You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
-Signs, Portents, and the Weather-
Obama calls up reserves to deal with Ebola in Africa
2014-10-17
[USATODAY] resident Obama has issued an executive order calling up ready reserve troops to combat the Ebola crisis in Africa.
It doesn't have to make any sense to us. We're not the smartest man in the room.
Obama notified Congress of his order Thursday. It reads: "I hereby determine that it is necessary to augment the active Armed Forces of the United States for the effective conduct of Operation United Assistance, which is providing support to civilian-led humanitarian assistance and consequence management support related to the Ebola virus disease outbreak in West Africa."

The Pentagon said it had no immediate plans to send reservists or National Guard troops to Africa, saying that the order simply allows the military to begin planning for those forces in its overall response.
Posted by:Fred

#9  As orderlies, send certain poor men
And ladies who have heretofore been
As useless as tits on
A boar hog that spits on
The public, our brave Urban Corpsmen!
Posted by: Zenobia Floger6220   2014-10-17 22:45  

#8  Can't do that - the WH would be depriving most of its voting base.
Posted by: Pappy   2014-10-17 21:19  

#7  What they should be calling up is the 6000 uniformed members of the public health service. Slice out 1500 and send 500 of them downrange at a time for 90 day tours.
Posted by: Cheanter Ebbaper3878   2014-10-17 19:35  

#6  Many of the more specialized Army units are in the National Guard or the Reserves. The active duty Army doesn't need a lot of military police or medical units (among others) on a day to day basis during peacetime. Whether or not sending US troops to Africa is a good idea, the units most needed and best trained for the role would probably have to come out of the National Guard or Reserve
Posted by: Chantry   2014-10-17 19:17  

#5  If/when guard or reserve units are deployed, anyone want to take bets on which states' units will be sent?
Posted by: Lowspark   2014-10-17 15:20  

#4  My point was that the military's not organized or trained for containing epidemics.

We can send medics, we can send logistics people, we can send MPs (assuming the military still has such a thing). Perhaps signals elements would be of peripheral assistance.

Tanks and artillery won't be much help. The military is always short of doctors. Tasking Fort Sam to support would seem to make more sense than calling up the Iowa National Guard.
Posted by: Fred   2014-10-17 12:19  

#3  Joe my friend, sometimes I just wonder.

Good insight > POLITICS
Posted by: Shipman   2014-10-17 09:06  

#2  And that is how you introduce voluntary retirement.
Posted by: Skidmark   2014-10-17 05:56  

#1  See my earlier Post.

Whether one likes or agrees wid the Bammer or not, it broadly still makes better sense to deal wid the Ebola Crisis "Over There, Not Over Here".

I trust the USDOD to know how to best protect its troops from Ebola.

POTUS Franklin Roosevelt approved the post-Pearl Harbor/December 7th, 1941 internment of Japanese-AMericans not because he hated them, but because the needs of war + the still-ongoing, still-expanding, Post-Pearl "offensive" military campaign by Japan in the Pacific de-prioritized any legal resolution of their individual cases to the bottom of the stack. The internment camps were as much to protect the rights + lives of Japanese-Americans from the post-Pearl angry US mainstream as it was to protect the US war effort from alleged Japanese spies + espionage.

AFAIK the same principle is applicable wid Ebola save in Liberia.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2014-10-17 01:26  

00:00