HONOLULU -- Call me a cynic, but I've long believed that one of the greatest foreign-policy advantages the United States has enjoyed is the ineptness of the governments it has confronted. It's always good to have right on your side, but sometimes that isn't enough. Nor is might the answer: The reality of the post-Cold War diplomatic world is that unilateralism just isn't tenable, even for the world's remaining superpower. Washington's decision to pursue Iraq through the United Nations is proof of that.

Marketing matters. Often, winning international support for U.S. policy has been a "gimme" because "the bad guys" have been so bad. Invasions and sponsorship of terrorists are casus belli. Brinkmanship may make diplomatic sense, but it doesn't score public-opinion points.

Take North Korea. Although Washington loathes the North Korean regime and has no desire to discuss key issues with it, for nearly a year and a half the U.S. held its nose and said that it was willing to talk to Pyongyang, "anywhere, anytime, without preconditions." It was betting that the North wouldn't call the bluff. It was a smart move. The North Korean government could have forced the Bush administration's hand by agreeing to negotiate; instead it denounced U.S. hostility and kept its distance. While that may have been designed to drive a wedge between the U.S. and Seoul, it allowed the U.S. to take the high ground and made Pyongyang look unreasonable.