I agree with your implied point that putting boots on the ground for a few years (and then removing them) is less likely to lead to horrible outcomes if it's done in a stable region, where law-and-order is well-established in the neighboring countries and there are unlikely to be any major disruptive events in the region during the military engagement or the decade after it has ended.

How about actually removing your troops in an orderly fashion, rather than cause negotiations to fail over a minor technical matter and remove the troops all at once.

I am unsure which part of this graph you are referring to, but if the policy of temporarily sending troops into a country is fragile enough to risk disaster if that sort of detail isn't handled properly then that is not a good sign.