My problem with "b0ots on the ground" is that it is cliché well over done. It is imprecise, inarticulate and possibly a bit insulting. Why do our combat troops have to be reduced to "boots"?
Which brings us to one of my favorite words:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche
only partly because it sounds very similar to my
hometown.
Why do our combat troops have to be reduced to "boots"? Call them what they are and refer to their capabilities. I could see someone using the term in a planning cell as short hand when the participants actually know what sort of units and capabilities they are talking about. But the media and congress to use the term incessantly with no specificity.
Maybe because the media either think the average citizen doesn't usually appreciate the wide diversity of skill sets in the military, or they're just dumbing it down, or they're trying to keep it short to accommodate the ever-increasing incidence of ADD in the general populace.
Like has already been said, I think it's just one of those many cliches, metaphors, etc. that journalists use all the time for some reason, but it doesn't bother me all that much. I don't believe that when people hear it, they start imagining it only in terms of the infantry marching into battle or something like that. Although maybe it might suggest an emphasis on certain services like the Army or Marines, but like I said, it's just a saying to me.
Just saw your bit on Congress saying it as well. That I agree with; surely they can come up with something less archaic to say. But my previous point stands WRT the media.