Oh come on! You know as well as I do that Rumsfield's comments were designed to get the ROK to publically say that they wanted our forces to stay. And guess what happened?

Now, I should hope that the US attempted to warn the ROK to tone down it's rhetoric against us first. Also, I'm disturbed that you appear to completely ignore the important role of our allies, the South Koreans in this. You know that they limit our options, and that the US will not leave troops stationed there if South Korea doesn't want us. (Look at the Phillippines, for example.)

You also ignore part of the role of the diplomat. The US's diplomacy requires a careful mix of threats together with symbolic gestures. To simply make symbolic gestures of friendship, as you seem to advise, would indeed be appeasement.

The Bush Administration's strategy has been fairly consistent. They are attempting to drive a harder bargain with North Korea, and make fewer concessions. There are various strategic reasons for attempting this (esp. if the DPRK is near collapse, and if aid will merely help them proliferate, and if, as it seems, they will have a nuclear program despite agreements like the Agreed Framework). It's a degree of emphasis, of changes on the margin.

North Korean diplomacy reminds me of a rabid dog, always ready to bite. Rumsfeld diplomacy reminds me of a rabid dog licking himself---- and biting off the dogbone just before it howls.

Nuts vs. stupid.

Yah, I feel safer.