Back in the days of the Vietnam War, those of us who were on the wrong side – like John Kerry and Jane Fonda and Donald Sutherland – were eager to “bring the war home.”
That became the mantra of the political left – “bring the war home.”
The idea was to make ordinary American citizens feel the effects of the war so they would quickly demand an unconditional withdrawal, setting the stage of a Communist victory – which they ultimately got.
I was thinking about this in the context of Barack Obama’s war on Ebola. This war will be an easy one to bring home.
With at least 4,000 military personnel and hundreds of American civilian contractors being sent into the hot zone, it’s a near certainty some of them will contract the deadly disease. What then? Naturally, they will be brought home, with some risk of furthering the infection in the homeland.
Not only do American political leaders no longer no how to fight foreign wars to win, they are more inclined to improperly use military deployments for missions completely unsuitable for soldiers. The Ebola war is a perfect example.
Is this a purposeful effort to destroy the U.S. military?
Whether it is or not, that is the effect it will surely have.
Those who voluntarily enter into the U.S. armed services are citizens who are willing to sacrifice their lives for their country. But that means they are willing to fight to the death if necessary – not succumb to a dread disease that could threaten their loved ones at home, not to mention jeopardize the health and national security of their country.
That’s what U.S. military forces are being asked to do in West Africa – and it’s not right.
This is a military deployment Americans should protest vehemently and stridently. It’s a game-changer for the U.S. military, not to mention bad public health policy.
Think about it.
Barack Obama says he will not put any “boots on the ground” in Iraq to take on ISIS. But he is perfectly willing to put boots on the ground in West Africa for an ill-defined mission for which the U.S. military is not trained.
The U.S. military is trained to kill bad guys and break things. It is not a social service agency. It is not a medical team. It is not a force designed to build civilian health infrastructure. It is not a band of guinea pigs.
Apparently Obama hasn't figured that out.
This Ebola mission doesn't make Americans safer. It increases the danger of spreading the disease – and bringing it back home – exponentially.
At first Obama and the military commanders said soldiers wouldn’t be treating or coming into direct contact with Ebola victims. Then they reversed themselves, explaining that’s precisely what they will be doing.
Of course, health officials also told us how difficult it was to contract Ebola, only to later admit it can be spread just like the common cold – with a sneeze.
How could we be so foolish as to send our best and brightest into an Ebola hot zone to play nursemaid in the midst of an epidemic?
It’s irresponsible. It’s madness. It makes no sense.
But that’s what we’re doing.
Perhaps the only chance we’ll have as Americans to reverse this bad call is on Election Day.
Obama has told us his policies are on every ballot next month.
Remember this when you vote.
Obama wants you to vote for Democrats.
If you disapprove of his policies, you have only one meaningful alternative.
It’s time to stop Obama before he brings this war home – in the form of an Ebola plague in the U.S.
It’s time to control the Obama plague by tying his hands for his remaining two years in office.
It’s time to control the Obama plague by tying his hands for his remaining two years in office.
Comments :
Eric B. Hensen From an article in the Christian Science Monitor:
How Democrats are playing politics with Ebola
Democrats say that, because Republicans want to decrease spending – and launched the sequester – they have cut critical resources that could have gone to pay for an Ebola vaccine. Trouble is, it isn't true.
The Democrats are trying to tie Ebola to the Republicans.
This is a political season, so this is not surprising.
The theory goes that because Republicans want to cut spending, they have cut critical resources that could have gone to pay for an Ebola vaccine.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) director even directly said that if it weren’t for budget cuts, we wouldn’t be having this Ebola problem.
Democrats, more broadly, have been blaming the sequester on Republicans, and they are making the point that if there had been no sequester, there would have been ample resources to combat Ebola.
There are several problems with this theory.
First, the sequester was Obama’s idea. He pushed it because he didn’t want to make entitlement cuts.
Second, the president never asked directly for an Ebola “supplemental” or anything close to it. Had he said: “I need $2 billion to deal with Ebola,” he would have some ground to stand on.
But he could never quite tear himself away from the golf course to spend any time worrying about Ebola. He never requested a supplemental to pay for Ebola spending. He never asked Congress for any help on Ebola.
Third, the Republicans wanted to cut spending because the president, when the Democrats controlled the Congress, went on a spending binge, which squandered a trillion dollars of taxpayer money. Remember Solyndra?
There is no evidence that part of the president’s stimulus package included an Ebola-fighting initiative.
In fact, when Republicans took over in 2010, Ebola was but a faint rumor of impending doom, the stuff of horror movies.
That being said, nothing changes minds quicker than a devastating virus.
You want to see civil liberties being curtailed? Wait until another nurse comes down with Ebola.
You want to see flights shut down between Africa and America?
You want see our borders be really sealed tight?
We are entering the panic zone here, folks.
And nobody is making the case that President Obama is showing any great leadership traits here.
If anything, the president is getting the blame for not doing enough.
I can see why the Democrats would want to shift blame to the Republicans. They see the president’s approval ratings and they know that he is getting blamed for a wide variety of ills (including Ebola), and they also know that, if he gets the blame, they get the blame.
But this is not the kind of crisis where it makes sense politically to try to play politics with it. Instead of blaming other people, the president needs to implement a plan that will reassure a jittery public and contain the virus once and for all.
Do you have any confidence that Mr. Obama will implement any such plan?
I don’t either.
No comments:
Post a Comment