Yes, I have praised President Obama for his humanitarian decision
to send U.S. troops to West Africa to help combat the Ebola epidemic … possible
pandemic … see:
Ebola. But subsequent events have led me to have some misgivings about this decision.
Now, I read that the troops being sent there … 4,000 before its all over … are
elite soldiers from the 101
st Airborne Division … see:
Pamela Geller Blog.
To me this seems a curious choice … and
so my growing doubts about this mission are re-enforced. Clearly this disease
is more easily transmitted than we have been previously led to believe ... and
the living conditions in an Army bivouac camp are far less sanitary and controllable
than in the Dallas Presbyterian hospital.
Is President Obama purposely trying to punish these solders
by sending them on a mission for which they seem unsuited and untrained. It is
almost a certainty that one or more of them will contract this dreaded disease
while there … a far less soldierly fate than being shot at by a RPG. Does Obama
have a hidden agenda to this deployment as suggested by Pamela Geller in the
above referenced article?
As a result of my current chariness about our fearless
leader's decision, I offer three rational suggestions for this mission:
1) All the American soldiers that go to West Africa should
be volunteers … and that they should be thoroughly trained beforehand in the
hazards of Ebola … with an opting-out choice at the end of this training.
2) Tours of duty there should be no longer than two months …
without any re-deployments … and with one month of quarantine on a remote
tropical island before returning home. Any soldiers who contracts this disease should be flown back to the U.S. for premier treatment.
3) Like any good commander, Obama should spend two or three days there with his troops … once fully deployed. Leaders should never ask
their troops to do anything that they themselves would not do.
