As tensions between the United States and China intensify, particularly regarding Taiwan, U.S. defense strategy remains fixated on the prospect of a quick, decisive victory. The prevailing view is that the U.S. must be prepared to thwart a Chinese invasion of Taiwan swiftly, employing a strategy that aims to deliver a rapid blow to Chinese forces. However, as the possibility of a protracted war looms larger, some experts are questioning whether this approach truly reflects the reality of modern warfare. The looming question: is the U.S. heading toward a “Suez moment” in its confrontation with China, where the assumption of a swift, decisive battle may prove to be a fatal flaw?
The Allure of Rapid Victory
U.S. defense planners have been concentrating on ways to prevent or repel a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, an island of immense strategic importance. The focus has been on preventing China from securing a foothold in Taiwan by inflicting swift and severe losses on the Chinese military. For China, a short, quick war, leveraging its geographic advantage, is preferable, as it seeks to capitalize on the U.S.’s distance from the region and the time it would take for reinforcements to arrive.
Both the U.S. and China are aiming for a rapid, decisive battle, but history suggests that such outcomes are rare. Conflicts between great powers are often prolonged and marked by attrition, even if initial battles seem decisive. This historical lesson poses a challenge for U.S. defense strategy, which appears to hinge on the notion of quick victory.
The Decisive Battle Dilemma
The United States sees China as its primary global rival, given China’s economic rise and military ambitions. Many U.S. defense experts believe that developing the capabilities to defeat China in a Taiwan crisis will ensure American dominance in any future conflict. However, this thinking is based on the assumption that a quick and decisive battle over Taiwan is both possible and desirable. The United States’ military preparations assume the ability to disrupt China’s invasion early and decisively — but this outlook may be dangerously flawed.
In reality, warfare, especially between nuclear-armed great powers like the U.S. and China, is seldom decided in a single battle. Even if the U.S. succeeds in denying China control over Taiwan in the short term, the prospect of a lengthy conflict is far more likely. Neither side is likely to achieve a decisive victory quickly, which sets the stage for a prolonged war of attrition, where the question becomes not whether either side can secure an immediate victory, but rather how long they can sustain the fight and what it will take to impose costs on the other.
The High Cost of a Short War
A strategy that focuses on rapid, decisive victory risks overlooking the very real possibility of protracted conflict. The U.S. military’s emphasis on quick results, overwhelming force, and rapid escalation management — though effective in some scenarios — may leave Washington poorly prepared for the realities of a drawn-out war. In such a scenario, the U.S. will need more than just an arsenal of weapons; it must have the strategic depth to weather a sustained war and the economic and geopolitical tools to challenge China’s military-industrial capacity.
It’s essential to recognize that success in a protracted war goes beyond inflicting damage on an opponent’s military forces. A truly victorious strategy requires targeting not just military assets, but also a nation’s economic and industrial power. For instance, weakening China’s military-industrial base through economic sanctions or indirect military actions abroad may be as important as the immediate destruction of frontline military forces.
Moving Beyond the Quick Fix: Preparing for Protraction
U.S. military planners will need to rethink the assumptions of rapid decisive battle and shift toward strategies that embrace the possibility of a long conflict. To prepare for such a scenario, the U.S. must consider force preservation as a primary concern. The initial stages of a war should be focused on surviving and limiting the enemy’s ability to inflict decisive damage, rather than trying to force an early victory at all costs.
Policymakers must also grapple with the need for a more holistic approach to warfare. Targeting frontline forces in a conflict limited to the Taiwan Strait may prove insufficient if the war drags on. Instead, U.S. strategy should account for multiple theaters of conflict and seek ways to impose costs on China’s broader geopolitical and economic position.
Revisiting Strategy and Avoiding a Military Stalemate
The most likely conflict between the United States and China is not a quick victory, but rather a prolonged struggle in which neither side achieves total dominance. To prepare for this, the U.S. needs to rethink its entire approach to military strategy — from mobilizing its defense-industrial base to adopting a broader vision of what constitutes success in war. Simply preparing for a short, sharp battle will not suffice if the war extends for years.
Looking ahead, Washington may need to lay the foundation for a war that could last longer than expected and redefine the very nature of military victory. This requires revisiting the American military’s traditional mindset, drawing lessons from historical conflicts, and developing the means to fight a war of attrition. The strategic calculus may ultimately change, and the U.S. must be ready to adapt quickly to the realities of a prolonged conflict with China.
In the end, while the desire for a quick and decisive victory is understandable, U.S. defense planners must reckon with the stark possibility that a protracted war is more likely — and that success in such a conflict will require a very different set of military and strategic tools.
