Too Much Short-Term Missions?

Recently, I talked to my friend who leads a missions agency. We began discussing the modern missiological phenomenon of short-term missions. Never in church history has there been so much short-terming. My friend recruits short-term missionaries to teach English in restricted access nations: they must commit to a minimum of two years. There are many reasons for such a "long" minimum, but one thing I think it does is to weed out missiological tourism and the resume-padding that is often associated with the short-term adventure trips.

In the course of a life, two years is an extremely short-term (and the minimum requirement for young Mormons). I am not against short-term missions; God opened my eyes to missions after one week in Acatlan de Juarez. God called me to longer-term missions after three months in a Tirana oprhanage. God called me to full-time missions after two years in Albania.

What disturbs me is how few short-term missions graduates actually go back to the field full time. Could it be that they feel they have "been there, done that" and are duped by the enemy into believing that the missionary call they once felt strongly in their breasts has now been fulfilled by their month of tract distribution in Timbuktu and will heretofore be fleshed out in the form of financial contributions and a future trip or two back with the youth group?

Maybe there are not too many short-term missions trips. But there are not supplying the greatest need in missions--lifers: God saturated, Gospel-proclaiming, people-loving, Bible-trained, prayer-bathed, battle ready, long-term missionaries.