A war in perpetuity, as any so-called "War on Terror" must surely be, can't but sound the eventual death knell to freedom.

In his belated response to the nearly successful efforts of the so-called "Christmas Day" bomber to bring down an American passenger jet, President Obama issued a statement regarding the situation of which this most recent act of terrorism is a function that was no less belated: we are at war, the President declared, and we are "war" with "al Qaeda."

The President's conduct with respect to our Islamic foes, and the definitiveness with which he for the very first time pronounced that we are engaged in a "war," provides much food for thought.

It is no wonder that the President is just now, after a year in office, describing our relationship with the Islamic terrorists who are on a divine mission to rid the world of all infidels as one of "war." The most obvious reason for this abrupt change of attitude is that the President, increasingly perceived, as he is, as being weak on matters pertaining to terrorism, reasonably supposes that by employing the language of "war" in connection to terrorists, he will alter this perception. He is also aware, no doubt, that although this most recent incident didn't (thank God) materialize, its diffusion owed no thanks to our government, and it follows all too closely on the heels of the Fort Hood massacre that he and his fellow partisans in politics and the media labored indefatigably to establish was but a random, "isolated" event having nothing to do with Islam or Islamic terrorism.

In other words, Obama's newly found taste for "tough talk" concerning terrorism is an implicit recognition on his part that his sustained effort to convince Americans of the potential of his election and inauguration to usher in a glorious new millennium in which the violent tensions between the United States and the Islamic world would be seamlessly resolved has failed miserably. Not only hasn't the hostility of jihadists toward America abated, it seems that they have become all the more belligerent under Obama's watch. At the very least, their success or near success rate of wreaking terror against America has improved.

Although many self-styled "conservatives" suspect, correctly, that Obama's belated acknowledgement that we are at "war" is motivated by opportunistic considerations, they nevertheless express relief that he at least identified our circumstances by its proper term. They should, however, rethink their elation, and they should begin to do so by bearing in mind a truth of which conservative thinkers have been aware for centuries.

War is the emblem of a state emergency. There is no greater crisis that a state can suffer, no set of circumstances further removed from the ordinary, than those of war. It is true that in our violent, broken world, war, regrettably, is more often than not an indispensable means to sustaining freedom, but it is no less true that during times of war freedom is never more greatly imperiled, for it is then that the government, in the name of victory, faces none of the resistance to the measures it appropriates that it otherwise would. It is during war that government is expected to exercise its vast powers, not just toward the Enemy, but toward citizens. To put it more simply, when a state is at war, its government can coerce the citizenry far easily and to a far greater extent than it could at any other time. That this is true is borne out by the fact that the language of "war" is co-opted by all activists in their attempts to enlist greater governmental power in the service of their projects: "The War on Drugs," "The War on Poverty," "The War Against Racism," and President Obama's very own "Civilian Task Force," are alike instances of this general tendency.

Unless any "armchair generals" misunderstand me, I reiterate once more that for as dreadful as it is, war must always remain an option if liberty and the peace and order from which it is inseparable stand a chance of surviving. But a war in perpetuity, as any so-called "War on Terror" must surely be, can't but sound the eventual death knell to freedom. In addition, then, to his desire to redeem his popular image, I believe that the President's decision to declare a "war" against "al Qaeda" is as well motivated by his desire to avail himself of an even greater quantum of the reservoir of power to which he has access. And as for anyone who has any doubts of this contention, I urge him or her to recall Rahm Emmanuel's own admission regarding the rich plethora of political opportunities that crises afford.

Unlike wars between states, this is a "war" that can have no terminal point. Thus, the last thing that any lover of freedom wants is for his government, irrespective of its administration, to proclaim itself engaged in a "war" against an abstraction like "terror." And when the administration consists of radical leftists like our current one, you can rest assured that it will be only a matter of time before any and every expansion of power will have as its rationale "the War on Terror" or — as in this case — "the War on al Qaeda."