John Derbyshire over at The Corner takes note of the following passage in the President’s speech last night:

Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria.

He asks, incredulously, “We haven’t been doing this? We haven’t been doing this?”

Exactly. What the Bush Doctrine has lacked from the start is an appreciation for the fine art of the ultimatum, and an understanding of what an act of war really means.

Here’s what I mean. The Bush Doctrine states that if you materially aid terrorists, you are an enemy of the United States. Which means that material aid to terrorists—especially those who have designs on America and its allies—is nothing less than an act of war against the United States.

What happens when you catch an enemy engaging in an act of war against you? At the very least, you use whatever force is necessary, wherever necessary, to stop them. (We haven’t been doing this?)

If they persist, you issue an ultimatum. You demand that they stop, within x number of hours or days, or else you will declare war upon them.

The problem here, though, is that you can’t engage in more than one such war in a generation, if you commit yourself to staying after the war, and teaching the art of living together peacefully in a democracy to a tribal and sectarian population, whose most fervent desires are to kill you and each other (not necessarily in that order). And that’s precisely how today’s American way of war makes the whole Bush Doctrine collapse.