With the quick military victories in Afghanistan and Iraq, one might be lulled into thinking that the Global War on Terror will be a quick military fight in accordance with Weigley's American way of war. This study cautions against such views and the desire to employ the concept of decisive battle in this protracted war on terror. This study looks at the historical and theoretical basis for decisive battle and assesses its impacts on the current doctrine of our military. With this foundation, the study then uses limited references to three case studies that share similar characteristics with the Global War on Terror to assess the impact of decisive battle. In light of theory and the hard lessons of selected application, this study examines the relevance of decisive battle to the Global War on Terror. Comparison of the Global War on Terror with historical case studies demonstrates that military power will likely continue to play a prominent role in conflict termination, but the military itself is not enough. The very nature of the Global War on Terror requires more than quick military victory to produce conflict termination.