Almost all American public political discussion of military and foreign policy now takes place in the realm of cliches.

Take the distinction between “boots on the ground” versus the mere use of air power that replaced actual discussions of war and peace and grand strategy. It is a reversal of common sense: In journalism, “shoe-leather” reporting is an admiring phrase, and “parachute” journalism is an insult for diving in without knowing the context. The metaphors correctly imply that you tend to know more relevant, granular details if you are close to the situation than if you’re airborne. In Vietnam, the anti-war crowd took bombers to represent the very worst of the American war machine because of how removed they were from the action. And “boots on the ground” was initially used in a recommendation, part of British military officer Grainger Ker Thompson’s assessment for what would be necessary to respond to the insurgency of the Malayan National Liberation Army from the 1940s to the 1960s. Yet, in the exhaustion that followed the bungled war on terror, never “putting boots on the ground” became a sort of stock wisdom among people now ideologically committed to the idea that drones and diplomats can always replace the missions infantry are assigned to.