Diplomacy at Mis-work

In light of the new 'agreement' with North Korea, the New York Times has taken to criticizing the Bush Administration for not being diplomatic and resorting to "name-calling" and other "confrontational tactics" in past negotiations with North Korea. They presume the President will be shocked that "Diplomacy..[works] after all." But perhaps the most telling line is when they become almost nostalgic that the Bush administration "has rediscovered the safeguards and rewards of peaceful international diplomacy in general and this vital treaty in particular."

First and foremost, I will believe the 'treaty' when I see it in action. Not when they say they've disarmed or not when UN inspectors say they have disarmed; when American Military experts are allowed into North Korea and give the okay, that is when I will believe what is coming out of Pyongyang. In fact they have already requested an Atomic Energy Reactor. I assume they want to use this for 'energy reasons' just like Iran. So before the New York Times gives Condi Rice and Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill accolades for "serious negotiation" lets see what we 'seriously' get from it.

As for Bush's past "confrontational tactics," let's just say Serious Dictators never listen to 'Serious Diplomacy'. In fact, I distinctly remember serious attempts at diplomacy in 1938, treaties, in fact, that resulted in "Peace in [thier] Time." (Not to mention one of the Greatest Fools ever to be British PM.) Besides, scare tactics work more often than not; and we're looking for results here, not a good grade in International Manners class.

Furthurmore, its not like President Bush doesn't try diplomacy, he did on more than one occasion with Saddam, he just doesn't try it absurdly. When diplomacy accomplishes the proper end, it is the best and preferred option. However, this is often not the case, and President Bush has, quite frankly, exhibited a very good understanding of this, as he seems to know when to give up on dimplomacy and resort to Force.

To be perfectly frank, "the importance of international agreements" is absolutely none if there is no force or threat in place to back them up. And thats what We're here for. That what Bush, or more specifically The United States, does in this world: We keep the peace. Bush's beefing up of National Security and War on Terror are not his "discounting" of International Treaties, they're his strengthening of them. Fighting for Peace and stability is not a new drill in this great Country.
So in the future, after this current North Korea agreement falls through, when Bush resorts to 'threatening' tactics, remember, he's doing it for the Good of the whole World.

Seriously