Andrew J.

The US military should be winning wars, not fighting Ebola

These feelgood humanitarian missions suggest that money’s being spent in the wrong place —and that we’re not facing up to failure in the Middle East

US air Force soldiers delimit with barbed wire the position of the next Ebola treatment center reserved for contaminated healthcare workers in Monrovia, on October 6, 2014, where the virus continues to claim more victims. Liberia is the country hit hardest by the largest Ebola outbreak on record, accounting for about two-thirds of the total 3,338 deaths recorded in the region since the beginning of the year. AFP PHOTO / PASCAL GUYOT (Photo credit should read PASCAL GUYOT/AFP/Getty Images) 
issue 11 October 2014

As a general rule, soldiers should be employed in the business of soldiering — preparing to fight or actually fighting (preferably infrequent) wars. In response to the Ebola outbreak afflicting West Africa, the Obama administration has decided to waive that rule. His decision to do so has received widespread support. Yet the effect of his decision is to divert attention from questions of considerable urgency.

Drawing on the increasingly elastic authority exercised by the US commander-in-chief, President Obama has directed the deployment of up to 4,000 troops to Liberia, ground zero of the epidemic. These are not war fighters but support troops, mostly construction engineers and medical personnel. A president with a pronounced aversion to putting boots on the ground is doing just that — albeit boots that will arrive largely unaccompanied by guns.

Liberia Races To Expand Ebola Treatment Facilities, As U.S. Troops Arrive
U.S. Air Force personnel offload equipment from a C-17 transport plane outside of Monrovia, Liberia

Although the particulars of what the Pentagon is styling Operation United Assistance may be unique, the concept — military forces responding to disasters that outstrip civilian capabilities — is decidedly not.

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in