Started By
Message
Another question for you Vets
Posted on 9/18/14 at 8:19 am
Posted on 9/18/14 at 8:19 am
Im in a running argument with a cousin of mine about Obama sending military folks to Africa to fight/manage/whatever the Ebola epidemic.
To me this is another example of Obama not understanding the military mission. Seems like is trying to use an axe to paint a house. Military to me are warfighters, not disease/natural disaster recovery personnel on a large scale (are they?)
Seems to me that once US troops start dying of Ebola, the shite is going to get real for the a-hole in the WH.
Is this the right mission for US troops? I dont get it.
To me this is another example of Obama not understanding the military mission. Seems like is trying to use an axe to paint a house. Military to me are warfighters, not disease/natural disaster recovery personnel on a large scale (are they?)
Seems to me that once US troops start dying of Ebola, the shite is going to get real for the a-hole in the WH.
Is this the right mission for US troops? I dont get it.
8
Posted on 9/18/14 at 8:22 am to Pavoloco83
quote:
Military to me are warfighters, not disease/natural disaster recovery personnel on a large scale (are they?)
Depends on the specialties of the personnel. The majority of any military actually aren't gun-toters (I.e., my job).
quote:
Is this the right mission for US troops?
This is a different question entirely.
Posted on 9/18/14 at 8:30 am to Pavoloco83
If it's a matter of national security, of course it's a correct use. This isn't strictly humanitarian, as the longer this continues, the higher the risk of mutations. This is the easiest means of getting large amounts of medical support staff over there.
I criticize Obama over a lot of things, but this isn't one of them.
I criticize Obama over a lot of things, but this isn't one of them.
Posted on 9/18/14 at 8:32 am to Pavoloco83
quote:
To me this is another example of Obama not understanding the military mission
Obama isn't the only person in this country that doesn't understand the military's missions especially politicians. Wars, whether needed or not, make businesses/people a TON of money. Sending them to "fight" the ebola virus is arguable but probably OK.
This post was edited on 9/18/14 at 8:33 am
Posted on 9/18/14 at 8:32 am to AUbagman
quote:
I criticize Obama over a lot of things, but this isn't one of them.
This (and y'all know my druthers when it comes to Obama).
Posted on 9/18/14 at 8:39 am to Pavoloco83
I'm not a vet, but I will chime in with my 2 cents.
These won't be front line combat troops going in. These will be the people with specialties like command and control, building, etc.
I would bet some of the contingent will be Army Corp of Engineers or Navy Seabees to get new treatment and isolation facilities built, up and running fast.
You will also get people in command & control there to direct supplies, aid, etc. where they need to go in the most proficient manner.
These won't be front line combat troops going in. These will be the people with specialties like command and control, building, etc.
I would bet some of the contingent will be Army Corp of Engineers or Navy Seabees to get new treatment and isolation facilities built, up and running fast.
You will also get people in command & control there to direct supplies, aid, etc. where they need to go in the most proficient manner.
Posted on 9/18/14 at 8:54 am to Pavoloco83
You will have engineers there to build a quarantine facility that will hold ~1,500 beds for those infected. You will have medical specialists and those with hazmat training to properly treat the infected and, if necessary, dispose of the deceased.
I would argue that is probably the BEST use of the US Military since WWII.
I would argue that is probably the BEST use of the US Military since WWII.
Posted on 9/18/14 at 9:05 am to Pavoloco83
The overwhelming majority of people in the military work in non-combat MOS's. They aren't war fighters. They're support personnel and they have skills that could help contain the Ebola outbreak.
As someone else said, it's a matter of national concern if this virus mutates.
As someone else said, it's a matter of national concern if this virus mutates.
Posted on 9/18/14 at 10:09 am to CatFan81
quote:
As someone else said, it's a matter of national concern if this virus mutates.
It's imperative to get this virus under control. It has never had such a large human environment in which to grow. Anything could happen as time, and its spread, drags on.
Posted on 9/18/14 at 10:17 am to Pavoloco83
quote:
Is this the right mission for US troops?
Only if they are there to kill the ones trying to escape containment.
Posted on 9/18/14 at 12:56 pm to Pavoloco83
quote:
Seems to me that once US troops start dying of Ebola, the shite is going to get real for the a-hole in the WH.
They won't have to die. Should a US service member contract Ebola on this mission will trigger a shiatstorm of massive proportion.
Words can't describe how bad it would be should one bring it back home and share it with their family/community.
The president is well within his right to deploy US troops for this mission and while I don't think I'd do it I can certainly understand the argument that helping contain the outbreak is in the best interests of the US but it is a political landmine of nuclear proportions.
Posted on 9/18/14 at 1:39 pm to CatFan81
quote:
The overwhelming majority of people in the military work in non-combat MOS's. They aren't war fighters. They're support personnel and they have skills that could help contain the Ebola outbreak.
It's roughly a 4 to 1 ratio and that doesn't include Combat MPs which would be used in a situation like this for security alongside with the other specialists.
Posted on 9/18/14 at 1:59 pm to Hardy_Har
Why don't we just ship over some of that super secret Ebola serum that cured the two American doctors? 
Would make a frick load more sense than spending billions of dollars to send troops and supplies over there.
I'm Active Duty by the way.
Would make a frick load more sense than spending billions of dollars to send troops and supplies over there.
I'm Active Duty by the way.
Posted on 9/18/14 at 2:33 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
The majority of any military actually aren't gun-toters
When I was in, seems like it was 26 support personnel for every person that carried a weapon. don't know what it is now, think it would be difficult to actually figure out since the true costs and numbers are hidden with Contractors.
Posted on 9/18/14 at 2:48 pm to TideSaint
quote:I think it has all been used up. There was a small amount to begin with because it was only for experimental purposes, and they burned at least 3 doses on the first two Americans before bringing them to Atlanta. They also used some on the Spanish priest who ended up succumbing after being returned to Spain.
Why don't we just ship over some of that super secret Ebola serum that cured the two American doctors?
I actually read today that the American patient being treated in Omaha has been given what they call survivor serum, which is made from the blood of those people who have had Ebola and lived. I want to say they have been using Dr. Brantley's blood to isolate the serum for that patient.
No idea how they are treating the patient in Atlanta now. That has been very hush-hush since arrival. Makes me wonder if results/outlook aren't as good.
Posted on 9/18/14 at 2:55 pm to Mulat
quote:
When I was in, seems like it was 26 support personnel for every person that carried a weapon. don't know what it is now, think it would be difficult to actually figure out since the true costs and numbers are hidden with Contractors.
I'd guesstimate it's closer to 4 to 1 or 7 to 1 today, depending on contractors (like Hardy was saying). We're a lot leaner of a force now than when my parents were active duty.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News