The Bolduc Brief: The Concept of “Forever Wars” in Modern Global Conflicts

Introduction

The term “forever wars” encapsulates the troubling reality of modern military conflicts that lack clear victory conditions, coherent exit strategies, and traditional declarations of war. In the context of U.S.-led interventions, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, the phenomenon increasingly reflects a normative state of protracted, low-intensity conflict shaped by a complex interplay of political, economic, and military factors. This article explores the defining characteristics of forever wars, their emergence from recent global tensions, and the implications these conflicts hold for societies involved and the international order as a whole.

Legal and Political Ambiguity

The emergence of forever wars is often undergirded by legal and political ambiguities that facilitate endless military engagements. Key to this reality is the expansive use of post-9/11 Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs) which have enabled U.S. military action across multiple countries without the need for renewed congressional approval. These broad authorizations not only dilute accountability but also foster an environment where legislative oversight diminishes, allowing executive power to expand unchecked. Furthermore, the vagueness of objectives—transitioning from concrete military aims to abstract goals like “fighting terrorism” or “securing national interests”—presents a moving target with no clearly defined endpoint, further entrenching military involvement.

Military and Strategic Markers

The normalization of conflict is another salient feature of forever wars. Rather than pursuing decisive military victories, U.S. strategy often revolves around maintaining a state of minimal engagement—exemplified by the frequent use of drone strikes and air strikes that create a landscape of low-intensity warfare. This paradigm shifts the focus from outright battlefield success to stalemate management, whereby military power is employed to prevent adversaries from gaining ground rather than achieving a conclusive victory. Moreover, the proliferation of “fighting everywhere” postures—characterized by increased special operations, intelligence missions, and drone warfare across diverse regions—suggests a broader acceptance of perpetual conflict. The reliance on a volunteer military force further diminishes public engagement and scrutiny, reducing the pressure to end wars that might otherwise face greater opposition were sacrifices more widely shared among the populace.

Economic and Institutional Drivers

The economic implications of forever wars cannot be overstated. The military-industrial complex thrives on this prolonged state of conflict, fostering a high-profit war economy that benefits defense contractors at the expense of broader societal needs. The mantra of “profit from every bomb” indicates a troubling intersection where economic interests are aligned with continuous military engagement, further entrenching cycles of violence. Additionally, the tendency to outsource foreign policy solutions to the military underscores a critical pivot away from diplomacy and development towards reliance on military expertise, sidelining non-military strategies that could offer long-term solutions to conflicts.

Regional and Ideological Factors

Ideological and regional dynamics compound the challenges associated with forever wars. Conflicts framed by binary narratives—“us vs. them”—tend to be more intractable, as the protagonists view their opposition as existential threats that must be defeated. This ideological fervor often complicates traditional diplomatic efforts, resulting in a cycle of violence that spills across borders, as seen in the increasing regionalization of conflicts driven by foreign proxies and powers. The collapse of local security forces further invites a dangerous cycle of intervention and destabilization, necessitating ongoing military involvement without hope for stabilization.

Current Indicators of Emerging “Forever War” (2026)