When the Ebola crisis struck in West Africa, other countries, like Cuba, sent in doctors. Not the United States. Repeating a worrisome trend we saw in Haiti after the earthquake and in Asia after the Indian Ocean tsunami, the U.S. sent in armed troops to subjegate the victim population.
U.S. Invades Ebola
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
13 Comments. Leave new
Mop up job.
“Send in the drones”?
I see what you did there
Shhh! Quiet Ted – you don’t want to give anyone ideas….
I suppose someone should point out that the US sent a battle-ship/aircraft carrier/whatever to Haiti. We then claimed the million or so dollars of crew salaries and cost of fuel as being relief costs. Not part of the relief costs – the ship WAS the relief.
You know the military HAS doctors right? There are entire battalions worth of specialists who are specifically trained for mass-outbreak type scenarios. It’s really not that out of the ordinary, nor over the top.
Secondly, I *WAS* a soldier in Haiti after the earthquake. We did way more than any red cross group could have dreamed of. Not because we had guns, or bombs, or missiles– we had man power. Man power to rebuild schools, hospitals and the like. We passed out our own rations to help starving people.
I understand that you’re not particularly pro-military, but if you examined the specifics of the situation, and the make up of the units being sent to deal with them, these responses wouldn’t seem so crazy.
«We passed out our own rations to help starving people.» Are we to understand that in «passing out [your] own rations» that you went without, «Grendel» ? Can’t help wondering what Grendel’s mother would have made of that…. 😉
Henri
No, I’m saying that the use of the armed forces outside of combat has legitimate and beneficial applications. We see it in our own country too, when after a natural disaster the national guard deploys to devastated regions, to provide medical support and even rescue operations.
You have failed to address the original message of my post. Keep on track here, man.
@grendel
re: I’m saying that the use of the armed forces … provide medical support and even rescue operations.
Understood – the question is why they need to be armed forces when they are providing medical support. Seems like they should be carrying medical supplies rather than arms.
«You have failed to address the original message of my post. Keep on track here, man.» A bit tetchy are you not, «grendel» ? One of the so-called «messages» in your post was that pitiful bid for sympathy – «[w]e passed out our own rations to help starving people». I merely wondered how heroic and self-sacrificing that «pass[ing] out [of] our own rations» really was ; judging from your brief reply – i e, «No» (the rest was merely an ill-tempered repetition of your special pleading for US «armed forces» – I judge none at all….
The real question is, as CrazyH points out, why such help efforts on the part of the US government always seem to be organised by the military ; it couldn’t possibly have anything to do with a desire to increase the US military presence on the African continent no would it ?…
Perhaps you need help in finding the track, man…. 😉
Henri
@crazyh
and that’s an entirely understandable point there– but the term “armed forces” is sort of a catch all for any of the service branches. It’s not like they’ll bring over apache gunships and cruise missiles. Not in the slightest. And in reference to an earlier post about there being an aircraft carrier near Haiti after the earthquake, that carrier was used as a staging center for helicopters and planes to bring supplies to the island. It’s like a command center of sorts, something I think we can all agree would be necessary in any relief effort. Furthermore, there are battalions worth of soldiers who are actually trained in how to handle out break type situations, (i.e. chemical corp units and medical corp units). Arguably, they’d be the best people to deal with something like this. If you could find a civilian equivalent to this, then the government would likely have used it already, but the fact of the matter is that nothing on this scale exists in the civilian world– even doctors without borders is taxed to its limit.
I already gave you a logical explanation as to why these measures were taken– and as I have explained, no civilian equivalent exists to what the military could bring to bare in a humanitarian crisis. Furthermore, to imply that I was “pleading for sympathy” is an attack on my personal character, meaning that you have failed to present a counter argument to my initial claims.
And to your claims of expanded US military presence in the region– would you be more amenable to the poorly reported Chinese presence there? Pick your evils.
> no civilian equivalent exists
That may be true – but then the question becomes, “why not?” It’s a matter of having the right tool for the job – if I need to pound a nail, then my best tool is a hammer; not an M16.
If we want to provide humanitarian aid, then we should turn to the Peace Corps, not the Marine Corps. If they don’t have enough money – then we should divert some. That aircraft carrier could have carried more food and supplies if it wasn’t decked out with weaponry. It could have transferred supplies better if it were carrying more cargo planes and fewer fighters. Whatever amount of good was done, it would have been even greater if the majority of people on board were trained in medicine and sanitation engineering rather than killing.
Even if your arguments are all true – think of the message it sends. We’ve had a *military* presence in Afghanistan for thirteen years. They do not see the guys toting guns as their friends, and as a direct result they do not see the USA as their friends. We could have rebuilt the entire country for a measly twenty billion dollars, and had an ally forever. Instead we spent 227 billion creating the next generation of Al Qaeda recruits.
> would you be more amenable to the poorly reported Chinese presence there?
Speaking of logic – that’s a false dichotomy. It also tends to contradict your claims of a peaceful mission.
Thank you so much for your «explanation», «grendel», which explains nothing – the question to be answered, but which you studiously avoid, is just why «no civilian equivalent exists to what the military could bring to bare [sic ! – I suspect you mean «bear»] in a humanitarian crisis». Perhaps the US government regards it advantageous to have no civilian apparatus in place in order to do what are essentially civilian tasks, so at to be able to introduce its military ?…
Sad that you regard «pleading for sympathy» as «an attack on [your] personal character», but how you regard it is neither here nor there – how else can such a tear-dripping locution like «[w]e passed out our own rations to help starving people» to be interpreted, not least when you admit that none of you went without rations due to of this act of unprecedented generosity ?…
I am not particularly interested in your «personal character» – only in the manner in which it is reflected by your comments on this thread. Hitherto, I must confess, I am hardly impressed….
I see no reason to prefer a US presence in regions suffering from the Ebola epidemic to a Chinese presence ; what I should, however, like to see is a massive civilian contribution to the fight against it from both these Powers. But by introducing China into the equation, you do, perhaps, provide us with an indication of why it is the US military, rather than civilian medical organisations, that have been sent there. Thank you so much, «grendel», for the tip – I suspect you fully merit your sobriquet…. 😉
Henri