Quote:
Originally Posted by Broadsword2004
Putting soldiers into Syria though could probably get them killed a lot more easily than being sent to West Africa (or at least that is how the thinking goes, I imagine some would rather be sent into combat than around Ebola). I wouldn't say though that this is just a social program, it is a program in which the United States has a national security interest. It isn't like the military is being sent in to just build huts or something for the sake of it. Peace Corps and USAID probably do not have the training to properly handle something like Ebola in that sense.
|
This is the Bergdahl Brigade mentality, in my opinion. Our troops are not the Peace Corp with guns.
Everyone I know would rather go to Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan. If you 'get it' there, your chances of survival are higher. And you'd be shooting at bad guys, not scared, superstitious, potentially infected civilians. Then again, the same ROE would probably apply and our troops would be told to take them into protective custody, Ebola and all.
As harsh as it sounds the only use I can see for troops, any troops not just ours, is to enforce a quarantine, with extreme long range and very lethal measures. Sadly, the area that would have to be included is a large part of the continent.
For weeks, Doctors Without Borders and others have said this is going to get very, very bad before it gets better. So far, nothing has worked. 3000 troops will do nothing but create more victims and facilitate the spread to this continent. Unless they quarantine those 3000 on a ship, then hold the ship at sea for an additional 30 days to insure no one was a carrier who then infected someone already on the ship. Do you really think our government will take those extreme precautions?
Because some in our government may know what to do does not mean that the actions of our government will align with that knowledge.