meanwhile, in north korea news

Leon Sigal writes in the The Boston Globe that Bush policy towards North Korea has also failed. Is there anything these guys can do right besides read their Machiavelli and Strauss (not counting Bush on the latter)?

US hard-liners would rather pick a fight with China than negotiate with North Korea. They demand that Beijing pressure Pyongyang to capitulate to Washington's demands. Yet why would China ever cut off food and oil supplies and jeopardize the North Korean regime's survival? After all, China has been the chief beneficiary of the administration's refusal to deal.

In the 1990s Beijing watched warily on the sidelines as Pyongyang wooed Washington, Seoul, and Tokyo. It feared that Pyongyang was moving to legitimate the US military presence in Korea or, worse, become a US ally. That was all but inconceivable to Washington, which looked to Beijing for help with Pyongyang.

While Beijing's willingness to pressure Pyongyang became a litmus test for hard-liners spoiling for confrontation with China, the need for Beijing's help with Pyongyang was the main justification for officials favoring accommodation with China. Either way, the United States has put China back into the game with North Korea, as quarterback no less, in a position to enhance its influence in the region by playing well with others -- not to pressure Pyongyang, but to get Washington to deal.

Far from isolating North Korea, the United States is itself becoming odd man out in the region. If this misguided course had a name, it would be hawk disengagement.