Boots on the Ground

 

I want to address the boots of the ground issue.

There is serious misinformation being propagated at the moment, a lot of it by well meaning people, because uninformed people are being deliberately misinformed about the significance of boots on the ground.

There has been a claim going around since the start of the Iran war that this is not Iraq 2.0, because Trump has no intention of putting boots on the ground. Already this narrative has begun to shift, they are gearing up to put boots on the ground, because of what I will explain in this post.

Boots on the ground is what wins wars. I was in the infantry. I was simply a reservist, and I did not serve overseas, but I was trained in the Australian Defence Force. I am also a student of military history and strategy. Boots on the ground is what it takes to win wars. You don’t win them without them.

The infantry is the tip of the spear. Every other element of the military is simply made up of units designed to support the infantry so that it can do its job: that job is putting your boot on the neck of your enemy. Until your boot is on the neck of your enemy, and that can be taken literally, but also just means until you control his ground, you cannot win a war. You can get ceasefires, but not effective victories. This is because you need your men on the ground to plant your flag and claim your territory and enforce your will.

Many people online have been claiming that this is not a repeat of Iraq. People are saying that Trump is smarter than Bush, and that he is intending to win this war by simply using air strikes and economic pressure to force their leadership to surrender. This is why there were claims at the start that the war would last four days, then this became four weeks, because Iran has not surrendered, instead they have escalated. Anyone who believed this just does not understand how war works. You cannot win if you cannot march your men into your enemies territory and enforce your will.

Even Bush understood this. As much as Bush’s military efforts failed over time, he understood that you use planes, tanks, ships and everything you have, to provide support to your infantry to take the enemy's ground. This is how wars are won. It does not guarantee their success, of course, but it is only thing that gives you that chance. You need boots on the ground.

Sure, you can use auxiliaries. By that I mean you can use the fighters of other nations or tribal groups to be your infantry. There was talk of the Kurds, and other rebels being used in Iran. This was because the military higher ups knew that boots on the ground were always necessary. If the goal was to enforce their will on Iran. But even if you use auxiliaries, millennia of military history shows you still need your men to fight alongside these auxiliary troops, and especially to command and direct them so that they achieve your goals. After all, you are seeking to use them for your goals, not their goals, right?

This is why there have been reports that US and European commanders have been killed in Russia’s war with Europe in Ukraine (though they are disputed, of course), they have been sent there to make sure that the will of Europe and the US is achieved. Although, it appears for some time now that the US has diminished its role there. The point is though, you still need your own boots on the ground, even when another nation is doing your fighting for you. It is unavoidable. Look at Vietnam, first France and then the US relied heavily on native forces, but eventually they needed to bring in their own. This has happened again and again, though the numbers vary in different conflicts. And on those numbers, you always need boots on the ground more than you originally considered, especially if the enemy is resisting your proxies effectively. 

Hence, those who thought Trump was going to pull off some sort of standalone event, where he could defeat a country of nearly 90 million with air strikes and economic pressure, were simply being fed baloney. Every military strategist worth their salt knew it, as well. Which is why there is increasing pressure to put boots on the ground.

Air strikes can achieve you a stand off, like they did in June 2025 between Israel and Iran, but they cannot achieve you a total victory. Hence Trump’s options are:

-        End air strikes and claim victory, while having achieved basically nothing, as is what happened in June 2025.

-        Put boots on the ground.

-        Put puts on the ground to strengthen, bolster and direct proxies in the region, while claiming this is not technically boots on the ground, when it is exactly that. This would mean special forces, combat trainers, and some command experts to help direct ground operations.

Hence, the idea that Trump was going to achieve total victory without boots on the ground was always a lie, only believed by the militarily ignorant.

Venezuela

This is where someone will try to bring up Venezuela. Trump won that in day without boots on the ground, right?

No.

The US prepared the ground for years with military sanctions. They had intelligence assets on the ground buying off officials. Then they brought together a massive flotilla and the full force of the US Navy, Air Force and Army, to land Delta Force on the ground, to kidnap Maduro.

That is the definition of winning with boots on the ground.

Aircraft carriers, jets, tanks, helicopters, all of that awesome and fierce military might, exist as the support needed for the end of the spear, infantry, to do its job. Remember that Special Forces are light infantry. All those support elements can do more damage than any lone infantry soldier. But until your boot is on the neck of the enemy you cannot achieve total victory. Or, to put it another way, until he lays down his guns and your guys with boots on the ground control their territory, all you have is a stalemate (like in Korea).

Therefore, Trump will either have to stop and pretend it is a victory, which is possible, and we should hope for this. Or he will have to put a massive force on the ground, to achieve actual victory. Which is not guaranteed anyway, but this has not stopped the US and many countries before.

Hence, the “this is not Iraq 2.0” propaganda, was simply misinformation that was designed to get people to give their consent to something that will either be ineffective, or will turn into a new Vietnam or Iraq. And we know how ineffective those wars were at achieving US victory. Many decent people have believed that misinformation because they don't understand the importance of boots on the ground.