Posted on 10/17/2014 12:14:17 PM PDT by Dave346
In my mind, a large part of the mission is building the out of the box surplus military hospitals that have little contact with the medical personnel
I worry about those that will be in contact though. I worry about those that “want to make a difference” ....... women that have been taught since birth that the reason for living is “to make a difference”
They will die..... some of them. It is better to die that way than foolishly on the battlefield so goes the mantra.
I wonder what people would think our military would be doing if our soldiers ever faced an actual bioweapon in combat?
Training in the use and decontamination of personal protective gear. Hopefully simply a precaution, military engineering units should have no contact with patients or anyone which requires protective suits. They’re not medical technicians.
Thank God the military is not sending out that message of fear to the bad guys, that anything bio will drive us from entire countries and regions of the world, even if they aren’t weaponized.
While your concerns may indeed be well founded, I try never to second guess the sensibilities of a soldier in the trenches.
That they're trained for that, and some would die. Personally I think it's inevitable that deploying 4 to 6 thousand military personnel, upwards of 50% probably under 30, in a population with a high incidence of communicable disease, some will come down with it. I'm not crazy about the mission, I think contractors should have been used if possible. Nor am I nuts about the unit choice. But if we're going to do it because no on can, I hope we're prepared to deal with the casualties.
Perhaps. I see it as simple prudence seeing as they will be working in a "hot zone."
A link to this thread has been posted on the Ebola Surveillance Thread
Nor am I, but I think the use of contractors, not under military discipline, would make unintended consequences more, not less likely.
Contractors provide all kinds of military services from driving trucks to providing food to providing security to protecting our Embassies, two of the 4 Bengazi dead. And construction, they’d perform fine. Some of my concern is, at a time of turmoil in the middle east, when we’re quietly inserting a 2,500 man Marine rapid reaction force in Kuwait, with a low state of overall combat readiness, if the 101st is the best unit to tie up there. I’ve much less problem with Seabees or the medical and MP units we’re sending. BTW, as to contracters, USAID has spent over $200 million so far this year fighting ebola in Africa.
Obala is the most treacherous pRes_ _ent in US history.
#2 is fouling up the FR passages with a smelly defence equating sending trained military units with combat experience to a front facing death from an armed enemy because they volunteered. Can order the same because “they volunteered to face death” to fighting a biological war to a region where it will be confirmed that they will die from the very air they breathe is a great possibility. Defending “an unlawfull order” Sent by a corrupt regime run by a madman.
Active Duty ping.
Huh?
Anyone who’s been in the military knows about check-the-block training. This isn’t surprising in the least.
Which should be "for OUR military use". Combat engineering should not be a public works or nation building construction service for use at a politicians whim. If elected officials or appointed ones want nation building or things built for foreign nations or services such as medical help etc then send the Peace Corp or call Jimmy Carter. This should not be the job description of our armed forces. Combat Engineering should be just that with emphasis on "Combat".
An armed forces service members sworn duty is to protect and defend our nation and if necessary die for it doing so and to take lives doing so. That means being trained also to kill our/their enemy if needed. You can't start helping people in which the next minute you may have to be shooting at them. In those nations it could happen in a matter of seconds. Their job is for our defense and fighting our own wars.
Asking any more such as making troops into social, medical, or construction servants to foreign nations is wrong and will eventually inflict physiological damage. You can't expect ones trained to kill in combat one mission to also be social workers on their next.
Our elected leaders of the past 25 or so years seem bent on using our troops as the worlds 911 emergency service for all emergencies. This is a time they should stay home. We don't have the extra manpower and the troops we have are over extended as it is. I'm not saying the U.S. can't help. I'm saying it should not be the job description of our armed forces being ordered to do it.
Thanks for the ping!
See above. Or, to save you the work, the military can build things and run hospitals to support their mission of killing our enemies and destroying enemy infrastructure. Sometimes our own people get injured doing this, so we need to have military hospitals. Sometimes when we destroy enemy infrastructure we have to be able to build what we need to support our own mission, etc. That is why.
“LOL”
You think sending American troops to Ebola infested third world countries without adequate protection is something to “laugh out loud” about.
And you think anyone concerned with the safety and well being of those in our military is “ignorant”.
The Laughing was at your low quality post, it was full of what you just did in that one, lies.
It doesn’t matter what we actually post, you are one of those internet trolls who just makes up fake posts and pretends that you are responding to those.
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.