The editorial board of the New York Times<\/em> has an Orwellian knack for war. Sixteen months ago, when President Obama gave oratorical lip service to ending \u201cperpetual war,\u201d the newspaper quickly touted that end as a democratic necessity. But now \u2013 in response to Obama\u2019s speech Wednesday night announcing escalation of war without plausible end \u2013 the Times<\/em> editorial voice is with the endless war program.<\/p>\n Under the headline \u201cThe End of the Perpetual War<\/a>,\u201d published on May 23, 2013, the Times<\/em> was vehement, calling a new Obama speech \u201cthe most important statement on counterterrorism policy since the 2001 attacks, a momentous turning point in post-9\/11 America.\u201d The editorial added: \u201cFor the first time, a president stated clearly and unequivocally that the state of perpetual warfare that began nearly 12 years ago is unsustainable for a democracy and must come to an end in the not-too-distant future.\u201d<\/p>\n The Times<\/em> editorial board was sweeping in its conclusion: \u201cMr. Obama told the world that the United States must return to a state in which counterterrorism is handled, as it always was before 2001, primarily by law enforcement and the intelligence agencies. That shift is essential to preserving the democratic system and rule of law for which the United States is fighting, and for repairing its badly damaged global image.\u201d<\/p>\n But the \u201cessential\u201d shift is now dispensable and forgettable, judging from the New York Times<\/em>editorial that appeared<\/a> hours after Obama\u2019s pivotal speech Wednesday night<\/a>. The newspaper\u2019s editorial board has ditched the concept that the state of perpetual war is unsustainable for democracy.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n