Man, was that a bad State of the Union President Bush gave, the other night. Sure, it sounded bipartisan on the domestic front. He didn't come off being too much one way or the other on key issues. He even sounded out on some talking points that could have come right out of Bill Clinton. As one talking head said, it was hard to tell whether a Democrat or a Republican wrote the words down. And maybe that's a signal that he's willing to wheel and deal with Congress on some sticking points.

But when it came to the War on Terror, it was a dud.

No, actually it was worse than a dud - it was a mistimed bomb. It's one thing to have a bomb drop down and fail to detonate, but quite another to have the thing blow up while you're taking off from the carrier. And that's what this was.

Let's say that the President is correct when he says that Iraq, Iran and North Korea are all state sponsors of terrorism. At the very least, let's assume there are forces operating within the government, or steadfastly loyal to it, who perform terrorist acts. Do we really want to let them know, up front and officially, that we're looking at them down the barrel of a gun?

This isn't the sort of war where someone did something to us, and now we're going to do it back three-fold to them. 9/11 may have woken us up and gotten us moving on Afghanistan, but the other targets we need to engage might not do anything of the sort. And if they had any ideas about trying something like 9/11, well... hopefully they've learned better.

But what if they haven't? And what if they heard that speech and have realized that it's really only a matter of time before the might of the US Military is focused right on them for what might be a very brief, photogenic war that they cannot hope to win? One excuse is all that's needed to get our boys on their shores. Heck, maybe not even that.

If I were in the place of certain individuals in power in those counties - especially in Iraq and North Korea - I'd decide to gamble and try and cripple America before they did the same to us. When you've got no hope with one option, and a slim hope with the other, you take the slim hope and pray to whomever's listening that it works.

And let's look at who we're dealing with, here. Saddam Hussein is a jerk who'll rain poison gas down on his own people, and a really bad gambler to boot. I wouldn't put it past him to do something stupid just to try and stave off the inevitable.

But as bad as Saddam is, at least he's playing with a full deck of cards. North Korea's Kim Jong-Il, on the other hand, is a complete nutjob.

When I was living in South Korea, it seemed that a month didn't go by that North Korea's "leadership" didn't froth at the mouth over something. Defectors were always revealing some horrid plan to lob missiles over the DMZ and turn South Korea into a parking lot. I doubt things have changed much since I've been gone, and if that's not just defectors telling their benefactors what they want to hear, then what might a madman do to America?

And Iran... good grief, talk about bad timing. For the first time in what seems forever, we've got a good chance that the people of Iran - who are clamoring for reform - have an advocate in President Mohammed Khatami. He might not be the ideal leader in American eyes, but he's nowhere near as bad as the Clerics he's duking it out with. And we just had to go point a finger at them... well, it's back to the drawing board with that one.

In short, telling your enemies that you've got them lined up for an invasion is not - repeat, NOT - a good idea when said enemies might have agents in country ready to go blow up something important. He shouldn't have named names. He should have kept it vague. And even if names had to be named, there was a very compelling argument to leave Iran off the list.

This is the sort of war where we're dealing with an enemy that doesn't always wear a uniform, march in formation or adhere to an open strategy. Their most deadly operatives are off in the shadows, moving very quietly and waiting to strike when we least expect. This isn't the sort of war where you shoot the guy with a gun coming over the hill and hope the home front can take care of the spies and saboteurs. This is a war where the enemy is the spies and saboteurs, with the soldiers hanging out back at home to watch the skies and kick the dissidents.

In other words, we can't count on our military to be a deterrent. They might only ever be useful in launching a counter-attack after the damage has already been done. And I don't want to think about what that damage might be...

Success in this matter requires that we wage a different form of war, with different tactics and a sound strategy to back them up. And I'll tell you this much for free: naming names on the TV is NOT the way to go on this one. You never, ever telegraph your direct intentions - not even in a more traditional war. In this kind of war, we should telegraph nothing at all, save our desire to win.

If I were Dubya, I'd take no more speeches from whomever scribbled that one. And if Dubya was the culprit, I'd strongly hope certain individuals in the Cabinet start proofing the thing for boo-boos before he goes live.

We're starting to shoot our efforts in the foot. If the problem continues, we might be digging our own graves

"... Lancelot, Galahad and I leap out of the rabbit..." - Monty Python and the Holy Grail