The “forever war” mantra has always been stupid. National security should be more substantive than a slogan. Nor is ignorance an excuse. President Barack Obama sought to end the war in Iraq with a unilateral withdrawal only to return forces when the Islamic State arose in the vacuum. Small deployments can pay big dividends in terms of holding terrorists and hostile forces at bay. Every casualty is a tragedy but, in recent years, there have been fewer American casualties in Afghanistan than traffic fatalities in Montgomery County, Maryland. The presence of American forces, even if they remained in well-fortified bases, was sufficient to embolden the Afghan Army and enable them to hold the Taliban.

In effect, the American presence in Afghanistan had a deterrent effect that was equivalent to the U.S. presence in both Japan and Korea. Those deployments, like Afghanistan, cost tens of billions of dollars. Across the partisan spectrum, however, U.S. officials recognize that far from being a symptom of “forever war” (even though the Korean War technically never ended), the American presence in East Asia protects the post-World War II liberal order. It has dissuaded China and North Korea from attacking. Contrast this with the U.S. withdrawal from the Philippines that now is impotent in the face of Chinese naval aggression toward its territory.

Consider also America’s 75-year military presence in Germany. While policymakers might quibble about troop numbers and debate whether any should slide eastward to Poland or the Baltics, even in these polemical times, few politicians would argue that the American military presence in Europe represents “forever war” rather than a shrewd defense investment.