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
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