Let me begin by saying that I am f*cking tired of the use “Boots on the ground”……it is a dehumanizing technique to refer to troops that will possibly die in defense of their country…at least do them the honor of treating them with some sort of respect.
Onward! I have been writing about the use of American troops and then trying to deny that they are being used to the public. It is a propaganda p[loy to try and lessen the impact of our troops dying to the public.
This article tries to answer the question posed in the title…..
No one disputes that U.S. military forces are fighting in combat in Iraq and Syria — except maybe President Barack Obama and some members of his administration.
The semantic arguments over whether there are American “boots on the ground” muddy the view of a situation in which several thousand armed U.S. military personnel are in Iraq and Syria. Obama has said more than a dozen times that there would be no combat troops in Iraq and Syria as the number of service members in those countries grows; last week, Defense Secretary Ash Carter acknowledged the military personnel there were in combat and “we should say that clearly.”
Source: Q&A: When Is a Boot on the Ground Not a Boot on the Ground? | Military.com
Reblogged this on The Militant Negro™.
Reference: “Let me begin by saying that I am f*cking tired of the use “Boots on the ground”……it is a dehumanizing technique to refer to troops that will possibly die in defense of their country. . .”
When is the last time you can recall when American Troops actually fought in combat situations in “Defense Of Our Country” with emphasis on “OUR?”
Good one John…but all are fighting for the good of our country…that is the line they feed them and we believe it…at least until you see the obscenity of war and your eyes are quickly opened. Funny how I seem to be the only one that does not appreciate the de-humanizing of the troops.
“Fighting for the good of something is far different than fighting in defense of something. Our troops have been used more to protect the profit interests of the Industrial/Military compplex in the last couple of decades than for any other reason in my opinion.
I cannot disagree….but I am talking from the indoctrination the soldiers get at boot…..your assumption is correct in my opinion but that is not what the troops are told…they learn that on their own and usually under fire.
Now you are cooking on all burners! That is true and that is a crying shame because it disillusions a lot of people who are fed false idealism and then when the bullets start flying they find out they have been betrayed.
The media is working with the government to put as good a face on this as possible….we call that indoctrination and it did not come from FEMA…LOL
Haters gonna hate; liars gonna lie. They’re all liars; it’s how they got where they are; they aren’t about to change now….Those who fall for their lies, or can’t avoid them, will end up either dead, or, ignorant slaves.
Objectively, that is our modern world, in respect to war. If one looks at ANY of the reasons people give for making war, objectively, there is not one that can be justified from any standpoint at all. Not logical, not ethical, not moral, not even common sense can objectively justify the taking of human life, for any reason. Even in defense, there is still the question, “Why is there still an Us vs. Them?” , the root cause of all the conflict, of course, being each person’s insistence on being part of a group, denying their true connection to anyone outside the group.
Unfortunately, almost every human alive believes in the concept of violence as a tool for dealing with conflict, from the cradle, to the grave. We are a violent species, and have taken that violence to heights only our imagination inhabits. It will be the death of all of us, one way or another.
Hmph…. this is making me grumpy, if it wasn’t already clear….
gigoid, the dubious
After VN I became a person that looks for the alternatives…..chuq
Aye, the survivors of war seldom wish to repeat the experience. My dad NEVER talked about his time in the Pacific, or any of that period at all. One word answers to any questions about it, usually.
I’m talking about the ones who buy into it, the whole government, money, country bullshit…. they never actually come back; I have another friend who is now a complete agoraphobic, and still, after almost fifty years, needs to drink & smoke to sleep… A shame; he was one of the smartest men I knew, & it turned his brain to mush….
Fuck ’em. Those who make war are not human, in my mind, though it seems to be our nature. But, to display the worst of that nature, to me, is a choice, and too many choose to make it.
gigoid
I share little of my VN experience….only with people that have an idea of what it was…..way to many….chuq
Maybe they should just send the boots themselves and no people. Most of the locals in America’s global war seem to be in need of good footwear anyway. Sounds like a possible Yippie protest if you ask me.
Yippies to put 5,000 boots on the ground in (soon to be invaded nation X) Film at 11.
If a soldier is not in combat, does not have his/her boot on the ground; are their benefits less? Just wondering. Aside from not being a declared war so no need for Congress’ approval, I’m wondering if there are economic reasons too. dru
Only economic is that they may get what use to be called “hazardous duty” pay….
Well they deserve “hazardous duty” pay. What they are doing is VERY HAZARDOUS no matter what it is called! dru
Agreed but it is not near enough compensation….chuq