- US General: These military personnel don’t have any qualifications to fight an Ebola epidemic environment. That’s not what the military does. - (Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin).
- US General: It's a misuse of US troops. The government has other assets available for building hospitals. (Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely)
- Concern is that soldiers could contract the disease and then bring it to their units, and eventually to the United States.
- Gen. Boykin pointed out that there will be no inoculation for Ebola prior to troop deployment.
- Defense Department said that the only preparation service members will receive will be briefings on the disease.
- The UN has been silent regarding any idea of sending a UN-sponsored mission to Liberia or other Ebola-infected countries.
- Israel - citing insufficient US precautions in the area - declined request by the UN and White House to send Israeli troops to Liberia.
- Israel also fears for soldiers' lives, due to widespread anti-Semitism caused in part by incitement by the UN itself.
- Israel will be sending medical personnel and equipment to West Africa to join the effort to prevent the spread of Ebola.
- US government safety double standard: White House suspended flights to Israel due to ONE errant Gazan rocket, but sends planes and troops to a dangerously contagious area.
By F. Michael Maloof, WND
 |
| Gen. Boykin |
In exclusive interviews with WND, retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin and retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely condemned Obama’s decision, as U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel approved up to 4,000 boots on the ground from a previous ceiling of 3,000. The concern is that these soldiers, who will be exposed to the environment where the virus is prevalent, could bring it to the United States and potentially spread the disease as they rotate back to the United States and are assigned to other units.
As WND reported, the soldiers would be responsible for command, control, logistics, civil affairs and medical assistance, even though U.S. officials emphasized that their exposure to Ebola would be limited.
The soldiers would not be exposed to patients, except for Navy units that will maintain labs to test samples for the Ebola virus. Already two such portable labs have been set up. They can process some 100 samples in one day.
"Suicide is at an all-time high, PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder] is out of control and families are being destroyed as a result of 13 years of war. The last thing the president should be doing is sending people into West Africa to fight Ebola.” said Boykin.
These military personnel, Boykin said, don’t have any qualifications to fight an Ebola epidemic environment. That’s not what the military does,” he said
Boykin pointed out that there will be no inoculation for Ebola prior to troop deployment. Defense Department spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirby said that the only preparation service members will receive before heading to West Africa will be briefings on the disease.
UN - always so eager to denounce Israel - rather quiet regarding the threat of Ebola.
Boykin questioned where the United Nations was in forming a coalition to send into West Africa to fight the Ebola epidemic. “What about the other African nations? What about a coalition? Where is the U.N.?” Boykin asked. “There should be a U.N. coalition to try to stem the tide of this Ebola [epidemic]. This isn’t a U.S. military operation, and it should not be a U.S. military-led operation.”
Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman, made clear to WND in response to a question at his daily news conference that other countries’ response to the epidemic, including the U.N., comes only from an invitation of the government of Liberia, basically evading the issue of any U.N. initiative.
He said that the government of Liberia specifically had asked for U.S. assistance.
UN and White House hypocrisy
In questioning the lack of a U.N. response, Boykin expressed outrage over its immediate response when Israel defends itself from Hamas rockets in the Gaza Strip.
“Let the Israelis respond to one bombing or one missile attack,” Boykin said, “and the U.N. will come out of hiding.”
Echoing Boykin’s concern over the use of the military to fight Ebola, Vallely not only said it’s a “bad idea,” but also warned the U.S. military already has been “put through so much.”
 |
| Gen. Vallely |
“There are plenty of other assets that America has if it wants to go over there and build hospitals and clearing centers and things like that,” Vallely said. “So, I think it is a very bad misuse especially when [U.S. troops] now are being asked to step up to the plate again in Iraq. So, I think it is a very bad decision on Obama’s part.”
Three weeks ago, Obama had declared the Ebola outbreak to be a “national security priority.” However, Vallely said the Ebola event can be “twisted or contorted into that, but the military isn’t the only one involved in the security of America.”
In fighting the Ebola disease, he said there is the Center for Disease Control and, “other parts of the government can step up to the plate to put up the necessary security or contractual-type arrangement to build facilities for security. I just think it is a very bad misuse of our military. It’s just another bad decision on Obama’s part.”
The weak government reassurance that US personnel won't be exposed to Ebola
Pentagon officials emphasized that U.S. service personnel would be in a support role only and would not have direct access to Ebola patients, even though U.S. Navy lab technicians will be handling samples to determine whether patients are infected with Ebola or not.
“It is so naïve to say (U.S. troops) won’t be exposed but they’ll be in an area of infectious diseases,” Vallely said. “So, just by the nature of being over there puts you in an environment of exposure of an infectious disease.
“We have so many threats on our border, so many threats coming out of the Middle East and the threat of terrorists coming into the United States that there are other assets that can be put to a contractual use to provide security [in Ebola-affected regions] or to provide other support activities,” Vallely said.
Pentagon officials said that the military also would be providing command and control, in addition to logistical support, but Vallely underscored that the military isn’t the only asset to provide such services.
“There are many capabilities that can support communications – again that’s something that can be contracted out, and it’s been done before,” he said. “It’s just not a good idea to put our soldiers in harm’s way especially when you look at how Obama has treated our military.
“Soldiers will do what you ask them to do, but there’s a certain point where you have to say, ‘Let’s see, what’s the purpose?’ and the purpose of our soldiers is to fight a war and win,” he added. “It’s not to fight medical battles. That’s up to other assets.”
F. Michael Maloof, senior staff writer for WND/ G2Bulletin, is a former security policy analyst in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. He can be contacted at mmaloof@wnd.com.
“It is so naïve to say (U.S. troops) won’t be exposed but they’ll be in an area of infectious diseases,” Vallely said. “So, just by the nature of being over there puts you in an environment of exposure of an infectious disease.
“We have so many threats on our border, so many threats coming out of the Middle East and the threat of terrorists coming into the United States that there are other assets that can be put to a contractual use to provide security [in Ebola-affected regions] or to provide other support activities,” Vallely said.
Pentagon officials said that the military also would be providing command and control, in addition to logistical support, but Vallely underscored that the military isn’t the only asset to provide such services.
“There are many capabilities that can support communications – again that’s something that can be contracted out, and it’s been done before,” he said. “It’s just not a good idea to put our soldiers in harm’s way especially when you look at how Obama has treated our military.
“Soldiers will do what you ask them to do, but there’s a certain point where you have to say, ‘Let’s see, what’s the purpose?’ and the purpose of our soldiers is to fight a war and win,” he added. “It’s not to fight medical battles. That’s up to other assets.”
F. Michael Maloof, senior staff writer for WND/ G2Bulletin, is a former security policy analyst in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. He can be contacted at mmaloof@wnd.com.
F. Michael Maloof's archive
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Israel declines White House request to send Israeli troops to Ebola
ISRAEL MATZAV: Although the United Nations calls for our replacement with a 'state of Palestine' every November, when push comes to shove, they always call on Israel to help. But this time, despite a request from the United Nations and the Obama administration to open IDF field hospitals, Israel said 'no,' it will not send its troops to Africa to fight Ebola. No, not because of the danger of Ebola, but because of the danger to IDF troops' lives.
The Foreign Ministry recommended the Defense Ministry respond positively to the American's request, even though it was a complex mission, which runs the risk of infection for medical crews, who would have been forced to wear full NBC suits.
However, after examining the request and mission details, the Defense Ministry decided against Israel's participation, saying there was no feasible way to provide for the safety of the Israeli doctors and medical crews, which could then return to Israel and further spread the virus.
Despite the decision – or maybe because of it – the foreign minister decided to up the level of Israeli aid to the Ebola effort.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Israel sending equipment and medical efforts to West Africa
Israel's Foreign Aid Office will send emergency equipment and medical experts to West Africa to combat the spread of Ebola.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs through MASHAV, Israel's Agency for International Development Cooperation and the agency for international aid, will send three mobile emergency clinics to areas of West Africa where there is a high risk of Ebola infection.
This contribution comes on the heels of Israel sending medical health experts to Cameroon in September. That team was received favorably by the local government.
These clinics, produced in Israel, were built on the basis of standards and guidelines dictated by the World Health Organization for the treatment of Ebola. Israel will also be providing clinic staff and medical experts to run operations and equipment in the West African areas. Staff training will focus on preventing the spread of the disease and raising awareness among populations with high infection potential.
In addition, the Foreign Ministry sent emergency equipment to the Government of Sierra Leone and in recent weeks has shipped personal protection equipment for the African Union.
Although several Ebola scares have occurred in Israel, most notably in Jerusalem and Kfar Saba, they have so far all been ruled out.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WHITE HOUSE HIPOCRISY WIDELY NOTED ONLINE
WND - According to a report on Twitchy, Israel has refused to go along with a request from Samantha Power, America’s U.N. ambassador.
“There’s a little buzz today on this story reporting that Israel has turned down a request from Samantha Power and the United States to provide medical assistance and personnel to Ebola-stricken countries in Africa,” a Twitchy report said.
“Does Samantha Power not see the double standard here?
To summarize: the United States canceled flights to Israel earlier this summer because of one errant rocket from Gaza that hit near Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv, but now wants Israel to send help to hot-zones in Africa?
“Israel was somehow unsafe for air travel, but there are no worries flying Israelis to Liberia or Sierra Leone?”
Israel News Now had the post, “Israel rejects U.S. request on Ebola relief in Africa.” Because?
Well, “Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon says assisting in medical relief in Liberia and Sierra Leone would risk infecting Israeli personnel.”
On that topic, Chelle Belle said, “Obama bans travel to & from Israel but not Ebola nations, because liquid organs & bleeding from your eyes is less bad than hurt feelings.”
Zach Hanover added, “Obama grievously suspended flights to Israel during the recent conflict, and now refuses to do it for Ebola.”
An anonymous commenter added, “Good for Israel. I’m an American and I applaud Israel for telling Obama to go to hell in public.”
The U.S., meanwhile, confirmed on Friday that up to 3,900 U.S. soldiers will be sent to that hot zone for command control, logistics, civil affairs and medical help.
WND had reported one day earlier that the Pentagon is planning to spend at least $1 billion on the effort, and critics were questioning why Obama was using valuable, highly trained warriors to provide mostly logistical and engineering support for health workers trying to stop the spread of Ebola there.
At Friday’s news conference, those answers really weren’t available.
Kirby earlier had said the troops would be setting up the infrastructure for an operation that will be run by the State Department’s U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, and the Centers for Disease Control.
He said then the effort would not include U.S. military personnel treating Ebola patients. Instead, their function will be in support of other health-care workers who are the experts in the Ebola treatment process.
WND requests for answers about why U.S. troops are being used in a scene containing a deadly viral disease didn’t generate any responses. He also couldn’t respond to questions about whether other countries could be helping, saying those invitations were up to the government of Liberia.
On Friday, he said 1,400 soldiers would be moved over to Africa on an as-needed basis, but the early surveys of the needs suggested that up to 3,900 soldiers would be required, and that was what was authorized.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RELATED
Also on WND:
October 6: Congressmen to Obama: Define troops' Ebola mission
'We in Congress have a responsibility to their families'
Pentagon sending more U.S. soldiers
by F. Michael Maloof -- WASHINGTON - There already are 231 U.S. military members with boots on the ground in the fight against Ebola in West Africa, a total of 1,400 are imminently more…
Defense Dept. won't define
by F. Michael Maloof -- WASHINGTON – As 1,400 U.S. soldiers prepare to head to Liberia this month, critics are still wondering why President Obama is using his valuable, highly trained warfighters to more…
Links to sources with the latest news on the Ebola outbreak:
******************************************************************************
Certainly assisting and containing emerging pandemics is important for public health everywhere. Hopefully the Obama Administration and the U.S. Military have learned lessons in caution from Operation Tomodachi in Mar 2011 when the USS Reagan and fleet were sent into highly radioactive plume of the Fukushima nuclear power plant catastrophe.
ReplyDeleteThank you for bringing up that terrible situation at the USS Reagan.
ReplyDeleteAn Ebola contagion spreading among servicemen and their medical personnel would be even more frightening,
The government, unfortunately, has a long history of putting the military at unnecessary risk.
Readers can find more information on the effects of the USS Reagan servicemen exposure to Fukushima radiation here:
ReplyDeletehttp://enenews.com/govt-report-1750-navy-sailors-ill-defined-conditions-after-exposure-fukushima-radiation-uss-reagan-suffering-significant-increases-male-infertility-complications-child-birth-dozens-thyroid-disor
And here
http://ottersandsciencenews.blogspot.ca/2013/12/us-sailors-sick-by-exposure-to.html