"Boots on the Ground" Pool

[birdog1960]

for what it's worth, iran also claims to only be utilizing "consultants" i syria ...http://www.npr.org/b...g-islamic-state

 

realized that transcript is needed for context of my statement, blurb doesn't address it: http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=349275201

Edited September 19, 2014 by birdog1960

[Nanker]

And related, I assume this President is one of the least respected in modern history among military brass, but perhaps one of our military scholars could comment on that too.

No military scholar here, but my take is you're right on. Kennedy's cabinet - like most President's was incestuous - but coherent, and his bravado fed the military-industrial complex's growing power. He made Robert McNamara SOD, fer krykies. eL BJ wrapped his hound-dog ears around McNamara's leg whenever he wasn't humping it. Nixon kicked down the door that had prevented intercourse with China and ended Kennedy's war in VietNam. Ford was a bloody bandage after Nixon's self-created debacle.

 

Carter was the first CIC that seemed to take Ike's warning at face value. That brought confusion and disagreements on weapon systems to a boil. Reagan rebuilt the military, stood up for America and the West and ended the Cold War. GHWB formed the greatest coalition of countries in armed conflict since WWII and excised the demons of the Kennedy/Johnson's abortion in VietNam.

 

Clinton threw an eight year Frat house party at 1600 PA Ave. but he indulged the military enough so they got live round practice in Bosnia/Kosovo. GWB struck back at Afghanistan in retaliation for 911, then trusted the CIA and the M.I.C. too much and got our collective johnsons caught in a wringer. At least all of these former Presidents were leaders in the sense that generally they stood for something and were consistent for more than a news poll cycle.

 

The current occupant of the OO is a feckless, clueless, ideologue dreck of a leader who floats in the winds of change without compass or rudder or backbone. That's what's different.

 

I was born during the Eisenhower years, and to date, this is the most inconsistent administration with regard to foreign policy by far. there have been some serious foreign policy mistakes over those years, but nothing in terms of the wishy washy posturing of the current administration.

(see above) Truman's last year here.

get off my lawn.

Likewise

November 5th

Guy Fawkes Day?

Your movie quote reminds me, its been 4 months since I placed my order with The CMP for a Garand.

 

I wonder when that box full of thirty-aught-six kick ass will arrive

Thanks for that link. I've seen their stuff before. Might be time for me to get one for the High Power Rifle range matches at the club.

So you got ammo [or ordered ] from CMP? Price? What vintage?

Hope it's not Korean War vintage.

[3rdnlng]

Hardly a courageous prediction, given that to not do so would be a break with every single decision he's made during his presidency.

 

Hell, even the decision to go after bin Laden was based on politics, and that was as much a no-brainer of a decision as we'll ever see.

Hardly a courageous prediction, given that to not do so would be a break with every single decision he's made during his presidency.

 

Hell, even the decision to go after bin Laden was based on politics, and that was as much a no-brainer of a decision as we'll ever see.

 

Wasn't attempting to make a courageous prediction, just pointing out something that to me was obvious but no one had really articulated here.

[Azalin]

The Sound of Music, I think.

 

 

Grand Torino

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NelBNtNm8l0

 

I suspected it might be that one. the phrase in significantly more compelling coming from Clint than when I say it.

 

 

getting back on topic, is anyone else here as sick of the phrase 'boots on the ground' as I am?

[/dev/null]

 

The current occupant of the OO is a feckless, clueless, ideologue dreck of a leader who floats in the winds of change without compass or rudder or backbone. That's what's different.

 

 

The current occupant should spend less time speaking about a strategy in general and more time speaking about a strategy with Generals

[IDBillzFan]

And related, I assume this President is one of the least respected in modern history among military brass, but perhaps one of our military scholars could comment on that too.

 

Perhaps this story is not so surprising.

 

Flashes of disagreement over how to fight the Islamic State are mounting between President Obama and U.S. military leaders, the latest sign of strain in what often has been an awkward and uneasy relationship.

 

Even as the administration has received congressional backing for its strategy, with the Senate voting Thursday to approve a plan to arm and train Syrian rebels, a series of military leaders have criticized the president’s approach against the Islamic State militant group.

 

Retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, who served under Obama until last year, became the latest high-profile skeptic on Thursday, telling the House Intelligence Committee that a blanket prohibition on ground combat wastying the military’s hands. “Half-hearted or tentative efforts, or airstrikes alone, can backfire on us and actually strengthen our foes’ credibility,” he said. “We may not wish to reassure our enemies in advance that they will not see American boots on the ground.”

[Nanker]

One wonders why they've opted out of using the term "war" and replaced it with "kinetic military action".

All four words are anathema to Barry.

[GG]

The current occupant should spend less time speaking about a strategy in general and more time speaking about a strategy with Generals

 

Reminds me of the early days of this administration of all the assurances we got that Obama would make his decisions after careful deliberation and taking input from the field generals.

[Nanker]

Reminds me of the early days of this administration of all the assurances we got that Obama would make his decisions after careful deliberation and taking input from the field generals.

 

Well he sacked the ones that disagreed with him, so what's left is largely a pool of sycophants.

[4merper4mer]

 

 

getting back on topic, is anyone else here as sick of the phrase 'boots on the ground' as I am?

 

Me.

 

In war/conflict you are supposed to dehumanize the enemy, not your own men.

[Azalin]

Me.

 

In war/conflict you are supposed to dehumanize the enemy, not your own men.

 

I hadn't even considered that aspect of it, but you've got a point. I cringe whenever I hear it because it's been so over-used and has now become a cliche.

[keepthefaith]

One wonders why they've opted out of using the term "war" and replaced it with "kinetic military action".

All four words are anathema to Barry.

 

A very bright liberal academic poll tested that puppy. He/she probably got some high fives for that one.

[DC Tom]

I hadn't even considered that aspect of it, but you've got a point. I cringe whenever I hear it because it's been so over-used and has now become a cliche.

 

And it's overused because its accurate - you have to put grunts in-theater, on the ground, directly involved with the situation to get things accomplished. EVERY advance in the history of warfare has 1) claimed to obviate that need, 2) completely failed to obviate that need, and 3) confirmed that need: to take care of ****, you need to put people in the ****. It is, by far, the smartest decision Bush made in his presidency - putting troops into Afghanistan.

 

Unfortunately, though a tired cliche, "boots on the ground" is still the most succinct description of that principle.

[KD in CA]

And it's overused because its accurate - you have to put grunts in-theater, on the ground, directly involved with the situation to get things accomplished. EVERY advance in the history of warfare has 1) claimed to obviate that need, 2) completely failed to obviate that need, and 3) confirmed that need: to take care of ****, you need to put people in the ****. It is, by far, the smartest decision Bush made in his presidency - putting troops into Afghanistan.

 

Unfortunately, though a tired cliche, "boots on the ground" is still the most succinct description of that principle.

 

The team at work who services our DoD contract uses it all the time to describe their awareness campaigns. I think mostly they wear low heels or flats.

Edited September 19, 2014 by KD in CT

[Best Player Available]

Do they count as boots on the ground if he calls them "consultants?"

Actually he is calling them "advisers" My neighbor will deploy Sunday to the region as an "adviser".

Typically he gives advice to sharpshooters. So, I wonder what he will do this time?

[Azalin]

And it's overused because its accurate - you have to put grunts in-theater, on the ground, directly involved with the situation to get things accomplished. EVERY advance in the history of warfare has 1) claimed to obviate that need, 2) completely failed to obviate that need, and 3) confirmed that need: to take care of ****, you need to put people in the ****. It is, by far, the smartest decision Bush made in his presidency - putting troops into Afghanistan.

 

Unfortunately, though a tired cliche, "boots on the ground" is still the most succinct description of that principle.

 

it may be accurate, but it's still overused. it's become a buzzword, likely due to focus group data showing how the term 'resonates' with americans. I would think that any of the multitude of synonymous phrases such as 'deploy troops', 'introduce combat forces', ground forces, infantry, etc would do just fine, especially with the news reporters - journalists, who should know at least the basics of communication and composition, such as using synonyms to avoid redundancy.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Azalin

[Keukasmallies]

it may be accurate, but it's still overused. it's become a buzzword, likely due to focus group data showing how the term 'resonates' with americans. I would think that any of the multitude of synonymous phrases such as 'deploy troops', 'introduce combat forces', ground forces, infantry, etc would do just fine, especially with the news reporters - journalists, who should know at least the basics of communication and composition, such as using synonyms to avoid redundancy.

 

All true, but also terms/phrases that are anathema to the sycophant media. Those phrases would taint the "optics" that are currently in vogue.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Keukasmallies

[Azalin]

All true, but also terms/phrases that are anathema to the sycophant media. Those phrases would taint the "optics" that are currently in vogue.

 

there's another one that irks me.

 

optics

 

[DC Tom]

there's another one that irks me.

 

optics

 

 

What? "Optics?" Who's using that? The only time I ever hear that used is when I'm working on actual optical devices like telescopes.

[Azalin]

What? "Optics?" Who's using that? The only time I ever hear that used is when I'm working on actual optical devices like telescopes.

 

I hear it all the time in telecom, as in optical fibers, lasers, etc. it's been very heavily used lately by journalists and politicians in the US as meaning how actions and policy are viewed by the public. another buzz word.

 

I hate buzz words.