Are we at war, or aren’t we?

In the days since the botched Christmas bombing, a political firestorm has erupted (again) over our national response to Islamic terrorism.

Post 9/11, the Bush Administration put the country on sort of half of a war footing, organizing two invasions and occupations, setting up secret detention camps, but also cutting taxes and encouraging Americans to get out there and shop.

After Barack Obama’s inauguration, the Democrats distanced themselves subtly from the “war” metaphor, embracing law-enforcement, intelligence, and judicial strategies for crippling jihadist groups.

But Mr. Obama also backed a major escalation of the war in Afghanistan.

So what gives? Are we at war? Is that a useful mindset for dealing with a largely disparate and cellular threat that transcends national boundaries, cultures, and ethnic groups?

It’s clear now that the “post-911” worldview embraced by conservatives has led us into as many blunders as successes.

The Iraq War turns out to have been a distraction from the real Al Quaeda threat, which was germinating in places like Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and London’s East End.

And despite all the boots on the ground and drones in the sky, we still haven’t nabbed Osama bin Laden.

This is a debate that deserves serious and fairly rigorous treatment. Instead, we’re likely to get

The dismaying part is that this attack is likely to spark a political scrum, rather than trigger concrete and productive decision-making.

Republicans are already accusing Democrats of being “soft” on terror.

But the question now isn’t how to be harder. We’ve done the shock and awe thing for a decade and we’re still deeply vulnerable.

The question is how to be more ruthless and efficient at gathering intelligence and putting it to use against our enemies.

This is one of those moments when the fresh thinking promised by Mr. Obama during the 2008 campaign would be deeply welcome.