If there’s one thing we know about the American electorate, it’s that we simply abhor “boots on the ground.” Trade embargoes, naval blockades, sudden kidnappings, targeted assassinations, torpedoed boats, bellicose warnings of worse yet to come—a good portion of us are jittery and suspicious for all that, but the larger voting public, much of it minimally informed as it tends to the demands of daily life, tends not to get apoplectic.
But to contemplate American boots on anyone’s ground but our own, our sons and daughters sent into harm’s way on foreign soil—nope!
We’re against it, to the tune of 62% opposed and only 14% approving of sending ground troops to the current war in Iran, the rest undecided in the most recent YouGov poll on March 31. Pity the politicians who try to justify any such venture, for almost any reason. And that view ranges widely across the political spectrum, uniting the left, right and most voters in the middle.
That, combined with the NYT’s description that the weapon is ‘designed to detonate just above its target and blast small tungsten pellets outward’ was what boiled my brain sufficiently to at least conditionally rework my feelings about deploying ground troops to Iran.
Sure, we thought boots sent both east and west back in 1941 was a capital idea. But then came the misbegotten, undeclared wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
That’s when we discovered, to our great consternation, that nation-building involves a lot more than boots, and some ground for them to tread upon.
More even, than all the “overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy” that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is so fond of asking for in our Iran venture, “with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ.”
All that said, I have come around to a different way of thinking about those boots, and the near fetishism with which we treat the image in our current political discourse.
Four weeks into another undeclared war in a distant country engineered by a president who made opposition to such interventions a central plank of all three of his presidential campaigns, I have found myself becoming a staunch advocate of sending American troops into Iran.
That’s right: Boots.
On the ground.
In Iran.
Perhaps I should explain.
***
***
My thoughts on this “boots on the ground” matter were forcefully and abruptly transformed earlier this week when it came to light via a report in the “New York Times” that on the war’s first day on February 28, an American Tomahawk missile that landed on a pre-school and reportedly killed 168 people, the majority of them young children, was not the only attack that went awry that day. (Faulty intelligence was cited as the culprit.)
Several hundred miles away, another high-tech weapon, never before tested
in combat, detonated over a sports hall and adjacent elementary school, reportedly killing 21 people. None of this was divulged by our government, the incident having come to light with an investigation by the “Times,” whose analysis fills in harrowing details:
“The Times verified videos of two strikes in Lamerd, as well as aftermath footage from the attacks. Times reporters and munitions experts found that the weapon features, explosions and damage are consistent with a short-range ballistic missile called the Precision Strike Missile, or PrSM (pronounced like “prism”), which is designed to detonate just above its target and blast small tungsten pellets outward.
“Videos that capture one strike, in a residential area about 900 feet from the sports hall and school, show the weapon in flight, with a distinctive silhouette that matches the PrSM. The missile erupts in a large fireball midair.”
The PrSM is designed and produced by Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed-Martin, which elaborates on the weapon’s unique qualities thusly on its website:
“These enhanced capabilities are critical to the successful execution of fires in support of combined Joint All-Domain Operations.”
Ahhh, yes: the “successful execution of fires.”
That, combined with the NYT’s description that the weapon is “designed to detonate just above its target and blast small tungsten pellets outward” was what boiled my brain sufficiently to at least conditionally rework my feelings about deploying ground troops to Iran.
Amnesty International, among many others, has made an impassioned case already for the strong possibility that the joint American-Israeli attacks on Iran constitute war crimes according to international law. That possibility will become certainty if President Trump follows through on his warnings that if Iran refuses surrender, he will bomb “to smithereens” civilian targets such as energy infrastructure and water desalination plants. His comments raise the specter of Iranians literally dying of thirst in darkened cities across an arid country twice the size of Texas—and precious little in remaining groundwater.
Such an event would constitute a human catastrophe on an unimaginable scale—all of it wrought by bombs and missiles falling from the sky, carefully monitored 6,300 miles away on Pentagon and White House computer screens, where the staff can “Ooh!” and “Ahhh!” with each hit and then send their favorite clips to the creative department for production of You Tube videos.
One version released late last month, entitled “Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue,” mixed in actual attack footage from the war with a video game entitled “Call of Duty.” It was released on the White House You Tube channel and then deleted within days.
***
***
The glorification of destruction we see above and hear in the giddy pronouncements from President Trump and Secretary Hegseth is monstrous because it allows us to almost completely ignore the actual devastation and human cost of the carnage that occurs on the ground in every bombing campaign. The destruction is not only from thousands of miles away but also from thousands of feet in the sky, and then rendered as a video game for worldwide distribution whose intent is self-evidently celebration rather than cause for sober reflection.
Sure, let’s bomb Iran “back to the Stone Age” as our now demonstrably deranged president has threatened repeatedly to do. No skin off anyone’s nose here in the smug and removed USA. We don’t even have to see the actual destruction, the severed human limbs, the flying shards of tissue landed hundreds of yards from “the blast center.”
All we need is footage—from our unmanned satellite—of multiple explosions, accompanied by a thrumping soundtrack.
“Awesome, dude!”
And better yet: We are not seeing limbs and tissue (or bodybags) from any of our people. The missiles are launched from hundreds of miles away, the bombs from tens of thousands of feet, all their operators, our soldiers and sailors, our president and defense secretary, our video producers of the day’s carnage, safely home that night to their barracks and families and screens.
And that is exactly the problem.
We can set aside for the moment the fact that if we’ve learned anything from the history of all our failed wars in recent times, it’s that we cannot accomplish regime change or anything else of fundamental value with air power alone, however dominant it is. Because the more salient and haunting point is that war conducted strictly from the air removes most all vestiges of human relatability from the conflict, rendering almost the entire population of the attacking country uninvolved.
Seeing and hearing very little or nothing at all, we are fundamentally unaffected by the carnage, which may as well be occurring on a distant moon for all the difference it makes in our daily lives.
In Iran and surrounding countries (particularly Lebanon), bombs and missiles are exploding, people are dying, being maimed or displaced by the tens of thousands, and deep grieving and fear are the order of the day.
Here, if we’re not family or friends to the 13 service members so far lost to the war, the extent of the blowback comes from paying a buck more for a gallon of gas and fretting about our 401k’s.
***
***
The “First Battle of Bull Run” in July 1861 came to be known—infamously—as the “Picnic Battle,” because hundreds of residents from nearby Washington, D.C., among them women under parasols, children and notable politicians, descended on hillsides with opera glasses and picnic baskets, intent on an afternoon’s entertainment. They soon found themselves fleeing for their lives, competing for roadway space back to town with defeated, equally terrified Union soldiers.
There is something both primitive and noble about the hand-to-hand combat that was as central to war in those days as was artillery fire from a distance. But much more important than being primitive and noble is that combat on the ground is real, personal, human, exacting enormous human cost from both victor and vanquished.
No one escapes, no one can make it sport or a game in front of a console while eating potato chips.
“Ideally” (and I put quotes around that while getting to my meaning), every resident of a country should be asked to participate in some manner in a war effort; that is truly the only way for the entire population to know the costs and sacrifices of taking such a fateful step. Short of that for all the obvious reasons, what we should do if we consider the war effort to be worthwhile is to send our service members into it not merely from 50,000 feet or hundreds of miles yonder, but on the ground, facing the enemy we are confronting.
For one reason, history has shown us that air power alone is never enough to effect the change that the superior power is after. Meaning—and herein lies the rub and ultimate futility of my call for boots on the ground—if we can’t accomplish that change with the added factor of those fabled “boots,” then the question comes smashing right back into our face, as it did to those spectators at Bull Run: “What is it that we’re doing there?”
(Besides gloating over our conquest via video games…)
If we can’t answer that question coherently and humanely, as President Trump has never once done in the month since the war began, we should get the hell out, like those fleeing Bull Run picnickers.
In the end, we should either go with boots on or stay home, because limiting war to a bombing campaign is both ineffective and inhuman, despite all the supposedly informed experts and analysts and statesmen of all our misbegotten foreign “interventions” of the past, who somehow put aside in their deliberations the once and eternal truth that war is hell, and should be avoided at most all costs save for the survival of your people.
***
***
For the record, yes, I decry and deplore the longtime oppression and torture wreaked upon the good people of Iran by its tyrannical rulers, and wish deeply for that country’s freedom. All of it, alas, quite beyond any intervention we can make as a distant power with no actual strategy for effecting change outside the brute force the U.S. is now pursuing to such destructive, inglorious ends.
Deep appreciation to the photographers! Unless otherwise stated, some rights reserved under Creative Commons licensing
Homepage rotating banner photos (except for library books) by Elizabeth Haslam https://www.flickr.com/photos/lizhaslam/
Library books by Larry Rose, Redlands, California, all rights reserved, contact: larry@rosefoto.com
Military boots by Daniel Silva https://unsplash.com/@thesilvafocus
School bombing photo courtesy of Amnesty International https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2026/03/usa-iran-those-responsible-for-deadly-and-unlawful-us-strike-on-school-that-killed-over-100-children-must-be-held-accountable/
Mother and child by Hamed Saber, Tehran, Iran https://www.flickr.com/photos/hamed/ (Mr. Saber was an Iranian photojournalist and computer engineer who chronicled the Iranian people’s struggle for freedom and was jailed in 2010 for some 50 days before being released, but his production on Flickr ceased in 2016 and I can find no other news of his fate since then, despite an extensive Internet search.)
Andrew: As always, thank you for your thought provoking commentary. As you may recall, I have visited Iran a couple of times for work-related reasons, and once drove (was driven) from Isfahan to Tehran. While there, I met with parents of children with a genetic disability and with the doctors and therapists who work with them. While it was abundantly clear from almost everyone I met that they had great distain for the the mullahs and other religious leaders, it was also very clear to me that they just wanted to live their lives, raise their families, and pursue their careers like the rest of us. Our current actions in their country will, for many if not most of them, make that more difficult if not impossible. I also worry that our bringing indiscriminate death from the sky will lead to resentment, if not outward hatred, towards the West in those who previously looked to us with admiration. I hope I’m wrong. Time will tell.
Thanks, Robby. I fear that hatred, or at the very least, distrust of the U.S. moving forward that you reference will likely be inevitable, given that we have burned bridges (metaphorically speaking) with both friends and foe over the past year. Trump’s idea that he could simply bully the entire world because he had the most money and most lethal weaponry was doomed from the start, seems to me. What kind of control can anyone have without any real friends? Listened to a podcast on The Bulwark site with the political scientist Robert Kagan today, whom I’ve written about here previously. He paints a very grim picture of what likely lies lies ahead, with widespread nuclear proliferation almost assured given the world’s experience of being bullied & invaded by its sole superpower, and possible loss of the dollar as the world’s commercial currency, given how angry a good part of the world is with us.
And yes, those good and decent people in Iran,just trying to make a life. Such a colossal waste of human talent, the mullahs with boots on their throats, the invaders now musing on their extermination as if they were discussing bug spray. Dark times…
Thought provoking to say the least Andrew. I understand the rationale, that it is indiscriminate bombing from thousands of miles away that results in untold civilian deaths, however, boots on the ground hasn’t stopped war crimes in the past. Also, those boots are, for the most part, worn by a disproportionate number of poor and black and brown Americans. The only answer is for the US to cease all action and to halt all weapon shipments to Israel; like that’s going to happen. In addition, as expected, the administration budget proposal calls for more massive cuts to the social safety net to pay for this war.
Michael, I was concerned some readers might interpret my argument as you have, so my bad for being overly nuanced and/or just not clear enough. I thought I signaled my actual feelings, which are, I’d say, about 98% in alignment with yours, in the paragraph where I discuss “Meaning—and herein lies the rub and ultimate futility of my call for boots on the ground—if we can’t accomplish that change with the added factor of those fabled ‘boots,’ then the question comes smashing right back into our face, as it did to those spectators at Bull Run: ‘What is it that we’re doing there?’”
What we’re doing there is, in my view, illegal, ill-advised and counter-productive, and has been from the start. My “endorsement,” if you will, of “boots on the ground” rests only on never thinking we can bomb our way to accomplishing meaningful change, so unless we can make a good case for boots on the ground (as in WWII), we shouldn’t ever commence just a bombing campaign, and stick with diplomacy and economic pressure instead. (As Obama did, more successfully than his predecessors and certainly more effectively than the debacle currently taking place.) Hope that clarifies; thanks for piping up!
War should never be anything but a last resort. It’s always fertile ground for tragedy. Sadly, the parallel between this war in Iran and that of World War 2, while undoubtedly different in scope, can’t be ignored.
Washington D.C., November 26, 1941: Kichisaburo Nomura, Japanese Ambassador to the United States, met Cordell Hull, President Franklin Roosevelt’s Secretary of State, both hoping to ease tensions between the two Pacific powers. Hull presented Nomura with a list of grievances, most importantly the removal of Japanese troops from China and Indochina. While no agreement was reached, Hull hoped his suggestion to lift the ongoing American oil embargo on Japan might persuade it to halt its aggression in Southeast Asia. Unfortunately, prior to this November 26th meeting, the Japanese government had already given the green light to attack Pearl Harbor within two weeks.
This didn’t turn out well for Japan.
Geneva, February 27, 2026: Omani Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr Al-Busaida mediated discussions between the United States’ representatives Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi. The United States demanded Iran dismantle its nuclear program. Although neither party came to an agreement, Badr Al-Busaida stated a “breakthrough” had been reached. Unfortunately, despite his positive outlook, President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had already given the green light to bomb Iran the next day.
This won’t turn out well for United States.
Robert, your commentary brings home again not only how history so often repeats, but also points out the stark difference between Roosevelt sending none other than his Secretary of State, as would be expected for such momentous discussion, to engage with the Japanese, in contrast to Trump dispatching a couple of real estate pros to pretend making nice with the Iranians. One can easily imagine them talking up future hotels, resorts up on Mt. Tochal (with casinos!), the whole phantasmagoria of their steadfast faith that commerce and profit rule the world and are everyone’s motivation to improve it. Such a bottomless poverty of imagination is the beating heart of the Trumpian world.
Hello Andrew, The below thoughts entered my head when seeing Trump and the Easter Bunny standing together.
The Easter Bunny hops in, not with fanfare, but with the hope of exquisite eggs to be quietly enjoyed later, not wit treats of the annihilation of a civilization.
We are living in times where hope feels distant, almost futile. Untruths abound resulting in loss and decline of the human spirit. Hope begins to feel more like wishful thinking.
And yet, something in me resists that conclusion.
Easter speaks directly to this resistance, I can’t deny the sufferng Jesus endured was real and profound. On Good Friday, everything appeared final. And yet, through the resurrection, something unexpected emerged: Renewal. Life did not merely continue, it was transformed.
Now, are we not seeing the transformation of thought in regards to this powerful evil?
Hope, it asks something of us. Hope is not simply to wait for change, but to participate. It is not watching social media with a thumbs up. It is getting up off your butt and participating. Whether it’s picking up plastic bottles off the beach or marching in a NO KINGS rally. Without action, hope risks becoming a kind of quiet resignation. When we give up, there is no hope of shaping our future, whether we can or not. Hope must become a responsibility. Has the entire support team of our insane leader started to realize this responsibility? I wonder, what kind of hope do they have, or have they lost hope altogether. I strongly disagreed with Marjorie Taylor Greene. Now…. not so much. But even she has realized this insane evilness. The exact same thing has happened to Tucker Carlson. We are seeing the light emerge slowly from the darkness.
Even small actions take on weight. A decision, a voice, a change in habit……these are not insignificant. They are the means by which hope enter the world and begins to change it.
On a personal note, I ran from Vietnam. My friends agreed to take me in, who lived in Canada. My plan was to travel up to Seattle (where I was to be transported to Vietnam) but keep on going up to British Columbia. But my plan took an about-face when my orders were changed at the last moment. I ended up in Germany, as a clerk typist for a Pershing Nuclear Missile Unit. Realizing the horror of the possible annihilation of not only A civiliazation, but ALL civilization, we formed a secret pact to never fire, unless fired upon America first. And even then, some had agreed to never fire no matter what. Why? Because some of these Vietnam Boots on the Ground saw the horrors of war. And some of us were draftees, who were opposed to war from the start. Now I wonder…..will any military people take the responsibility to stand up and refuse to follow the war crimes proposed?
Easter reminds us that hope does not depend on constant evidence. It is not mere optimism. It can be found in tension with doubt, alongside grief, the presence of loss. It does not eliminate these things, it moves through them. And maybe that is one of the deepest meanings …Hope is not the absence of darkness, but the refusal to accept that darkness has the final word. The willingness to live as though that refusal matters. At its deepest, hope begins to resemble faith….. the qiet decision to live as though the unseen future is already leaning toward light with God’s love.
Lovely essay, Kirk, ringing true with every note on a topic of surpassing importance (especially in these times). Thanks for stepping up to the plate! Just did a quickie search and found the word “Hope” in the headline on eight different posts in this space over the years, so it’s obvious I’ve been trying to convince myself of the basic points you make for a long time now…
So carry on, Bro!
Interesting fact, the United States declared war in WW2. Not since then has this country been declared at war. Authorized use of military force “AUMF” is what every president has used since. From my 30,000 foot view, news from around the world I consume showed Iranian citizens in the streets dancing and crying cheers of joy after their leader was killed after the killing of 35-45 thousand protesters upset with their government, depending on where you get your information. It’s now stopped as we blow up civilian bridge’s. That’s how terrorist’s are born. What’s tiring to me about situations like this (and historically) is the congressional body of our country on the left wing and right wing have always come together in some sort of support and never stopped it. Have we not realized yet it’s the two wings of the same darn bird behind the scenes.
Bryson, if I read you correctly, you seem to be advocating much more intensive congressional oversight of the president’s war-making powers. Since that oversight is directly elaborated in our very own Constitution, it sounds like a capital idea to me…
As you undoubtedly know, President Truman set what has come to be a troubling precedent with his “police action” in Korea, which circumvented the need for congressional approval for a formal declaration of war, as the Constitution requires. Before the elder President Bush invaded Iraq in the Gulf “War,” he got Congress to formalize such a police action with the AUMF that you cite. And as you say, every president since has used it to pursue Mideastern states and terrorist groups—with the NOTABLE EXCEPTION of President Trump, who neither consulted Congress nor submitted an AUMF for their approval before starting hostilities with Iran. Since then, the the Republican Congress has repelled four different Democratic initiatives to have Trump either withdraw or ask Congress for authorization—the most recent today.
Just one more example of the Republican Congress completely abandoning their oversight responsibilities for fear Trump will denounce them to MAGA World.