But more important is the mentality that runs beneath this contention. Because by pointing to Germany and Japan, the hawks have let the cat out of the bag. They really do see Afghanistan not as a “victory just around the corner,” but as a long-term commitment, a campaign in a global hundred-years war that pits the forces of enlightenment and decency and democracy against those of backwardness and terror and dictatorship. Such grandiose thinking was common among elite neocons back in the early 2000s, as Perle and Frum demonstrate. Yet today it comes off less as a throwback than a last gasp.

You get that sense when Noah Rothman of Commentary says it’s “outrageous” that “the national security advisor…rejected the premise that we need a permanent military presence near Pakistan and Iran.” (“I did rewind it,” he melodramatically intones.) Or when Bill Kristol againoffers up quotes from Winston Churchill, implying that to ever leave Afghanistan would be akin to a 1938-style appeasement. Or when John Bolton tells NPR, “I think a continuing presence there would have been an insurance policy,” before sneering, “People say, oh, we’ve been there so long. Let me ask you a question—how long do you want to keep America safe?”

Because even amid such certainty, the truth can no longer be curtained out. It is no longer possible to rationalize these wars by saying their durations just need to be extended. If 20 years couldn’t buy us more than an on-the-spot surrender from the Afghan army, then another 20 or 80 is not going to make a difference.