| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Signs, Portents, and the Weather- |
| Generals blast Obama's order of troops to fight Ebola |
| 2014-10-11 |
| h/t Jerry Pournelle Two retired U.S. Army generals have blasted President Barack Obama's decision to send U.S. troops to West Africa to battle the Ebola virus epidemic, saying the military is to fight wars, not disease. In exclusive interviews with WND, retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. William "Jerry" Boykin and retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely condemned Obama's decision, as U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel approved up to 4,000 boots on the ground from a previous ceiling of 3,000. The concern is that these soldiers, who will be exposed to the environment where the virus is prevalent, could bring it to the United States and potentially spread the disease as they rotate back to the United States and are assigned to other units. |
| Posted by:g(r)omgoru |
| #5 So long as they are just doing infrastructure, behind barbed wire, they can safely do some good, if they do it themselves. Relying on local contractors isn't a good plan, as they quickly discovered. There's some balancing required--they'll waste effort unless they get some advice about what is most needed, but some of the advice will tend to be of the "Where's mine" flavor, and some of what's needed we don't want them doing. Doing transportation? They'll meet mothers begging them to take their sick babies to the hospital. How do you think that will turn out? Infrastructure changes often mean displacing people. Unhappiness ensues, and people remember injuries better than benefits. And "safely" is somewhat relative. Malaria comes to mind (been there, done that). You need some care with local foods (washed in contaminated water=dysentery). Having troops there can work, and work to our security as mom points out, provided stupid people aren't commanding the mission. |
| Posted by: James 2014-10-11 12:11 |
| #4 I can understand the generals' concerns about public health and mission creep, especially given the present administration's track record. However, this really is a defense issue, because in fighting Ebola in the hot zone they protect our country. I also agree with Dr. Steve that we should not underestimate our military's ability to deal with the situation.They are especially good at supply logistics, for delivering medical supplies and food, getting hospitals set up. Get Ebola under control at the source, and it's less likely to spread worldwide. Now, if we'd had a quarantine system for travelers in place back in July, that would have been a mercy to all concerned. Spending three weeks in quarantine would be a major nuisance, but somebody would spot symptoms and take care of you. |
| Posted by: mom 2014-10-11 09:37 |
| #3 I have a little more faith in our military than this. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2014-10-11 08:40 |
| #2 Two old white men. Nothing to be seen here. New generals, more pliable people ['top people'], are already moving up within the system. [sarc off] |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2014-10-11 08:25 |
| #1 The Atomic Soldiers, Agent Orange, Gulf Fever. Doesn't matter who's in charge. You're considered expendable. Of course, you could probably end this by allowing SEIU to unionize the troops. Don't want to risk all those mandatory union |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2014-10-11 08:18 |