Knowing your love of quoting things out of context, I'd want to see those words in their full setting.
But if it indeed turns out that the New York Times, then as now, was utterly insane... well what can I say?
My best guess would be that the alleged words you quote here were preceded by other words along the lines of, "If the Confederacy insists on war, and starts war, then..."
Bullseye.
But Congress should go further. It must adopt some measures which will enable it to act in regard to secession. At present, the action of our Government contrasts most unfavorably with the energy and freedom of action displayed at Montgomery. The Government installed there acts with a view to its own interests and convictions alone. Let us show it that while we desire peace, this is a game that two can play at. We can at once shut up every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin upon the Confederate States. We should injure our trade somewhat, but not more, perhaps, than by our present inaction, which every one sees may have to terminate in some decisive step, of the character indicated. Let us begin to have some kind of a policy. The country cannot wait till the end of next December. There is no knowing where we may drift before that time. We may not have to exert force, but a nation that cannot do so, whenever its vital interests are assailed, inspires only contempt. We cannot place ourselves in such a category. Source
The Times was talking in that hypothetical "if ... then ..." vein. Cutting out the "We can" and the rest of the context gives a very erroneous impression. Actually, the quote illustrates something we've been talking about for a while: it wasn't so much that people were presenting complete and detailed plans with clear results. Rather, the demand was for some action -- any kind of activity -- to prevent or slow down the country's collapse. The Times wasn't entirely sure what should be done, but they wanted some kind of activity from Washington to counter what was going on in the rebel zone.