It's the difference between running away, as the Dhimmicrats forced us to do in Southeast Asia, and maintaining a presence, but no longer being occupiers, as we did in Europe and the Pacific after WW2 and in South Korea after that battle in the "70 years war," as Jerry Pournelle calls the "Cold War." We've been in South Korea since the early 1950s, but we only have 35,000 troops stationed there. We still have bases in Europe and many places we occupied as part of the war against Japan.
One of the problems we're having right now is that we've allowed the Dhimmicrats and the media to call this "the Iraq War," and not "the battle of Iraq in the War on Terror." They use that to argue against our being in Iraq and specifically want to say that it's not part of the WOT. That noise has died down some, partly because it just wasn't resonating with most people. Of course, I also agree with those that say the label "war on terror" is awful. You can't go to war against a tactic. We are at war with militant (meaning mainstream) Islam. This is a defensive war against the Jihad.
You are not alone, I've harped over this myself. Repblicans became too defensive with that whole "Mission Accomplished" aircraft carrier event. We failed to make the distinction between winning the war and now ensuring the continued peace. The fact is, IMHO, the war in Iraq was won years ago.