Boots On The Ground Analysis

Since the end of World War II, the American military established their country as a world power. American patriotism erupted and the American ideals to protect liberty were reborn. Never was one nation so proud of its soldiers. However, by the early 21st century, Americans would be involved in a different war in the Middle East--where honor on the battlefield suggested more than bravery, and machines fought alongside men--the stakes of foreign relations were high and the rules of the battlefield would affect soldiers and citizens alike to this very day. American intervention in the region is critical to protect Western Interests, but with the growing dissent by the public over these military interventions, and the unclear goals soldiers are risking their lives for, politicians …show more content…
This is why “Boots on the ground”--or rather, “No boots on the ground”--has been so readily used. It’s a phrase which originally implied valor and resolution: connotations that make an administrative body appear authoritative. Additionally, it can be used to ignore any implications that there will be loss of life if it’s condoned.“No boots on the ground” implies that there’s “Not [to] be an open ended intervention”, even if “the United States should take arms against Syrian regime targets” (Aaron). When the administration says “No Boots on the ground”, they’re outright denying any inferences that a physical intervention will take place, but still implying the need to “take up arms”. “The phrase “boots on the ground” isn’t being used by the administration to communicate what the words actually mean, but instead to indicate something more” (Beauchamp). The question is, what is it that they’re trying to