The
term Boots on the ground has become
an ominous euphemism for combat troops in harm’s way. No longer do we hear our
leaders express sending soldiers off to die in human terms. It wasn’t so long ago that President Lyndon Johnson
complained of the difficulties for him having to send American boys, most of whom were
draftees, half-way around the world to fight the battles of "Asian
boys." Perhaps
the ever increasing use of the sanitized term Boots on the ground is the result of having a seemingly endless
number of people willing to serve in an all voluntary military force. Even so, that does not diminish their
contribution or the value of their spilled blood.
When
men and women are willing to enlist in the military en masse knowing the inherent dangers of fighting other peoples’
battles do they somehow exempt our leaders from expending the emotional capital
in the decision making process to go to war? Does the term Boots on the ground realistically address the nature of the dangers
the persons wearing those boots face?
No comments:
Post a Comment