Stop Reducing the Violent Slaughter of Human Beings to Stupid Slogans Like "Boots on the Ground"?

[JonA]

I vote we should...

Full question: Should we stop reducing to slogans like "boots on the ground" what amounts to sending people to be violently slaughtered?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Technically speaking, they are being sent over to violently slaughter others. Their getting violently slaughtered themselves is a case of the plans of the politicians doing the speaking not working out as effectively as they'd like.

Also, you can violently slaughter people using nothing but aerial bombardment. There does need to be a phrase to be able to distinguish between the methods of violent slaughter being used.

 

[repoman]

Our accursed ancestors who booted on the ground against Hitler.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I vote we should...

Full question: Should we stop reducing to slogans like "boots on the ground" what amounts to sending people to be violently slaughtered?

It's just an expression that highlights a difference in foreign policy. Republicans like Bush and McCain tend to prefer US invasion, heavy boots on the ground to occupy. Obama tends to favor air combat, US special forces to train locals and do some light fighting, but local troops to be the "boots on the ground". It's just a difference in philosophy.

 

[untermensche]

When your nation is always at war. When it wages non-stop war.

You need all the slogans you can come up with.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It's nice to think that an military intervention will change things for the better as we may see in the movies. However they are making things worse where in the Middle East it's like putting a fire cracker in a hornets nest. Then everyone gets bitten.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I prefer "boobs on the glass".

 

[whichphilosophy]

Our accursed ancestors who booted on the ground against Hitler.

However in recent years it's been about oil where the nations involved were not threats to the West.

 

[Derec]

Technically speaking, they are being sent over to violently slaughter others.

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making
the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
---General George Patton Jr--

 

[zorq]

Technically speaking, they are being sent over to violently slaughter others.

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making
the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
---General George Patton Jr--

The thing about war is that our poor bastards often have to die for our country IN ORDER to make the other poor bastards die for their country.

War is slaughter.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I vote we should...

Full question: Should we stop reducing to slogans like "boots on the ground" what amounts to sending people to be violently slaughtered?

I don't think 'boots on the ground' is quite the euphemism example you're looking for. As mentioned above, it's a difference in how we wage war, not one of the phrases used to dehumanize the enemy.

There are plenty of phrases used by soldiers to dehumanize the opposition, of course. And those terms are shared with the politicians calling for or gleeful about inflicting some harm to the enemy.

But i'm not sure if the phrasing is the problem. I mean, surgeons also dehumanize their patients. Seeing them as technical problems rather than people helps the doctor focus during surgery. It also protects the doctor after a patient is lost. It's a number, a statistic, not Ol' Fred, the guy who teased the nurses and bled out on the table.

Soldiers are sent to kill and basic human tendencies must be conquered in order for them to do that job. They will dehumanize the enemy, in order to win, to survive and to overcome trauma after they come back. Fighting the soldiers' use of dehumanization makes it harder for them, but the politicians are still going to send them in.

You need to get the politicians to stop sending people into war zones, then dehumanizing phrases are not an issue.

 

[JonA]

I vote we should...

Full question: Should we stop reducing to slogans like "boots on the ground" what amounts to sending people to be violently slaughtered?

I don't think 'boots on the ground' is quite the euphemism example you're looking for. As mentioned above, it's a difference in how we wage war, not one of the phrases used to dehumanize the enemy.

It's not about dehumanizing the enemy. It's about dehumanizing our own soldiers. The phrase is used to obscure the fact that people - not boots - are what are being sent to the ground, and they are being sent to what could well be a violent death.

Because politicians know they wouldn't be very popular if they started saying "sending your sons and daughters to be shot".

You need to get the politicians to stop sending people into war zones, then dehumanizing phrases are not an issue.

Except in a democracy public opinion matters, and euphemisms have a way of shaping opinions.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It's not about dehumanizing the enemy. It's about dehumanizing our own soldiers. The phrase is used to obscure the fact that people - not boots - are what are being sent to the ground, and they are being sent to what could well be a violent death.

Ah. But I don't think that obscures that fact AT ALL. No one imagines that the boots are there without feet in them.
'Boots on the ground' is very specifically saying we're putting our soldiers into harm's way, rather than drones, or air support, or sending training personnel to neighboring countries.

 

[Treedbear]

Technically speaking, they are being sent over to violently slaughter others. Their getting violently slaughtered themselves is a case of the plans of the politicians doing the speaking not working out as effectively as they'd like.

Also, you can violently slaughter people using nothing but aerial bombardment. There does need to be a phrase to be able to distinguish between the methods of violent slaughter being used.

The problem with calling it boots on the ground is that when things go badly you need to tell voters that we can't let their soles have been worn out in vain. But that could easily be misinterpreted as "souls" which might conflate war as a moral issue.

 

[JonA]

It's not about dehumanizing the enemy. It's about dehumanizing our own soldiers. The phrase is used to obscure the fact that people - not boots - are what are being sent to the ground, and they are being sent to what could well be a violent death.

Ah. But I don't think that obscures that fact AT ALL. No one imagines that the boots are there without feet in them.
'Boots on the ground' is very specifically saying we're putting our soldiers into harm's way,

But it is not "very specifically saying" that. To very specifically say "we're putting our soldiers into harm's way" you say "we're putting our soldiers into harm's way".

 

[Keith&Co.]

But it is not "very specifically saying" that.

Yes, it is saying that. No one is confused on the term, it's not a euphemism.
Unless you're consciously avoiding understanding how the phrase is used, it's very clear.

 

[KeepTalking]

"Boots on the ground" is not a slogan. No one is using it to advertise their product, or back their political candidacy. It is descriptive of one way to wage war.

I agree with Keith, no one is confused by the term.

 

[Harry Bosch]

"Boots on the ground" is not a slogan. No one is using it to advertise their product, or back their political candidacy. It is descriptive of one way to wage war.

I agree with Keith, no one is confused by the term.

I could be wrong, but I think that it became a popular expression during Clinton's air war in Serbia. We fought it from the air, relying on local troops to occupy. The republicans protested stating that US boots on the ground were needed to criticize Clinton.

 

[Keith&Co.]

"Boots on the ground" is not a slogan. No one is using it to advertise their product, or back their political candidacy. It is descriptive of one way to wage war.

I agree with Keith, no one is confused by the term.

I could be wrong, but I think that it became a popular expression during Clinton's air war in Serbia. We fought it from the air, relying on local troops to occupy. The republicans protested stating that US boots on the ground were needed to criticize Clinton.

It's still referring to how we fight the war. Bomb it from arm's reach or with occupying forces. Even if it's used to state that Clinton should have been fighting that way in Serbia, there's no confusion there. It's talking about troops in country where they can shoot, which rather obviously means they could be shot at, too.

There's nothing there to duck the reality of what's being talked about, suggested, demanded.

 

[laughing dog]

"Boots on the ground" is not a slogan. No one is using it to advertise their product, or back their political candidacy. It is descriptive of one way to wage war.

I agree with Keith, no one is confused by the term.

Since "boots on the ground" means "troops", why use the term at all? My guess is that to those originally using the term it was a combination of avoiding a direct statement about sending people to get possibly shot or blown up and it sounded "muscular". Now it is just part of the vernacular.