Posted on 10/11/2014 4:06:45 AM PDT by Kaslin
Reading the bio alongside Steven Bucci’s Daily Signal piece on the Ebola-inspired Liberia travel ban made me want to meet him and shake his hand. He “served America for three decades as an Army special forces officer and top Pentagon official,” now serving as director of the Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation.
Military Hero. Heritage. How do I not love that? Yet oddly, his piece opposing a temporary block on incoming West African travelers struck me as completely wrong, so my usual instinct kicked in— to welcome him to my radio show.
His headline, “Wisdom Should Prevail Over Panic,” suggests he is the wise one and I am panicking. I asked him why he would attach a “panic” label to the large number of Americans advocating the disallowance of incoming LIberians:
SB: Because frankly you are then excluding a ton of folks who are not posing any danger to anyone, you’re really hurting the economies of those countries, when they’re already teetering on the brink, frankly.
MD: So because of concern over the fragile economies of West African nations, or the slight that we may inflict to thousands of people who pose no risk— because of those, we need to say, “Hey, just in from Monrovia? Come on in!”
SB: The biggest reason is those kind of bans have historically been proven to not do what they promise to do. They don’t give you the level of protection as a society, whether it be a city or a country that it seems intuitively they would.
MD: Well, what’s an example of one where everybody thought our level of safety would go up, and it did not?
SB: If you do the analysis after the 1918 Spanish flu, which was like the worst pandemic ever… there were communities, cities in the United States that tried to do that, they tried to basically wall themselves off, keep everybody else out, keep all of their people in, and the disease made it in anyway.
MD: But these are American cities… where freedom of passage, and roads, and— I can’t imagine walling off a city. In no way is that analogous to what a country can do. We are absolutely able to monitor who comes into and out of our country. Liberian passport equals you’re not getting in.
SB: Looking at this particular outbreak, the country of Sierra Leone started, after they had one case that came in, they said, ‘Okay, nobody else is coming in our country’… and it failed, it failed miserably, and they wasted a ton of assets trying to do it, instead of putting the assets against the more useful population distancing and mitigation…
Here’s what was so peculiar: Mr. Bucci had several ideas that were thoroughly valuable in terms of what West African nations can do, and what we can do, to minimize the spread of Ebola. I had no quarrel with any of them. What was disorienting was the enormous pushback— from a conservative!— with logic pulled straight from the index cards of the left. I returned to his curious notion that an American attempt to stop incoming Liberians would be as failed as the Spanish Flu barriers of 1918 or the sparse border controls of West Africa.
MD: We absolutely have the ability to say “If you have a Liberian passport, you’re not coming in.” Try to tell me why that’s not a good idea.
SB: Because it will waste assets and it will not work.
MD: What assets are wasted?
SB: All of the stuff you have to do to make sure that happens.
MD: Wow. “Liberian passport— no.” That wasn’t expensive.
SB: Okay, are you going to do it for Spain, too?
Really? Was this happening? Was the suggestion that the advocacy of a travel ban from a country with thousands of Ebola cases necessarily leads to the advocacy of a travel ban from a country with one? This was disingenuous, and with all respect, I told him so. (Guests are always welcome, in turn, to tell me when they think I am committing a similar sin.)
So we returned to the other premise against the travel ban— that “it will not work.”
MD: How does that, purely mathematically not work?
SB: All the epidemiological studies that have been done by the CDC and these other public health professionals, who are not terribly panic-ridden…
Again with the panic. Getting the theme? It is a sign of delusion to remotely suggest that the CDC may be politically or attitudinally restrained from delivering full honesty. But he continues:
SB: Their point is you can better deal with these things, by one, breaking the outbreak where it’s begun, over there, thats how you protect the world, and therefore increase our protection, and to do that the kind of bans that you’re talking about are counterproductive.
MD: How is that the case? How is doing what I’m talking about— saying no to Liberian entries— how does that hinder the admittedly praiseworthy things that you’re mentioning?
SB: Because it will not give us the protection tat you think it will give us.
Well, apparently they are teaching mind-reading in the Special Forces. Mr. Bucci thinks he knows the level of protection I expect from a travel ban. For those less clairvoyant, I will reveal that I have no idea of the exact level of protection a Liberian passport stoppage would offer. But I know that whatever it is, it is wise. Whether it stops one Ebola-positive entry or one hundred or one thousand, it is a reduction compared to what we would otherwise have.
And don’t talk to me about this ridiculous fever-detection technology in various airports. A fistful of Motrin will keep body temperature under control until the new arrival is well within the American city of his choice.
In his opinion piece, Mr. Bucci quoted CDC chairman Tom Frieden, who set up a straw man a freshman philosophy student could recognize: “I wish we could get to zero risk by sealing off the borders, but we can’t.”
MD: No one is suggesting that the risk can be brought to zero. But mathematically it is true, risk will reduce if we say no to entries from the country that is the absolute ground zero for Ebola.
SB: The trade-off is not worth the added benefit.
MD: So you’re admitting there is a benefit. On the other side of the scale, the things that make it, on balance, not worth doing— so far I’ve gotten concern over the West African economy— what else was there?
SB: That it will essentially cause this outbreak to last longer and get bigger—
MD: How does that happen? That saying no to Liberian entry to America increases the outbreak?
SB: it will cause the efforts there to fight the outbreak to take longer and be less effective.
MD: How? How does that hamper Ebola fighting over there?
SB: Because the flow of goods and services in and out will be hampered, because when the United States does it, everybody else in the world will piggyback on it, and you will hinder the ability of the public health people to get assets in there—
MD: Not at all. Military assistance, charter flights going over there to help…that’s something we can do. My specific question is: how does saying no to Liberian entries over here hamper fighting it over there?
If you are sensing that I am asking the same question multiple times, you are correct. I do that when : a) I do not get an answer, or b) I cannot fathom the answer I am getting. We learn something no matter what happens, when the guest either relents and changes the answer or finds new ways to stick to his guns.
SB: It will not provide the benefit it is promising. You will give people false hope that they are protected…
No one has made such a suggestion. I ask why we should not do everything we can do to reduce risk to the American people?
SB: Everything that is going to be beneficial, and will not have other unintended consequences.
MD: I love you in a lot of ways, but there is not one unintended consequence that you’ve made the case for, not one.
SB: Well, we’d have to disagree on that.
And with that, I sincerely thanked this American hero who works for one of the greatest conservative think tanks in American history. With his history and his current business card, I would bet we would agree on twenty out of twenty other issues he has covered in his current post.
And again, it is not strange to find someone making his arguments. It is strange to find someone making these arguments from somewhere other than the White House or the CDC.
No matter its source, it is a flawed notion that America as a global citizen owes more to Ebola-stricken nations than we owe our own citizens.
Sorry - I was a Green Beret too... but this guy is up a tree.
You don’t ban flights - you shut down issuing Visas... discussing of banning flights is a straw man argument... It is not needed... The average West African has absolutely no pressing need to visit American.. Ninety Percent of them just go to visit relatives and some would go to get treatment for Ebola... No one is talking about banning flights TO West African and cutting off flights from there is NOT THE POINT.. There are not thousands of West Africans doing business deals in the states that will suffer if they are not allowed visit - hogwash... We are not talking about walling off in 1918 technology - we are talking about 2014 where a person’s entire travel history is in his/her passport - VISA —— Where they have been before - there stamps in and out of Europe to take flights to America ... This guys is not looking at the FACTS is equating a 1918 experience with technology of the time to 2014 ... Good GRIEF!!!
Keeping West Africans from coming to America would hurt their economy... I don’t believe it for an instant... any analysis would show not to be true... But anyway - So given the countries more financial aid — BUT KEEP THEM THERE-— they have no need to be in America —next to none.
Fully 1/2 of West Africans in America NOW are here on Visa Over Stay Illegal Alien Status
Seems more delusional to think they are telling us everything...
Well, being up a tree, politically speaking is a pretty safe place to be apparently (these days)...
Until someone comes around with an axe, chainsaw, or fire...
Politics creates cowards, and those that have served bravely in the past in our armed forces are susceptible to its corruption (if you choose to get into that game), that disease has a high percentage of transfer, and it is hard to inoculate...
Just my opinion...
exactly
In 1918, you didn’t have jet aircraft that could transport hundreds of people from one side of the earth to the other in a matter of hours.
If I understood the logic correctly, and I’ll summarize it succinctly:
“We shouldn’t institute a ban because we shouldn’t institute a ban.”
Did I pretty well capture that entire argument with all its facts and excruciating detail?
I’m with you. What economy? These counties are in economic and governance freefall. Total chaos is about to reign.
Surprise! Surprise! Surprise
What a coincidence, same straw man argument of stopping flights from Spain as you asked.
Nice try, but I knew I was right.
west Africans with the ability to do so, most probably the best educated, financially better off and more aware of disease prevention, are coming to the US and other non-affected countries and thus avoiding Ebola. They're also avoiding responsibility in their homelands, while US military and caregivers are expected to solve the problem.
Let them stay home and help themselves. We cannot and should not enable those who could be trained to avoid responsibility to their own nations. The money they're spending on flights to leave? Better it be spent to improve health care where they should stay.
“Keeping West Africans from coming to America would hurt their economy... I don’t believe it for an instant... “
The reason you don’t believe it is because nobody above the level of idiot would believe it.
An outbreak in this country and the entire worlds economy will go in the crapper, not so with an African economy, so the economy BS just doesn’t hold water.
Why are you obsessed with me? I did not even post on this thread. Surely you must need medical help.
Welcome to see the strawman fallacy. Libs love appealing to the most rediculous emotional and illogical side of the mind to try and justify whatever they do as a cult, or a peer acceptance group.
Congratulations on being more logical than the writer of this fallacious piece.
Just given that fact, forget the Ebola, I’m for cutting off issuing visas to citizens of those countries.
I thought democrats always support over reaching and over spending with the Slogan of “if it saves just one life”. They will ban guns, create gun free zones, dismantle working health care systems, .... If it saves just one life they will move mountains. Why not now?
Wait....we quarantine cattle and animals coming into our country to test for disease, and protect our herds.
Yet......we won’t quarantine people from infected countries to protect our humans....genius!
The main reason they don’t want to start keeping people from other countries from coming in is that when Mexico starts up an Ebola crisis we don’t want to have to do the same to them.
Obsessed?
I knew when you posted that question about stopping flights from Spain it was a straw man argument.
You’ve been caught and you are trying to do a CYA.
That is the same distorted ‘logic’ that the normally-intelligent guy I was discussing this with yesterday used.
We practically had the exact same conversation, except I kept referencing a CDC doc from 2012 I referenced in a comment here at FR that mentions not ONCE geographically isolating a pathogen. It discusses SARS, Ebola et al, but apparently no lesson has been learned about isolating human carriers when we’re essentially doing the same Bucci’s asserting with monkeys that come into this country. His interview was ‘ok’, but he obviously hasn’t done his homework.
I don’t think Ebola will become a problem here. At all. However, should it become one after mutating in Africa, it will be because of that ‘logic’ and it will be ‘owned’ 100% by liberals.
When that happens, I sincerely hope “Ebola does its job well”...because between that ‘logic’ and the ‘manufactured crisis’ being promoted by this inept administration, frankly...I’d rather deal with Ebola.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.