Is it possible that the administration is afraid of using the military because we already have two theaters of operations at the moment and possibly soon a third in Iran?
Why the diplomacy route?
As well the Administration SHOULD be.
Let's be clear: an attack on North Korea means a full scale war against an army of more than a million men. It means nuclear strikes somewhere - South Korea, Japan maybe. It means a disastrous blow for the world economy. It means a massive military mobilization in the USA, with steep tax hikes. In short, it means all out war.
Meanwhile, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan won't go away.
The US is in no position to start a war with North Korea right now. The North Koreans beat us. They drove for nuclear weapons, we said no. They did it, we could not stop them, and we cannot make them disarm. Kim Jong Il outmaneuvered and defeated George Bush, and he just humiliated us in front of the world, by getting on the air just after Bush told everyone we have an agreement, to say he's not disarming.
He's not.
And we can't make him.
Match. Set. Point.
And now, we are going to see exactly the same thing happen in Iran. Iran is going to humiliate Bush and the US in front of the whole world too, and get nuclear weapons. We will not stop it, we will not force them to disarm once they get them. Two of the three Axis of Evil states are going to whip our ass in public and wipe our noses in it.
It's a sorry place to be, but that's what happens when you run a war into the ground. Which we have.
"Is it possible that the administration is afraid of using the military because we already have two theaters of operations at the moment and possibly soon a third in Iran?"
That's what it's looking like. We got Saddam at the cost of a nuclear North Korea.