We Do Not Have a 'Short War Obsession'

Architects and supporters of a given war will often underestimate the difficulty and length of a conflict, but that is not a "short war obsession."

Raphael Cohen and Gian Gentile take aim at a “short war obsession” in the United States that doesn’t really exist:

The United States’ adversaries—be it the Taliban yesterday, Russia today, or potentially China tomorrow—bank on Washington’s strategic impatience. They presume that if they hold on for long enough, Americans’ desire for short wars will sabotage their efforts in time. If the United States’ objective is to win, the only thing worse than fighting a long war may be thinking it’s possible to avoid one.

It is true that architects and supporters of a given war will often underestimate the difficulty and length of a conflict, but that is very different from saying that Americans have an “obsession” or “fascination” with short wars. Hawks frequently claim that the wars they champion will be short, cheap, and easy. That isn’t because they have an “obsession” with short wars, but because they want to minimize the costs of the policy they are trying to sell. It is naturally easier to rally people behind an unnecessary war if they think it will lead to an easy, cheap victory, so this is what warmongers always promise. It is correct that wars always take longer and cost more than its cheerleaders promised, but that is a reason to stop listening to such people. It is not really a reason to prepare ourselves to fight in grinding slogs that seem endless.