The war on Islamofascists is different -- not only do we not know how long it will last, no one even knows how to define what an "end" to this war looks like. By most accounts it's expected to go on for at least 50 years (and since it's been going on for the last many centuries, that's probably an optimistic assessment). It is a pretty solid reality that any infringements we allow in the name of this war will be permanent.
The real argument here is whether we should permenantly give up Constitutional protection of x, y and z rights. But the temporary suspension of government protections that characterized traditional wars is not relevant here. As things stand now, there will be no point in our lifetimes where the war on Islamofascists can be declared won, and our Constitutional protections restored.
But I am contending that, upon entry into any, it is impossible to define what it's "end" will look like.
In retrospect, of course, everything seems quite clear -- almost pre-ordained. But it doesn't look that way on the front end.
Yes, we have to be prepared to fight the jihadists for fifty years -- or more. But is it not possible that, one day, we will wake up and everything will have changed?
For example, nobody -- at least nobody in a position of policy-making expertise nor with a historical perspective -- foresaw the sudden end of the Cold War. It just happened.
My point is that ALL wars are necessarily unpredictable, with indefinable ends.
Accordingly, one does what is necessary to win them. See Truman, Hiroshima.