My own comments if you want something to consider.
From the recent brit thread
"What concern me about diplomacy is that I believe it can entail many things. The generally defined as peaceful method of resolving an issue is not precluded from having indirect means of supporting violence. To some, trading arms for hostages might be defined as diplomatic, as no military attacks happen. Also, the strength of diplomacy is largely dependent on the strength of the negotiator. If that will fades, people are forgotten, or evil rises again. People rightly claim a very plausible consequence of military action, chaos (civil wars, etc.), but ideally this action, when managed right, can give a short turn around, diplomacy, of course the better choice when possible, can have delays, renegotiations (which can last decades), and a will that may wither with time. For some people involved, it means prolonged oppression; for despots, it means the possible chance at another attempt to gain the power they seek. Inadequate attention and mishandling allow for this possibility. While I freely admit to diplomacy being the superior method, I am unable to be a gleeful supporter, because I doubt the integrity of some of its advocates."