Diplomacy should always be the first choice, and responsible conservatives agree with that. The question is whether diplomacy alone — without the credible threat of force — actually prevents conflict. History consistently says no.

The most famous example is Munich, 1938. Neville Chamberlain negotiated with Adolf Hitler in good faith, achieved a diplomatic agreement, and returned home declaring 'peace for our time.' Within a year, Hitler invaded Poland, and the most destructive war in human history began. Chamberlain's mistake wasn't trying diplomacy — it was believing diplomacy could work with a leader who had no intention of keeping his agreements.

The pattern repeats. Diplomatic agreements with North Korea in 1994 (the Agreed Framework) and 2005 (Six-Party Talks) were all violated. Iran continued nuclear development despite the JCPOA. Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum guaranteeing Ukraine's territorial integrity, then invaded twice.

By contrast, deterrence — diplomacy backed by credible force — has an impressive track record. The Cold War ended without nuclear conflict largely because both sides knew that aggression would be met with devastating response. Reagan's military buildup and willingness to negotiate from strength led to arms reduction treaties that actually held.

The most effective diplomatic outcomes in history have been achieved when American military power was at its strongest: the post-WWII reconstruction, the Camp David Accords, the fall of the Berlin Wall. Enemies negotiate seriously when the alternative is credible military force.

Roman general Vegetius said it 1,600 years ago: 'Si vis pacem, para bellum' — if you want peace, prepare for war. This isn't because war is desirable. It's because adversaries only respect strength. Diplomacy without teeth is just hoping, and hope isn't a strategy.