Will deploying more US troops to fight Ebola increase the chances of the virus spreading through more states?

RallyPoint Team — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 10:16:53 -0400

Have you noticed whenever you turn on the news or read it—Ebola seems to be everywhere? It is a little scary. Cases of Ebola have now been found in Dallas and D.C. Doctors and aid workers from across the world are helping fight the battle against this epidemic, but how much do you really know about this virus? There are many misconceptions about Ebola, so lets clear some up now:

1. Ebola is extremely infectious but not extremely contagious. It is infectious, because an exceedingly small amount can cause illness.
2. Ebola is moderately contagious. The virus is not transmitted through the air.
3. Humans can be infected by other humans if they come in contact with body fluids from an infected person or contaminated objects from infected persons.

This week, President Obama declared that there will be additional screening measures to prevent the virus from ravaging the United States but will not be banning any air travel. The Coast Guard is also starting to put protocols in place for ships that have recently been in Ebola-affected areas. Passengers will be checked for symptoms of the virus before the ship docks. Is this enough or should the U.S. take a more drastic approach and ban all travel unless approved to these virus devastated countries?

As many know, up to 4,000 service members will be deployed to aid in the battle against Ebola in West Africa, but is this really something U.S. Military should be involved in? Operation United Assistance will focus on building treatment units in Liberia and aid in training local health workers to treat patients. Troops are not expected to have direct contact with Ebola patients, but they will still be trained on the proper methods that come with personal protection equipment. With so many Americans being deployed to West Africa, will this only increase the chances of Ebola spreading through States?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 8 at 2014 10:35 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 10:35:18 -0400

Of course the more people who come into close contact with the infected will increase the chances of the virus spreading. But what is more dangerous is people who do not realize that they are exposed in the first place. I would expect the military to take every precaution if we will be placing people in the "hot zone" to combat this thing. And it is much easier to quarantine and monitor Soldiers for symptoms before they are released back into the general population.

Response by SSG Jacob Wiley made Oct 8 at 2014 10:52 AM

SSG Jacob Wiley — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 10:52:11 -0400

After 13 years of war the brave souls who make up our military are beyond pushed to the limit. Heroes are stressed and tired. Too many are constantly adding to the already high suicide rates, divorces are sky high and families are falling apart. The burden and stress the military is expected to carry with a smile on their face is out of control. Most recently add in threats on pay cuts, "pink slips", a return to Iraq and now pile on sending folks to Africa; an area plagued with disease? Welcome to the breaking point.

General Douglas MacArthur said in his farewell speech at West Point in 1962, "...your mission remains fixed, determined, inviolable. It is to win our wars. Everything else in your professional career is but corollary to this vital dedication. All other public purpose, all other public projects, all other public needs, great or small, will find others for their accomplishments; but you are the ones who are trained to fight."

This Ebola crisis is not the military's to encounter. This is not what the military is trained for, prepared for, or meant for. Simply because the military is a group of people who can't say "no" (unless they choose to be a conscientious objector) does not make it right to send them. There are plenty others who could tend to this situation. If this truly is a global concern, why was nothing done when the outbreak began this past March? If this is truly a global concern, where is the international community in this endeavor? Where are their boots on the ground? Nothing heard.

Instead, our military will be further stressed, further exhausted, and abused. They will be placed in an environment with an enemy that is impossible to fight, but told it is not theirs to question why.

We should all pray that God looks after these men and women, and protects them from this disease, because the government that sent them there certainly won't.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Oct 8 at 2014 12:12 PM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 12:12:46 -0400

I don't think there is any question that it increases the risk of more cases in the United States. Exposing thousands of service members, even if adequately protected, is a risk.

I agree with some of the earlier discussions that this is not an appropriate mission for the military. It is better suited for the Public Health Service and non-governmental organizations.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 8 at 2014 2:16 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 14:16:04 -0400

YES!!!

Response by SFC Dr. Joseph Finck, BS, MA, DSS made Oct 8 at 2014 2:47 PM

SFC Dr. Joseph Finck, BS, MA, DSS — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 14:47:17 -0400

SGM Private RallyPoint Member ,

I believe this will open us to extended opportunities for infection. My belief is based on the lack of a training program which are likely not fully developed to ensure appropriate protection. I do not know, but is our Mission Oriented Protection Posture (MOPP) gear rated for disease protection? While I recognize Ebola is not airborne, there are still risks. The greater the exposure, the greater the risk.

Thank you for this interesting and thought provoking post,

SFC Joseph M. Finck USA (Ret)

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 8 at 2014 4:16 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 16:16:27 -0400

I would think it is not the mission of our fighting and protection from attack force (the army), to handle a CDC failure. It is the military mission to protect and defend from enemies not from outbreaks that are in another country. Perhaps the CDC needs to make its own response team and get their mission straight.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 8 at 2014 6:08 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 18:08:24 -0400

I'm curious on how they want our troops to fight Ebola when it's a disease? What are you gonna do bust out the 'one shot one kill' .? Troops are dying already from 'fighting' Ebola. This is just outrageous.

Response by Maj Russell Rowland made Oct 8 at 2014 6:26 PM

Maj Russell Rowland — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 18:26:11 -0400

I am not convinced that the US military is the right agency to respond directly. Military support should be limited to airlift and other logistics support function. However, if the contagion risk is as low as reported it may seem a low risk proposition for properly trained troops. These actions also provide good real-world training for the troops, allows exercise of response plans with realistic but low-threat scenarios, and good PR at a time when most people thing we just go in a blow a place up.

Response by LCpl Rosalie Young made Oct 8 at 2014 7:27 PM

LCpl Rosalie Young — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 19:27:19 -0400

I don't think its the Marine Corps' job to fight Ebola! Just another example of a clueless Commander in Chief trying to make a decision. I wonder some days if he has a dart board in the Oval Office, and he bases decisions on his throws?!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 8 at 2014 8:12 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 20:12:55 -0400

I don't think we should put more of our people at risk by trying to take on Ebola.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 9 at 2014 10:29 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 10:29:02 -0400

I'll address this in two major points:

First, we are not deploying "forces to fight" Ebola; we're sending MP and Medical experts because this is a very real opportunity to train and test on necessary skills if this virus becomes a true, global threat.

Secondly, the military's role is axillary and support-oriented, which is similar to what our actual responsibility will be if a highly contagious bio threat hits the U.S.; the military will be expected to augment and support local authorities and response teams (law enforcement, medical, security, etc) when the local population is unable.

Ultimately, this is the absolute best opportunity we will have. Let's not wait until this stuff is rampant across the globe to test our response capabilities.

Response by MSgt Eric Roseberry made Oct 9 at 2014 9:21 PM

MSgt Eric Roseberry — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 21:21:02 -0400

Step one erect a barrier
Step two patrol barrier
It really not that complected

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 10 at 2014 9:30 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 10 Oct 2014 09:30:33 -0400

Why only the U.S.? Where in the heck is the rest of the world on this one???????

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 10 at 2014 10:46 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 10 Oct 2014 10:46:39 -0400

There are military personnel trained to deal with these issues; so why not have them go out and do their job and help save lives. This is a far better and more noble cause than fighting more wars in countries where we have nothing to gain.

Pay attention folks, this is how you win hearts and minds and make allies to spread your influence world wide.

Response by SSG Ryan Fisher made Oct 10 at 2014 4:48 PM

SSG Ryan Fisher — Fri, 10 Oct 2014 16:48:12 -0400

1. Quarantine all infected people in the U.S.
2. Black list anyone traveling from Africa or other infected areas from entering the U.S. before being screened.
3. Don't lick people that recently entered the U.S. from Africa or other infected areas.

Problem solved...what fuels a virus? Bodies. Stop giving it more bodies.

Someone seriously needs to remove this f**king ass clown and his administration soon.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 11 at 2014 8:20 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 11 Oct 2014 08:20:03 -0400

A simple virus that made everyone lost its initiative. Virus so this is as brutal as we know but can be easily dealt with. What so we know of the ebola. Transfer from people to people thru body fluis and contaminated objects.
1 stop feeding the virus. Quarantine all affected peesonnel from affected area. Quarantine mean nobody goes in or out for the duration of the known incubation period of the disease.
2. Banned all travel to and from the affected countries
3. Stop trying to be a hero and do what is needed to be done and grow a pair of t****cle to say no we are not putting more american people at risk.
If a doctor was affected what makes everyone think that Joe Snuffy would do a better job where he just graduated 6 months AIT and on his first highspeed low drag mission? All the answers point to a disaster.

Response by Cpl Ray Fernandez made Oct 11 at 2014 2:34 PM

Cpl Ray Fernandez — Sat, 11 Oct 2014 14:34:12 -0400

I think if you contain it and can limit the spread in Africa, you reduce the chance of it spreading around the world. When it comes to disease the military might be the best suited to respond. We do have great service members that can set up field hospitals, and we do have very knowledgeable personnel in dealing with Nuclear Biological and Chemical threats. I think that the threat of Ebola is a bit overstated seeing as the main three countries suffering from the outbreak have issues with infrastructure or have been war torn for quite some time. Nigeria had an outbreak that spread to 20 people and out of that 8 people died as of October 1st. So part of this is the fear and lack of understanding of the disease along with a news media that is looking to use fear to draw in a larger audience.

Response by LCDR Jeremy Huff made Oct 11 at 2014 4:33 PM

LCDR Jeremy Huff — Sat, 11 Oct 2014 16:33:14 -0400

Guys you are seeing what happens when we did not honor our oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic...the progressive enemy is behind the gates...and we rationalize...and say it will be okay with a new POTUS...it time to start taking care of our communities and families...Progressive Marxism and B. Obama's fundamental transformation is our judgement....normalcy bias this or not...but it's here.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 12 at 2014 4:31 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Oct 2014 16:31:58 -0400

I've read several sites, including WHO and CDC that infer it may be contagious via airborne particulates, let's not forget, a dead person is still contagious, and via improper handling is easily spread. A virus mutates, so it may not be airborne today or tomorrow, but who is monitoring the mutations....and what the new version can and cannot do?

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 12 at 2014 4:38 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Oct 2014 16:38:58 -0400

I believe that our soldiers would be put to better use guarding our borders and manning our international airports to prevent infected from sneaking in in the same way the Mr. Duncan did. But unfortunately that would be to strong of a position to take in this PC first political atmosphere.....

Response by LCpl Steve Wininger made Oct 12 at 2014 5:25 PM

LCpl Steve Wininger — Sun, 12 Oct 2014 17:25:17 -0400

It will increase the chance of the spread of Ebola. Here is a link that says the nurse who was caring for the man in Texas has tested positive for Ebola.

If you think those who are in contact with the disease won't get it... Think again.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/12/health/ebola/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Ebola outbreak: Texas nurse tests positive - CNN.com

The deadly Ebola virus has been contracted by someone inside the United States for the first time.

Response by SPC David Shaffer made Oct 12 at 2014 8:00 PM

SPC David Shaffer — Sun, 12 Oct 2014 20:00:51 -0400

Seems to me that we should worry about keeping our people safe and healthy. I think they should use a task force that is specifically trained in the treatment, quarantine, and clean up of infectious diseases to take care of this problem. Our troops are trained to fight wars...not fight diseases in another country. We have to do everything in our power to keep our people safe and to stop the infection from coming in the country. I also would hate to see our brothers and sisters put in harms way because they learn to fight people not to fight medical threats. This is just my opinion on it by the way. I also think if they choose to leave this country on their own free will and help with a contagious disease that they know what could possible happen and should not be allowed to freely enter this country. ESPECIALLY if they are sick. All need to be checked. So sorry if i'm rambling hahaha I have not had any time in days to think about anything else but school work.

Response by MSG Mitch Dowler made Oct 14 at 2014 10:16 PM

MSG Mitch Dowler — Tue, 14 Oct 2014 22:16:37 -0400

It is known that Ebola is spread through bodily fluids. Other means by which the disease may be spread are not known. This is a mutating virus and all the known cases of Ebola have not been explained by body fluid contact. I do not believe that we should be sending our troops to fight this disease. Perhaps flying in of equipment and supplies are warranted but drop it and leave it. Leave this to civilian volunteers who are willing to be quarantined and have the experience and training. Our troops should be on our nations borders preventing illegal crossings by people who may be criminals in their own country, may become criminals in our country, and are criminals by default if they cross illegally. We have all manner of diseases that have already entered our country in this manner. Liberia is a failed nation that we have burned billions on. They have not been trainable to run a democratic nation and I don't expect them to be trainable to handle this disease.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 22 at 2014 4:38 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Oct 2014 16:38:28 -0400

General Dempsey's message from youtube yesterday. He addresses the precautions that will be taken.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1Fcm_CTgyo

DOD had a team stand up for 30 days at the request of DHHS in case of a domestic outbreak recently as well and that is currently placed under NORTHCOM.
http://www.defense.gov/video/default.aspx?videoid=368042

Gen. Dempsey Discusses Military Action in the Ebola Crisis

18th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Army General Martin E. Dempsey talks about the U.S. military mission in West Africa as well as precautions i...

Response by SP5 Richard Maze made Dec 16 at 2014 3:16 PM

SP5 Richard Maze — Tue, 16 Dec 2014 15:16:27 -0500

Army doctors are more concerned about malaria exposure than Ebola for the deployed soldiers. "We pretty much have zero exposure risk to Ebola right now, and 100 percent exposure risk to malaria," said Maj. Benjamin Platt, a doctor with Army Medical Support Company, Joint Forces Command-United Assistance.

Response by SSgt Jacob Lenfestey made Jan 30 at 2015 7:11 PM

SSgt Jacob Lenfestey — Fri, 30 Jan 2015 19:11:37 -0500

I am personally in Africa right now and have had several briefings as well as conducted my own research on this matter, Ebola is only a major issue if you do not have established medical facilities, pay attention to where major outbreaks are; Western Africa, the worst medically covered area in the world. Even if you travel easterly from where the outbreak is it quickly diminishes as you get to more developed countries (how ever more slightly may be). Ebola may reach the states but it will never spread unless medical facilities just shut dosn out of nowhere.