It's a "strawman" argument. Where else would military troops be than "where attacks are happening"?
Your weak point may be your lack of knowledge on things military. The purpose of military forces is to kill people and break things. A demonstrated capability and willingness to kill people and break things has an added benefit of providing a deterrent effect, but that is not a primary purpose nor an end objective, and cannot replace the primary purpose.
In any military action, it is generally easier to kill people and break things if the military is actually located where said people and things exist.
I hope this little explanation helps you with your "problem".
They would be at home, in the United States.
The argument being made was that we stuck our troops into the middle of places where it was likely people would attack them, when we had no business putting them there.
Then, when they get attacked, we count it as justification for launching a strike.