Just a rant

[wink]

Can't these damned idiots in congress and the media find another way to express US military land forces deployed as something other than "boots on the ground"? For God's sake I am sick and tired of the fvcking phrase. What is it about the phrase that communicates the idea of ground combat forces deployed to the region more precisely than any other? Do they think it is military jargon that makes them sound all cool and simpatico with the troops? I don't know when it made it into the press style book or the congressional lexicon, but it has certainly been over used in the last 10 years. Lets just put the Marines and Army troopers in moccasins, invade Syria, and be done with it. Give me a break!

 

[jtdees]

In business school, it's called "Buzzword Bingo." The stakes can be as high as you want.

 

[jmcquate]

How about "mission creep", "blowback", "exit strategy", and the classic "lob a few cruise missiles".

 

[helolumpy]

Do you have a better term to convey the meaning of "boots on the ground"?

 

[Renegade One]

For better or worse (probably better…), the term "boots on the ground" is simply shorthand to let the American public that there's now skin in the game…the skin of their husbands/wives, fathers/mothers, sisters/brothers, etc.

I've never had a problem with the term…even though, as we all know, "skin in the game" can and does happen without "boots on the ground".

 

[azguy]

I think this is a widely accepted term, nothing to see here.

Agree with Renegade, it's not a literal term. A ship within CDCM range or a TACAIR plane within SAM range represent the same risk.

 

[Catmando]

It's better than 'tarmac'. Or "warfighters," in my ornery but semi-humble, no-shit estimation.

 

[Spartan43]

______gate

 

[sevenhelmet]

Meh. I'd just like to see them actually DO something, rather than yak about it for weeks and come up with some "resolution" that doesn't really mean anything. Their buzzwords and expressions mean nothing to me, they are so out of touch with us and what we do.

IMHO, the moment is gone for action in Syria, at this point it's just going to involve us in yet another brushfire war with no winner. Had we acted immediately, I might feel differently, but as any comedian will tell you: timing is everything. Two freakin' weeks have passed and the moment's gone. Oh-Drama can bluster and petition Congress, but it ultimately isn't going to solve anything at this point.

 

[Renegade One]

Meh. I'd just like to see them actually DO something, rather than yak about it for weeks and come up with some "resolution" that doesn't really mean anything. ...IMHO, the moment is gone for action in Syria...

There's a cautionary tale in there about drawing "red lines" that actually aren't…to wit:

"Use of chemical weapons" begat "sustained use…", which begat "verifiable use…", which begat "with UN and coalition support", which begat…well, you get the idea.

 

[sevenhelmet]

Exactly.

 

[robav8r]

Meh. I'd just like to see them actually DO something, rather than yak about it for weeks and come up with some "resolution" that doesn't really mean anything. Their buzzwords and expressions mean nothing to me, they are so out of touch with us and what we do.

Perhaps because so very few of them have had their "boots on the ground" or "skin in the game."

 

[AllYourBass]

Maybe they should switch to service-specific catch phrases so the appropriate families, friends and service people can start worrying (and not just everyone, let's be reasonable). For example, if they only intended to use the Navy for this conflict, then the rest of the Armed Forces could be comfortable that they're just planning to put "blueberries in the basket."

 

[jtdees]

Boats on the Sound?

 

[jmcquate]

Fingers on the buttons