People would be shocked if they knew how frequently soldiers put themselves in grave danger (and die) to avoid violating their command's ROI and the laws of land warfare.
Prevention, especially successful prevention, always has a terrible PR problem in that people forget the ills that motivated the original prevention framework. One can argue that the framework specifics need to be updated, but I doubt that many soldiers or officers want a reinstatement of dangers and effects chemical warfare for example.
I wasn't trying to imply the cost wasn't questionable! Part of the 'forgetting' is the imposition of new or extended interpretations of the original intent of such agreements that lose sight of the balance of value one gets.