A lot of these are all or nothing arguments. Yes, the US didn't withdraw completely, fighting in Iraq didn't stop completely, but that isn't meaningful. There w

A lot of these are all or nothing arguments. Yes, the US didn't withdraw completely, fighting in Iraq didn't stop completely, but that isn't meaningful. There were substantial reductions, and policy dictates more. Also, statistics and drawing dividing lines on Oval Office changes isn't as meaningful as it appears. First, policy takes months or years to develop, and then it's implemented, and then we see the consequences for years or decades after; no president affects policy much on their first day. Second, it needs to be evaluated in context: Obama withdrew combat forces substantially from Iraq, which IIRC was a campaign promise, and then ISIL grew and became a threat and Obama had to deal with them, sending forces back but in a limited fashion - leaving almost all ground combat to the Iraqi and Kurdish militaries. Trump IIRC sent more forces to finish off ISIL and then pulled almost everyone out (causing the resignation in protest of the Secretary of Defense and of the top diplomat for the region). There's a clear message that the US wants to withdraw, which tells Middle East states that the US won't be as much of a force and tells Russia and China that there is room for them to move in. > people do not perceive America as anything approaching weak with their military We are talking about America's overall geopolitical power, which depends on far more than the military - 99% of the world isn't fighting a war. The point isn't that the military lacks firepower, but geopolical power is perceived to be lacking - especially the political will and unity to use that power. For example, Russia and China use the Afgan pullout extensively in propaganda, telling people in places like Taiwan that the US wouldn't defend them. The support for Ukraine has changed that substantially, however.