Why are diplomatic options no more than one-liners for the Obama administration?

[bigtree]

16. well, yeah, in a way

. . . because, I don't see how it can be seen as a sincere effort.

Behind the abandonment of diplomacy is an open ambition to spark a change in regimes as part of their military intervention effort. That's even further aggravated by their open suspicion of the affiliations of the Syrian resistance that's expected to step into the vacuum they hope to create with their military strikes.

Understanding that you need to believe that bombing Syrian targets is a natural, reasonable, and somewhat effective progression of actions in order to accept that diplomacy has ceased to be an option, or has been 'exhausted'.

To me, military action is just a choice - not an inevitable option that should naturally follow exasperation with diplomacy. It's an 'either, or' more than it's a one-two step to war.

What Powers offered was an excuse or a justification for their abandonment of diplomacy - not a credible or complete explanation of her statement that diplomatic means have been exhausted. Not in light of her reasoning that military action should necessarily follow.