I think the counterargument would be that politics is the orderly handling of coercive force and authority.
When this orderly approach isn't sufficient, additional coercive force is added to the mix. At some point it starts to look like war.
To people on the wrong side of the political hierarchy, every day looks like war as armed troops (police) occupy neighborhoods seeking to enforce an externally imposed code that criminalizes normal, consensual behavior, confiscates wealth and property, and destroys civil society.
> when politicians fail to negotiate
In a sense, yes. If one politician demands that a foreign leader step down or face a US invasion, one can interpret the foreign leader's failure to step down as a breakdown in negotiations, but I think that is quite a stretch.
When this orderly approach isn't sufficient, additional coercive force is added to the mix. At some point it starts to look like war.
To people on the wrong side of the political hierarchy, every day looks like war as armed troops (police) occupy neighborhoods seeking to enforce an externally imposed code that criminalizes normal, consensual behavior, confiscates wealth and property, and destroys civil society.
> when politicians fail to negotiate
In a sense, yes. If one politician demands that a foreign leader step down or face a US invasion, one can interpret the foreign leader's failure to step down as a breakdown in negotiations, but I think that is quite a stretch.