Seasider Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 I am conflicted about what the role of the US military should be in the fight against the spread of Ebola. I am wondering how others of you think about this, particularly those/with loved ones in the military. http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/16/health/obama-ebola/index.html?c=us http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/16/ebola-crisis-us-sending-3000-military-personnel-west-africa/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seasider Posted September 16, 2014 Author Share Posted September 16, 2014 I feel the same way about exposure and spreading the virus internationally. But from the linked articles, it almost sounds as if the troops sent will be medical personnel? That's one reason I'm curious to hear from military folk. I'm also curious to know whether they would go through a quarantine procedure upon return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wapiti Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 I have no idea, but my guess would be that (1) construction folks will go (Corps of Engineers), and then leave, followed by (2) medical personnel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 It scares me to death. If the medical doctors who are there and taking precautions have caught this, how much more at risk will the military be.... Actually, I would think that if we start sending in the military, we'll also send in a good deal of the resources needed to keep them safe. I doubt they'll be washing their hazmat suits in buckets like some of the doctors were forced to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AimeeM Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 I think it's a really bad idea (and I'm generally in favor of our troops helping internationally). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liz CA Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 I was flabbergasted when I first read this a couple of days ago. IMHO, this is endangering members of the military unnecessarily. Those who will get infected, will not even be able to see their families since it's highly contagious. Unnecessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moxie Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 There are other concerns in the world right now that concern me much more than Ebola. That's all I can say without being political. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pawz4me Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 I think it's great. I'd much rather see our military performing humanitarian tasks like this than engaged in war. I feel sure the personnel who will be sent are well trained for the task, and I certainly hope they'll be properly equipped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 Considering we have troops trained and equipped to hand biological warfare attacks, using them to help slow/stop this outbreak makes logical sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VeteranMom Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 I don't like the idea of sending in the troops to deal with this. The focus needs to be on stopping this disease from spreading. Exposing 5000 of our troops to it isn't going to slow it down. With this number of military being sent in, we're bound to have casualties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seasider Posted September 16, 2014 Author Share Posted September 16, 2014 I think it's great. I'd much rather see our military performing humanitarian tasks like this than engaged in war. I feel sure the personnel who will be sent are well trained for the task, and I certainly hope they'll be properly equipped. Yes, this is what I am thinking. From reading and from conversations with biologist friends, this particular strain actually has a fairly high survivability rate (47% according to WHO) and is spread by contact with human bodily fluids (no animal vehicles/vectors). So it seems like just getting some standard clinical infection control procedures in place would make a world of difference. I do think it's somewhat typical to experience an initial knee jerk reaction when hearing the military is being sent to "fight Ebola." I'd like to see some good press about our trained medical units. I also think there needs to be some sort of quarantined/screened return policy in place, if for no other reason than to quell the general public's (well founded or not) fear of transmission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paige Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 I don't like this. I think sending money and medical kits is good. I think sending civilian consultants and non-military government officials would be helpful. Sending military soldiers is not the best idea, IMO. I say this as someone whose DH is in the military, so I'm sure I'm biased, but it seems like our military has other things to do and if the virus mutates to an airborne form- which isn't out of the question considering some monkey forms of it already have- it could leave our military unable to perform its primary purpose. On top of that, if things go badly for the population, there will be conspiracy theorists saying we did it on purpose and that our military is killing people. Additionally, we will be putting some huge targets for terrorists like ISIS and Boko Haram to attack in a relatively insecure position. The terrorists would be interested in American non-military personnel, but a uniformed soldier is a much more attractive target and is less able to blend in with other foreign aid workers and the local population. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 I think it's great. I'd much rather see our military performing humanitarian tasks like this than engaged in war. I feel sure the personnel who will be sent are well trained for the task, and I certainly hope they'll be properly equipped. The US military is typically involved in many humanitarian missions around the world at any given time. The US military resources are vast. Units often arrive with things like portable showers, portable washing machines and reverse osmosis water purification systems. The type of units that are involved with these missions are not usually "medics" as in combat medics; they are usually medical units with a doctors and nurses along with some medics. It doesn't stretch the needs of the military to take on a mission like this because it just doesn't involve that many soldiers. There are other concerns in the world right now that concern me much more than Ebola. That's all I can say without being political. Just talking logistics-the military is in a drawdown phase; they are supposed to be drawing down to 490,000 this year (if more budget cuts go through next year, then they plan to reduce troop levels to something more like 450,000, which will be the lowest since before WW2). Budget cuts from Congress have forced the military to reduce its personnel numbers a great deal. Tens of thousands of soldiers have been cut since GWOT was at its height. I find it hard to imagine getting involved in another major ground conflict without withdrawing from Afghanistan first. There were nearly 300,000 military personnel in the region during OEF and OIF. And they had bases in Europe supporting them that have since been shut down. But mainly? The American people don't *want* to get involved in another ground conflict. Half of them don't even know that we're still in Afghanistan and probably couldn't name 5 countries that we're running missions in while we're in up to 150 countries. At some point, there just aren't enough personnel. http://www.army.mil/article/130534/Senior_leaders_explain_Army_s_drawdown_plan/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pawz4me Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 The US military is typically involved in many humanitarian missions around the world at any given time. The US military resources are vast. Units often arrive with things like portable showers, portable washing machines and reverse osmosis water purification systems. The type of units that are involved with these missions are not usually "medics" as in combat medics; they are usually medical units with a doctors and nurses along with some medics. It doesn't stretch the needs of the military to take on a mission like this because it just doesn't involve that many soldiers. I'm very well aware of how this sort of operation typically works, and in the number of humanitarian missions our military is involved in. Nowhere in my comment did I mean to imply that I think it will stretch our military in any way, but I guess my comment about preferring to see our military performing humanitarian tasks rather than engaged in war could be interpreted that way. I know it's not an either/or thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In The Great White North Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 Whatever happened to the Peace Corps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wabi Sabi Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 Whatever happened to the Peace Corps? The Peace Corps is tiny and does not have the manpower. This is way beyond their scope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moxie Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 Whatever happened to the Peace Corps? My sister was in the PC. She and the other people in her group taught English in a school. They were fresh out of college and barely prepared for "the real world" far less deal with a medical crisis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 I would rather see the world work to stop this epidemic before it spreads even farther. Which each new country and community afflicted, the risks for the entire world grow, not to mention the scope of the deaths and economic destruction. I have mixed feelings about the various roles of the US military around the world, but this is one of them and if they're able to do this task, as I assume they can, then I think it's probably positive. I think they'll be much better equipped than the health care workers who have been getting sick with such limited resources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
displace Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 I would like for our country to support WHO or whoever tends to lead in these circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reefgazer Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 I don't think the US military should ever be used for any purpose other than securing our borders/defending the US. If preventing Ebola from coming into this country is necessary to secure our borders/defend the country, there are other ways to do that that are cheaper and do not put US citizens at health risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Florida. Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 I would like for our country to support WHO or whoever tends to lead in these circumstances. I agree. WHO and the UN have been asking for help since early in this situation. The cost for the help they need has gone up significantly as the virus spreads. The longer the world holds off on giving help, the more it will cost in lives, money, and other resources. From the linked article: "We requested about $100m a month ago and now it is $1bn, so our ask has gone up 10 times in a month," the UN's Ebola co-ordinator, David Nabarro, told a briefing in Geneva." "Because of the way the outbreak is advancing, the level of surge we need to do is unprecedented, it is massive." When the WHO had said it needed the capacity to manage 20,000 cases two weeks ago "that seemed like a lot", Dr Aylward said. "That does not seem like a lot today," he added. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liz CA Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 From reading and from conversations with biologist friends, this particular strain actually has a fairly high survivability rate (47% according to WHO) and is spread by contact with human bodily fluids (no animal vehicles/vectors). So it seems like just getting some standard clinical infection control procedures in place would make a world of difference. I am not sure a survival rate of 47% is comforting. If this is not core military personnel but rather medical professionals who are part of units, it could be a little better explained. I also think that supporting the existing organizations that are already in the area should be a goal - and perhaps it is. There is little detail about this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 I'm very well aware of how this sort of operation typically works, and in the number of humanitarian missions our military is involved in. Nowhere in my comment did I mean to imply that I think it will stretch our military in any way, but I guess my comment about preferring to see our military performing humanitarian tasks rather than engaged in war could be interpreted that way. I know it's not an either/or thing. Sorry, I was agreeing with you and disagreeing with the post I quoted below my statement at the same time. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 I would like for our country to support WHO or whoever tends to lead in these circumstances. I don't think the WHO has the physical equipment that would be needed. The US military does. They are often used in conjunction with WHO/NATO/UNICEF/UN. How do you *think* the UN wants us to help? This is the sort of help that they want. Not to the person quoted above: These types of humanitarian missions help secure our borders and defend the nation by improving the outlook that many third world countries have of the US. Surely that isn't difficult to see? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
displace Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 I don't think the WHO has the physical equipment that would be needed. The US military does. They are often used in conjunction with WHO/NATO/UNICEF/UN. How do you *think* the UN wants us to help? This is the sort of help that they want. ? If that's what they asked for then I am in agreement with it. I am uneducated in what the OP referenced as I can't open links right now. I don't think we should be independently sending off people but supporting world agencies is what I would like the US to do. FWIW, the OP asked especially for military perspectives, which my family is not, so please disregard. (embarrassed emoticon here). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanny Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 After the earthquake in Haiti the USS Carl Vinson steamed to Port a Prince and their hospital helped many many people who were injured and provided medical care to many many people. That's just one example of the U.S. Military helping after a disaster. Also, after the Tsunami in Indonesia, the U.S. helped. Two examples... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrincessMommy Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 I'm not against it per-se...but I am concerned with how it will be received by the host countries. They had riots in Liberia over this. I can only imagine what they'll think when they hear/see that American troops are helping their gov't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 I don't think the US military should ever be used for any purpose other than securing our borders/defending the US. If preventing Ebola from coming into this country is necessary to secure our borders/defend the country, there are other ways to do that that are cheaper and do not put US citizens at health risk. I appreciate this position and I feel like using the US military in so many situations all over the world has really not been positive much of the time. But, to play devil's advocate... in terms of stopping the disease from becoming a threat to the US, it seems like the opportunity for that is now. If it gets to the point that it's really spreading beyond West Africa, particularly if it leaves Africa, then it will be too late and the military won't be able to make such a difference. So in terms of cost, the cost is much less expensive (both monetarily and in terms of human life) for acting now. The longer we wait, the more expensive and dangerous it becomes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Those of you who are worried about "sending the military in"...what exactly are you thinking is going to happen? Have you actually read what the actual plans are? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 I don't think the US military should ever be used for any purpose other than securing our borders/defending the US. If preventing Ebola from coming into this country is necessary to secure our borders/defend the country, there are other ways to do that that are cheaper and do not put US citizens at health risk. Name them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lang Syne Boardie Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 I hate this but I think we must. The only chance at stopping a global epidemic is for first-world hygiene and care to be exported to third-world countries and there are only a few nations in the world that can make it happen. We can't wait, with a plan to keep ebola out at our border. Infected persons with citizenship here can still come in. It can still come in. We have to stop it from leaving the continents that are most afflicted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liz CA Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Name them. I thought SP was doing important work there and they have established networks and relationships. They are not tax payer funded and if a military unit would deliver more resources for them I am all for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 I thought SP was doing important work there and they have established networks and relationships. They are not tax payer funded and if a military unit would deliver more resources for them I am all for it. Have you looked at what the military will be doing? Supporting them by building clinics (something like 17 and I think around the 20,000 beds being requested), assisting in the training of 500 additional healthcare workers, and providing biohazard equipment and training on that equipment. There is no NGO that has the resources and logistical support that can be provided by the U.S. military. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blondeviolin Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 I don't like it, but for personal reasons. My husband is Air Force and his aircraft is still constantly deployed to support the Middle East, even if we are "out of Iraq." This means more military members gone and our services are already running bare. I also have questions about pay, time away, and leave options for those deployed to these areas. There is much that is unknown about these operations. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it. Sometimes (most times?) the military does things that aren't fun and never are they compensated sufficiently (pay, leave, recognition). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liz CA Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Have you looked at what the military will be doing? Supporting them by building clinics (something like 17 and I think around the 20,000 beds being requested), assisting in the training of 500 additional healthcare workers, and providing biohazard equipment and training on that equipment. There is no NGO that has the resources and logistical support that can be provided by the U.S. military. Then - if I am reading this correctly - they will deliver, train personnel and then be available for other duties. I just hope that we can accomplish all this with nobody getting infected because 47% survival rate is real iffy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Then - if I am reading this correctly - they will deliver, train personnel and then be available for other duties. I just hope that we can accomplish all this with nobody getting infected because 47% survival rate is real iffy. There aren't any guarantees obviously but I would say using properly trained personnel to help stem the outbreak now is less risky than waiting until it worsens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seasider Posted September 17, 2014 Author Share Posted September 17, 2014 Regarding the 47% - I certainly didn't mean to minimize the risk. It's just a lot different that the almost certain death of other Ebola strains, so comparatively it's less risky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Every ally we make is a wound in our enemies. I hope these places remember this when contemplating doing business with our enemies. For this reason, I'm okay with it presuming they are taking reasonable cautionary measures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibraryLover Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 I would like to think so. Every ally we make is a wound in our enemies.I hope these places remember this when contemplating doing business with our enemies.For this reason, I'm okay with it presuming they are taking reasonable cautionary measures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justasque Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Families who are interested in the spread of disease might enjoy the board game Pandemic, in which players take on the roles of various CDC workers and try to stop outbreaks of disease around the world. The board is a world map, and players move from city to city scrambling to stamping out four diseases before they spread. Resources are limited, so a careful strategy is essential to contain each disease before it begins to expand rapidly to neighboring cities. As Pandemic is a cooperative game, the challenge is to work with fellow players, using each one's special abilities strategically, to cure the diseases before time is up. For those who enjoy the basic game there are also several expansions available. From an academic perspective, the game gives a good visual representation of the spread of disease, and how early aggressive action can make containment much easier. The geography component is a nice bonus; on each turn players can move to one of 48 major cities across the globe. Because it is a cooperative game, younger children can easily be included, as they can take advice from other players without compromising game play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amira Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Families who are interested in the spread of disease might enjoy the board game Pandemic, in which players take on the roles of various CDC workers and try to stop outbreaks of disease around the world. The board is a world map, and players move from city to city scrambling to stamping out four diseases before they spread. Resources are limited, so a careful strategy is essential to contain each disease before it begins to expand rapidly to neighboring cities. As Pandemic is a cooperative game, the challenge is to work with fellow players, using each one's special abilities strategically, to cure the diseases before time is up. For those who enjoy the basic game there are also several expansions available. From an academic perspective, the game gives a good visual representation of the spread of disease, and how early aggressive action can make containment much easier. The geography component is a nice bonus; on each turn players can move to one of 48 major cities across the globe. Because it is a cooperative game, younger children can easily be included, as they can take advice from other players without compromising game play. I love this game. And I am very happy to see that the US will finally be sending in much-needed help. WHO has been saying for months that much, much more assistance is needed. I believe this is the right thing to do. My only regret is that it wasn't done months ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Families who are interested in the spread of disease might enjoy the board game Pandemic, in which players take on the roles of various CDC workers and try to stop outbreaks of disease around the world. The board is a world map, and players move from city to city scrambling to stamping out four diseases before they spread. Resources are limited, so a careful strategy is essential to contain each disease before it begins to expand rapidly to neighboring cities. As Pandemic is a cooperative game, the challenge is to work with fellow players, using each one's special abilities strategically, to cure the diseases before time is up. For those who enjoy the basic game there are also several expansions available. From an academic perspective, the game gives a good visual representation of the spread of disease, and how early aggressive action can make containment much easier. The geography component is a nice bonus; on each turn players can move to one of 48 major cities across the globe. Because it is a cooperative game, younger children can easily be included, as they can take advice from other players without compromising game play. Are the expansion packs worth having too? I have a kid (2 actually) who would flip for this for Christmas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justasque Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Are the expansion packs worth having too? I have a kid (2 actually) who would flip for this for Christmas. I don't know; we have one but I have not played with it; I've only played the original game. BoardGameGeek has a ton of info about this and other board games; that would be a good place to start your research. I believe they have a page for each expansion; the links are in the "linked items" section towards the bottom of this page. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisbeth Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 I think it is unrealistically optimistic to believe that these countries (the people of) will like us more for helping ... That hasn't happened so far, and we send aid and humanitarian help constantly around the world. I'm tired of our troops being put in mortal peril to solve the problems of the world. Their job is to secure and defend the US. Don't others have some responsibility to adapt to help themselves? How about changing the way dead bodies are handled and funerals conducted? This has the potential to be a major disaster...for our men and women being sent in, their families, and us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 I think it is unrealistically optimistic to believe that these countries (the people of) will like us more for helping ... That hasn't happened so far, and we send aid and humanitarian help constantly around the world. I'm tired of our troops being put in mortal peril to solve the problems of the world. Their job is to secure and defend the US. Don't others have some responsibility to adapt to help themselves? How about changing the way dead bodies are handled and funerals conducted? This has the potential to be a major disaster...for our men and women being sent in, their families, and us. *sigh* You do know we aren't just sending in random troops, right? You also realize that at this point stopping the spread of this strain goes beyond just changing cultural habits. The virus is active, it is potentially deadly, and it is spreading. If we want it stopped (and it is in our best interest to stop it) then someone needs to provide the resources and training to those in the area to stop it. And right now, the US military is best suited to do so. As a Christian, I don't believe we should only send aid when we expect a "thank you." We should do it when it is the right thing to do. As for why some hate us...well, we only have ourselves to blame for that a lot of the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lang Syne Boardie Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 If we care about our troops and our people in our land, we will stop a pandemic before it reaches the people whom we love. And we will ride out to meet it and defeat it instead of fighting this battle on our own shores. Can you not see that the former is better than the latter? It would be nice if we also loved those currently suffering, and for church people we most definitely are supposed to love our neighbor as ourselves, but if all we have is selfishness for "our own" that's actually enough reason to go. Because "our own" are toast if ebola is not confined and eradicated. That's what happens when you ignore a global threat: It does go global. Listen to Dr. Brantly's testimony. Read his story. He is right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.