Stop Reducing the Violent Slaughter of Human Beings to Stupid Slogans Like "Boots on the Ground"?

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

"Boots on the ground" is not a slogan. No one is using it to advertise their product, or back their political candidacy. It is descriptive of one way to wage war.

I agree with Keith, no one is confused by the term.

I could be wrong, but I think that it became a popular expression during Clinton's air war in Serbia. We fought it from the air, relying on local troops to occupy. The republicans protested stating that US boots on the ground were needed to criticize Clinton.

Yes, you're wrong. From Wiki:

The expression "boots on the ground" has an extended military-jargon history. It certainly dates back at least to British officer Robert Grainger Ker Thompson, strategist of the British counter-insurgency efforts against the Malayan National Liberation Army during the Malayan Emergency, 1948-1960 (see entry). The term is also associated with General William Westmoreland and the United States' intervention in Vietnam, particularly the large force increase from 1965-1968.

 

[SimpleDon]

"Boots on the ground" is prefered to the equally correct "Invasion."

 

[KeepTalking]

I could be wrong, but I think that it became a popular expression during Clinton's air war in Serbia. We fought it from the air, relying on local troops to occupy. The republicans protested stating that US boots on the ground were needed to criticize Clinton.

Yes, you're wrong. From Wiki:

The expression "boots on the ground" has an extended military-jargon history. It certainly dates back at least to British officer Robert Grainger Ker Thompson, strategist of the British counter-insurgency efforts against the Malayan National Liberation Army during the Malayan Emergency, 1948-1960 (see entry). The term is also associated with General William Westmoreland and the United States' intervention in Vietnam, particularly the large force increase from 1965-1968.

And, if one continues to read the wiki article, one would read the following:

The term is used to convey the belief that military success can only be achieved through the direct physical presence of troops in a conflict area. As terminology, it was coined to concisely express a counter-view against the position that other means, such as aerial bombardment (as used both by Germany and the Allies in World War II, and massively by the United States in Vietnam), economic incentives, or satellite intelligence could achieve victory.

So, it isn't a term trying to make war seem less violent, it is a reaction to views that victory in a conflict can be achieved without putting soldiers in harm's way.

I'm surprised that it only goes back to the late 40's, after WWII, as many generals during "the big one" learned that lesson the hard way. Many objectives could be taken with the use of tanks alone, but it took infantry to hold the objective. Though tanks are likely considered "boots on the ground" these days, I think it mostly referred to infantry back then.

 

[bilby]

It was a well known fact in the 1920s and 30s that 'The bomber will always get through', and that a nation could be defeated by air bombardment alone, as no government that tolerated the bombing of its cities and citizens would avoid overthrow by those enraged citizens.

When Britain declared war in 1939, the expectation was that London and other major cities would come under immediate and severe bombardment, and that this would rapidly lead to a crisis.

Of course none of this well known fact turned out to be correct at all. The bombing of London didn't start until more than a year later (by which time most of the evacuated children had returned home); and its effect was to stiffen the resolve of the citizens, and to increase their support for their government.

Strategic bombing of civilians turns out to be almost completely counter-productive - and losses amongst bomber forces were huge, belying the adage about the bomber always getting through.

Aerial bombardment wasn't sufficiently accurate to be really useful as a weapon of war until the 1990s - but that didn't stop the world's air forces from claiming otherwise.

To effectively neutralise an enemy, you must occupy his territory with infantry. Tanks are a useful support for that infantry, but a tank can't arrest a man, or check his papers, or in urban areas (or anywhere with cover and concealment), stop him from chucking a Molotov cocktail and wiping out the tank and its crew.

'Boots on the ground' is the only way to control territory. Always has been; probably always will be.

 

[TV and credit cards]

While not dehumanizing, I think the term does somewhat sanitize what is happening in the same way war footage on TV sans flag draped coffins does. It beings the ugliness one step cloer to acceptance.

 

[bilby]

While not dehumanizing, I think the term does somewhat sanitize what is happening in the same way war footage on TV sans flag draped coffins does. It beings the ugliness one step cloer to acceptance.

Flag draped coffins are a sanitised image. They never show the dismembered corpses inside those coffins.

Humans sanitize distasteful experiences. Nobody really wants to see the results of war - unless it's a fictional war. Fictional battles can be as gory as you like.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It was a well known fact in the 1920s and 30s that 'The bomber will always get through', and that a nation could be defeated by air bombardment alone, as no government that tolerated the bombing of its cities and citizens would avoid overthrow by those enraged citizens.

When Britain declared war in 1939, the expectation was that London and other major cities would come under immediate and severe bombardment, and that this would rapidly lead to a crisis.

Of course none of this well known fact turned out to be correct at all. The bombing of London didn't start until more than a year later (by which time most of the evacuated children had returned home); and its effect was to stiffen the resolve of the citizens, and to increase their support for their government.

Strategic bombing of civilians turns out to be almost completely counter-productive - and losses amongst bomber forces were huge, belying the adage about the bomber always getting through.

Aerial bombardment wasn't sufficiently accurate to be really useful as a weapon of war until the 1990s - but that didn't stop the world's air forces from claiming otherwise.

To effectively neutralise an enemy, you must occupy his territory with infantry. Tanks are a useful support for that infantry, but a tank can't arrest a man, or check his papers, or in urban areas (or anywhere with cover and concealment), stop him from chucking a Molotov cocktail and wiping out the tank and its crew.

'Boots on the ground' is the only way to control territory. Always has been; probably always will be.

If there is an effective anti aircraft defence in place as with the UK then the bombers would not be so successful. If there is a complete control of the skies than the picture would be different.

What the West has tried to do is let its allies put their boots on the ground, since they are there already.
Putting boots on the ground didn't resolve the conflicts that started in the aftermath of Saddam's removal.