Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Not at all.
"Boots on the ground" implies large numbers of men and personnel, plus supporting equipment - tanks, Humvees, helicopters, etc, that will be there for an extended period of time. A small squad of Special Forces that move in for a single operation and then quickly leave is not what anyone considers "boots on the ground". If you want to argue "boots on the ground" by the strictest definition... We've always had "boots on the ground" - we still have thousand of troops on the ground in Iraq.
This was a Special Forces operation, not an invasion.
This is how warfare will be - small groups of Special Forces flying in, doing what they do, and then quickly leaving. Combined with drone strikes it will be very effective.
|
that's not at all what "boots on the ground" means
The expression "boots on the ground" has an extended military-jargon history. It certainly dates back at least to British officer Robert Grainger Ker Thompson, strategist of the British counter-insurgency efforts against the Malayan National Liberation Army during the Malayan Emergency, 1948-1960 (see entry). The term is also associated with General William Westmoreland and the United States' intervention in Vietnam, particularly the large force increase from 1965-1968.
The term is used to convey the belief that military success can only be achieved through the direct physical presence of troops in a conflict area. As terminology, it was coined to concisely express a counter-view against the position that other means, such as aerial bombardment, economic incentives, or satellite intelligence could achieve victory.
The term is particularly applied currently (2010) to counter-insurgency operations.