By Rabi Raj Thapa
In simple terms, “boots on the ground” means soldiers, police, etc., physically present somewhere in a military or police operation. In this regard, the number and types of “boots” (foot soldiers)—such as military, paramilitary, police, or even mercenaries (like Russia’s Wagner Group or others)—are important. It symbolizes less about their emblem, insignia, nationality, or allegiance, and more about the goals and purposes they carry.
“Boots on the ground” also implies having people physically present and actively involved in a specific location to achieve a goal. This term is commonly used in military, political, and business contexts as well. It emphasizes direct, on-site action—such as soldiers in combat or staff at a project site—rather than remote support.
Now, there might be a heated debate going on, perhaps clandestinely, within the Nepali government about what to do with the ongoing process of the US State Partnership Program (SPP) in Nepal.
Foreign boots—or uniforms, whatever purpose and agreements they may have—will definitely stir deep security concerns among Nepal’s immediate neighbors, both India and especially China.
Recalling Hillary Clinton’s “3D Doctrine (2011),” i.e., Defense, Diplomacy, and Development, which she championed as US Secretary of State (2009–2013), it clearly shows that these three approaches are like three spears of a single trident of the so-called US National Security Strategy. When people talk about defense, it may indicate using traditional military strength to deter threats and win wars. When they talk about diplomacy, it means using “smart power” as the “first line of engagement” or building partnerships between military personnel. And when they talk about development, it means providing foreign aid, promoting economic growth, and working with various international agencies that are present in Nepal and are supposed to tackle poverty, if not proven otherwise.
But the crux of the matter is this: boots on any foreign soil in small countries like Nepal are a sensitive issue of great concern, especially when it involves inviting American boots, given the political, economic, and military tensions between the US and China.
Nepal must not forget its bitter experience when it sought the withdrawal of the Indian Military Mission, especially its 18 security check-posts along the Nepal–China border, which were established in 1952.
An Indian Military Advisory Group had already been established in Nepal in 1952 to help organize and train the Nepal Army. It had come for a short period with the limited duty of modernizing the army and stationing 18 security check-posts along Nepal–China mountain passes. When Nepal later wanted India to withdraw these, it had to go through significant diplomatic difficulties. In this regard, British four-star General Sam Cowan, a historian and well-wisher of Nepal, notes: “…after much diplomatic sparring, during which India threatened to close the border, an agreement was reached in September 1969 to withdraw 17 Indian check-posts stationed in the northern borders of Nepal by August 1970.” (Sam Cowan, Maharajas, Emperors, Viceroys, Borders, 2024).
SPP in Nepal may be beneficial in fostering better Nepal–US relations as far as Nepal and the USA are concerned. However, Nepal needs to assess the concerns and apprehensions of its immediate neighbors and consider their likely security responses. In this regard, it is important to note that the US Embassy in Nepal has explained and clarified its position on its website (“State Partnership Program Factsheet – U.S. Embassy in Nepal”). But what about the Nepal government’s policy perspective? That is more urgent and important.
Therefore, it is easy to inject but difficult to eject foreign boots, whatever their purpose may be.
Simply put, Nepal can learn from the harrowing experiences of Gulf countries, where Iran has launched drone and missile attacks in response to the presence of foreign troops on their soil.
Now, the bold and majoritarian Balen government needs to show serious concern and diplomatic acumen to address the SPP in an amicable manner without damaging good understanding, cooperation, and relationships with its immediate neighbors.
The new government is sure to fall into a deep political morass if it fails to address the SPP prudently. Let us wish Nepal the best of luck.
Login to add a comment