Many public-health and infectious disease experts have called for a greater U.S. military role, which is highly valued in humanitarian crises for its ability to command and control large operations, as well as its logistics expertise.
I don't think so.
Instead of fighting the forces of evil, this administration will have our men and women fighting the forces of nature. What could go wrong? Besides exposing our troops and, of equal concern, our homeland to deadly infection. Besides having our troops tied down in West Africa while the devil's minions (which we could defeat using the military in a military role (if its warranted)) are romping through the middle east and threatening action in our homeland. What could go wrong?
Yeah, I'm heartless. There is a role for our troops, but its at our borders, keeping potential disease carriers (both physical and ideological) out.
Am I suggesting that we ignore the poor souls who are facing this disastrous disease? No. I am suggesting that we might be able to give all sorts of assistance without direct exposure. Training volunteer personnel who have been vetted, and in a safe - non-local - location. Sending supplies, but using a variation of the pizza protocol. That is, give them anything they need, but slip it under the door (figuratively), so that our troops are not exposed. Keep up the research. And fund those brave private persons, or groups, who want to voluntarily go into the mouth of hell. Hats off to "Doctors Without Borders." But they should not expect there'll be no borders when they themselves get sick, and want to come here for treatment. I do believe that those medical personnel are heroes, but they need to know that taking on that mantle carries a real risk.
Our military is not the Red Cross. There's plenty for them to do in their area of expertise. Yeah, I'm heartless.
Just sayin'.