Diplomacy is regarded as the end all be all of statesmanship by certain segments of our population. They say, we never gave diplomacy a chance prior to the invasion of Iraq. Those people did not favor doing anything to Iraq and urged empty talk in place of action.
The problem this brings on (in addition to the silliness of talking beyond hope) is a reaction from those opposed to the diplomacy first, diplomacy always school. The reaction is of course, that people may totally write off diplomacy as a limp wristed, effete, and ineffective way of solving problems. This is just as wrong as the first school of thought I characterize above.
Diplomacy is nothing more than a tool. It is the tape measure alongside the hammer of war in the statesman's tool belt. Both have a time and a purpose and need the other.
War without diplomacy is a cheap, a lonely, or a meaningless affair. Diplomacy without war is limp wristed and effete.
Diplomacy in the past has been used to maneuver others into war and has been used to prevent war. Diplomacy has been used to prolong war and to end war. Don't ever think diplomacy and war are opposites of each other, they are not.