Demagogue

I'm confused by this Wall Street Journal editorial

If American policy makers want to avoid facing another Srebrenica on their watch, they must never let the U.N. determine the mission. Allowing the Europeans to "take the lead" is also a bad idea. Above all, Srebrenica is what happens when Western policy makers reject taking pre-emptive measures against gathering dangers, so that by the time the dangers are obvious it is too late to do something.

It has become trendy in certain circles to speak of "No More Srebrenicas," as well as "No More Rwandas" and "No More Darfurs." If these people really believe the slogan, then the policy to make it work already has a name. It's called the Bush Doctrine.

So the Bush Doctrine can ensure "No more Darfurs"?

That is good to know but doesn't provide much solace to the nearly 400,000 dead.

But considering that the Bush Doctrine has been in place since 2001, I kind of have to wonder why, if it can prevent "more Darfurs," it didn't prevent ... you know ... Darfur?