solutions over military solutions. But rational people understand that sometimes, diplomacy isn’t enough. Diplomacy failed utterly with Nazi Germany. Was that because Great Britain and others didn’t have effective diplomats? Was it because their approach to a diplomatic solution was the wrong approach and another might have worked? Or was it simply that Hitler was not going to be deterred by diplomacy? Was it that Hitler was willing to milk the diplomatic process to gain more time to achieve his goals.

Generally speaking Republicans subscribe to the second set possibilities. Democrats, it appears, subscribe to the first. They seem to believe that there is no situation that cannot be solved diplomatically. The only question is, what is the correct diplomatic approach? Based on this belief, every situation that results in military conflict is a failure of diplomacy in the sense that whoever directed the diplomatic effort chose the wrong diplomatic course. The implication is that another approach would have been successful.

Interestingly, when a Democrat is in the White House, Democrats in general are much less willing to apply the standard they espouse when a Republican is in the White House. What does that imply? Well, it implies one of two things, neither of which is flattering to Democrats.

The first possible implication is that Democrats don’t really believe what they say they believe. It implies that they agree with us that, in the end, some situations do not have a diplomatic solution and require military solutions. But they are willing to pretend to a belief in order to politically harm a sitting president.

The second possible implication is that Democrats do believe what they say they believe but they are unwilling to apply it to a president from their own party because it would be politically damaging to do so.

Either way, the implication is that, for Democrats, politics trumps belief. Political advantage is more important than principle. Another word for that is demagogue. Indeed, either way you slice it, you come up with Democrats being demagogues.

Yes, there are times when diplomacy fails. Every administration wants to exhaust the diplomatic options before moving on to more hostile, militaristic options. Every administration understands that, while diplomacy must always be pursued, sometimes it will fail. Failure, however, does not automatically mean that the approach was wrong. Sometimes it simply means diplomacy was never going to work. It has to be tried but it will not always work. That means diplomatic failure does not necessarily say anything about the attempt or the administration making the attempt.

Democrats, however, see in diplomatic failure, an opportunity to score political points. Since the greatest good, in their view, is for them to regain power, it is always acceptable to demagogue an issue for political gain. The end justifies the means, in other words.

We now face a dangerous situation with North Korea. One commenter on another site said he didn’t see how Bush could possibly be helped by the North Korean nuclear test. He said, “All it shows is that yet another piece of their national security approach has been a dismal failure.” In his view, Bush is responsible for Kim Jong Il’s actions. It never occurs to him that Clinton’s approach was no better and, arguably, may have been worse.

It must ultimately be accepted that diplomacy has little chance of working with any leader who cannot be trusted to honor the agreements he makes. Kim Jong Il made specific agreements with the Clinton administration. He did not keep them. Is that Bush’s fault? It is not and .iIt is irrational to expect a liar to keep his word.

The situation Bush now faces remains, for the moment, a diplomatic one because we don’t have a lot of military options just now. But eventually we will have to make military options. North Korea is not going to change and if they are allowed to continue in the direction they are headed, it will embolden other megalomaniacal leaders to pursue similar policies.

In the end the real diplomatic failure will be the failure to recognize when diplomacy is at an end. It has been said that war is merely diplomacy by other means. True diplomatic failure is the unwillingness to accept that diplomacy has ceased to be fruitfuland it is time to move on to “other means.”

H/T Protein Wisdom

Click here to view the embedded video.

The much touted agreement between Clinton and North Korea has indeed born fruit and it isn’t the fruit we were told to expect when the agreement was made. You will recall that the deal was the US would provide technology and assistance to help North Korea develop nuclear power plants in exchange for their promise to stay away from nuclear weapons. The result? Nuclear weapons in the hands of a madman thanks to Democrats and their unfathomable willingness to negotiate with countries who have demonstrated they will not honor agreements. Does anyone doubt those weapons will end up in the hands of terrorists at some point? After all, North Korea is hurting for money and the terrorists have money to buy WMD with.

There are countless lessons to be learned in this, not least, that we cannot hope to negotiate with regimes like North Korea and Iran. The dems, however, refuse to learn that lesson and therein lies another lesson for voters. There will never be a point at which dems are willing to say it is time to move beyond negotiations with Iran or any other rogue nation. In their world view, there is never any reason for military intervention (except possibly as a diversion from pressing political bad news). In their world, diplomacy can always win without the need for armed conflict. They will always claim that military action only results from a failure to engage diplomatically.

This, of course, ignores the reality of the world we live in. There are deranged megalomaniacs running countries that will never be honest negotiating partners. They will lie and cheat and get all they can from the US and then stab us and the world in the back. Kim Jong Il is merely the latest example. Still, dems continue to believe, or at least claim to believe, that if we just say the right things and give these regimes the right incentives, we will prevail. This is a utopian pipe dream and will never be realized.

So now we are approaching the mid-term elections in less than a month. As I’ve noted in other contexts, the choices could not be more stark. As weak as Republicans have been on spending, boarder control and other issues dear to the conservative heart, they are the clear choice for all who would live in a world where rogue leaders are punished and removed, militarily if necessary. The Democrats are the choice of appeasers and the delusional among us who think the most egregious offenders can be dealt with always with words and empty threats.

The dangers we face in this world are escalating almost daily. Between insane leaders like Kim Jong Il and the aspirations of world conquest held by Iran and others in the Islamic world, there is little choice for me. I must give my political support to those I believe will do what is required to protect this country and the world. That is the Republicans. The Democrats have demonstrated time and again that they are not up to the job and indeed, they will stand in the way of doing the job.

Click here to view the embedded video.