Is it wise to deploy troops to fight Ebola?

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 09:01:46 -0400

Am I the only one that is concerned about deploying troops to west Africa to fight the Ebola outbreak?

I am concerned about the chances of any of those Soldiers contracting the virus and worse yet, bringing it back to the States.

Response by 1SG Chris Brown made Sep 16 at 2014 9:08 AM

1SG Chris Brown — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 09:08:58 -0400

I know they need help over there fighting Ebola. But I can tell you I would personally rather deply for a year to a direct combat zone than go for a month to an African nation with Ebola running rampant. Obviously as a Soldier, I'll do what I'm told. But given the choice, no thanks!

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Sep 16 at 2014 9:20 AM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 09:20:12 -0400

I heard this story an hour ago and just shuddered. Foreign policy at its worst, thanks again Mr. President. BTW will you be donning a suit to come over and visit the troops? How many congress members will we be expecting on the "fact finding" junket circuit?

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 16 at 2014 9:23 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 09:23:59 -0400

I wouldn't wish such a death on any person, but I certainly wouldn't want it on one of our own. It is a truly terrible fate.

There is no way we can establish the quantity of isolation units necessary to ensure the spread ceases - the infrastructure does not exist and it is too large an endeavor for us to undertake.

Given the probability of contamination, seeing that doctors themselves are contracting the disease - it is highly likely that our service members may contract the disease and possibly die.

I believe something needs to be done, but it should be a coalition effort, not good ole USA to the rescue for the world, yet again.

I listened to a story of a journalist who has been on the story since it first surfaced - he stated that the real problem with the response to this has been a lack of communication. The people in this part of the world can be very skeptical and superstitious, thus, one of the leading problems is none of them had heard of Ebola and when they saw WHO and other organizations coming in droves, they became skeptical. What if they are the ones giving us the disease?! What if they are testing it on us?!

Additionally, the people of these nations often do laying on of hands and other similar rituals in the death of a loved one or friend. The Ebola virus can exist in the body for days after being deceased, thus transferring through the sweat and other bodily fluids during the funeral period. Funerals have largely exasperated the spread of this disease. It may also be confusing to people that the body remains hot to touch for some time after the heart/brain have ceased to function.

Largely, this was screwed up from the outset and we have little chance to fix or even salvage this situation. We are taking on too much risk with minimal chance of even marginal success.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 16 at 2014 10:40 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 10:40:02 -0400

What keeps Ebola contained is its short lifespan. A person gets it, has little time to get it treated, then dies soon. They don’t have time to get help. Our efforts to treat it gives it legs. We’re feeding it with workers and soldiers, and then re-deploying those people to populated areas.

The ability to track the disease should be left up to a skeleton crew of doctors, aid workers, and local government officials. Trying to eradicate/treat it will kill a lot more people in the short term.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Sep 16 at 2014 11:06 AM

LTC Paul Labrador — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:06:19 -0400

The folks at USAMRIID are the foremost experts in infectious disease and wrote the book on countering bio warfare (which essentially follows the same principles as fighing a disease epidemic). They are perfectly suited to tackling this mission.

Response by SSG Jacob Wiley made Sep 16 at 2014 11:13 AM

SSG Jacob Wiley — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:13:56 -0400

Absolutely not.

First off, how are troops going to fight a disease? Why does it need to be/have to be the US? What about these "allies" we have? Why is Ebola on another continent across the planet that has been riddled with disease since the begging of time a threat to us? Where are we getting the funding to send troops to yet another spot on the globe?

Why do we allow our government to continue to ignore issues at home and play world savior?

Response by CMDCM Gene Treants made Sep 16 at 2014 11:45 AM

CMDCM Gene Treants — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:45:22 -0400

I know in Navy we train in Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Warfare and this requires the use of Hazmat Suits. If you ever wore one you know how hot and uncomfortable they get anywhere, let alone in the countries infected with Ebola. I am sure there are units in other services that train and specialize in the same type of Warfare and could do the job, if any of us had to. BUT fighting disease is NOT the job of the Armed Forces.

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member makes very valid points about the lifespan of Ebola. CPT Gregory Wagoner hit it on the head with the UN taking the lead, especially with a Medical Unit, and not a Peacekeeping Force.

It is amazing to me that a CIC who dislikes the Armed forces turns to us as soon as there is any crisis in the world. He seems to want to use the Armed Forces as a personal political machine, but forget we are really there to fight our countries enemies. NO, do not send Military to tend to Ebola victims.

Response by SGT Marvin "Dave" Bigham made Sep 16 at 2014 12:19 PM

SGT Marvin "Dave" Bigham — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 12:19:52 -0400

No. Too much political conflict already and nothing to gain (for them or US). Troops have one primary function and Ebola is too small for effective targeting.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 16 at 2014 12:59 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 12:59:24 -0400

I think it is a good decision to send some highly qualified U.S. military personnel to the "Ebola fight." As long as they have the medical expertise (and LTC Paul Labrador says they do), the military can likely bring not only that expertise, which is no small thing, but they can also bring the strength and discipline of the U.S. military.

Response by SSG Pete Fleming made Sep 16 at 2014 1:34 PM

SSG Pete Fleming — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 13:34:05 -0400

No. There is the WHO (World Health Organization), Doctors without Borders, our own CDC, Global Health, UNICEF/UNDP, The African Union, Numerous charities and aid organizations, 193 other nations on the planet... why should we waste our Military resource on this?

How does this effect our national security? We aren't going to call in airstrikes or send in the Marines... We are going to send in medical staff, who with require armed protection, who will require air support, and a whole lot of other financial, personnel, and material resources our over stretched undermanned military can't afford.

We can't solve the world's problems... hell we can't solve our own here at home. It is time to bring the money, resources, and personnel home. Fix America then see what we can do...

As I said before there are 193 nations... its about time somebody else picks up the slack.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 16 at 2014 1:44 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 13:44:36 -0400

No! What are we going to do? Shoot the virus or arrest it? Worse still, to fight Muslim strong men or to fight that which is unseen? Though it does not surprise me that this is being considered.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 16 at 2014 2:26 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 14:26:05 -0400

Here's my thing... at one point or another in time the most advanced civilizations in the world were in Africa and the Middle East.. and at some point they stopped advancing and never bothered to try again. They've just become stagnant cesspits that are stuck centuries behind everyone else. If they haven't made an effort to change over hundreds or thousands of years, nothing we can say or do will influence it. There are a couple of exceptions to that, UAE being one. They've adopted technology and, at least on the surface, accepted some sort of change.

Response by SGT Kristin Wiley made Sep 16 at 2014 2:33 PM

SGT Kristin Wiley — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 14:33:36 -0400

SFc Kendrick,

I completely agree with you. What protection measures is the U.S. putting in place for these service members to prevent infection? Is this even a U.S. fight or should we pressure the U.N. to address this issue? With the high fatality rate, no vaccine, and risk of exposure to the infection I feel that the risk of harm is unacceptable.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 16 at 2014 3:24 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 15:24:55 -0400

Hopefully no American service member contracts the Ebola Virus. Gods speed to all of them.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Sep 16 at 2014 3:55 PM

MSG Brad Sand — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 15:55:16 -0400

I am so happy to send troops into a biological hot zone instead of doing anything stop the growth of ISIS.

If you look at the planning that must have gone into this operation, I guess we have a better understanding why no one was putting together plans to slow or stop the terror state?

I hope some of are still alive this next time to post on RP...not willing to bet any money, but I hope this doesn't turning as bad as it could.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Sep 16 at 2014 3:57 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 15:57:12 -0400

BTW, for the folks who think this is not a military issue: how long do you think it will be before some bright fellow in ISIS (or any other less than scrupulous terrorist organization) comes up with the idea of infecting suicide carriers with Ebola (or other nasties) and then flying them to America. Really think about that for a second..... That's how bio-warfare works. It's easier to acquire and employ than a nuke, and could be just as effective, particularly if they have multiple infected people entering the US from different points.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Sep 16 at 2014 4:21 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 16:21:12 -0400

I'll go. I'd rather risk my life to control it over there before it gets across the ocean. On a continent so downtrodden and incapable of accurate reporting are we sure that the numbers are as low as they claim? Does the average illiterate, uneducated, villager who struggles for day to day existence feel obliged to report the demise of people that die day by day or do they just keep working or relocate? I would rather suit up and risk my life with good protection afforded to me instead of fighting an epidemic on the home front where Joe Average can only afford 3M tape and plastic sheeting on the windows and doors and a $5 dust mask. Will we be visited by Congress and the President? Of course not. Is that why we wear a uniform? I'm not physically able to kick in doors as a soldier anymore and fight the enemy, but I can do this.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 16 at 2014 4:29 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 16:29:50 -0400

As if Africa wasn't in a world of hurt already. With the numerous failed states and rebel held areas that look more like 1300's Europe in their PMESII breakdown, we now have this. I need to read more about the mission to understand it. First, this has to be an interagency venture in more than just words. Too much at stake here. We are good at containment. We're the military. We talk in doctrinal terms. You want me to isolate that area...can do. Complexity in a complex situation is bad news.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Sep 16 at 2014 5:47 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 17:47:12 -0400

This should replace "Hail to the Chief" until January 2017:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nauLgZISozs

If I Only Had a Brain - The Wizard of Oz (4/8) Movie CLIP (1939) HD

The Wizard of Oz movie clips: http://j.mp/1L5gtKP BUY THE MOVIE: http://j.mp/v4LU0Y Don't miss the HOTTEST NEW TRAILERS: http://bit.ly/1u2y6pr CLIP DESCRIPTI...

Response by CMSgt James Nolan made Sep 16 at 2014 6:23 PM

CMSgt James Nolan — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 18:23:54 -0400

Wow, a lot of tough comments on both sides of the issue! Would not surprise me if our good friends at ISIS did not try to infect themselves and send the moron Americans that have gone over to join Jihad, home fully infectious! What a mess that would be.

I think that we have a responsibility to do something, I just don't know that we truly have the ability to do it.

I will most certainly be concerned (more so than usual) for ANY of our Storm Troopers that get sent on that mission.

Response by PO1 Steven Kuhn made Sep 16 at 2014 6:37 PM

PO1 Steven Kuhn — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 18:37:31 -0400

I believe we put our soldiers in harms way against enemies they can fight against. Ebola is an unseen adversary, and I believe that if we deploy soldiers they should be in a support role only and protected from direct contact with the virus at all costs. Enough of them die in combat or from radical idiot suicide bombers. They have given so much, and we should not force them to fight an enemy they cannot adequately protect themselves from.

Response by LTC Hillary Luton made Sep 16 at 2014 7:39 PM

LTC Hillary Luton — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 19:39:42 -0400

I'm with you on this one. I read the article and questioned how this was proper use of military personnel.

Response by PFC Stephen Eric Serati made Sep 16 at 2014 8:05 PM

PFC Stephen Eric Serati — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 20:05:55 -0400

If we don't get it under control,it will spread.Pray it doesn't go airborne.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 16 at 2014 8:49 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 20:49:46 -0400

I think we have to help address this epidemic, as much as it scares the shit out of me (the possibility it somehow reaches American soil). We have to consider however, that it already reached American soil (the three doctors brought back for treatment), and we proved (as America always does) that we can handle any threat. I work in the medical field, and can tell you that the CDC and World Health Organization are on top of this as they can be, but it's spreading much faster than those countries can contain it. IF it were ever to be an issue here in the states, there's already plans being put into place to combat it.
If we do nothing, it will continue to spread, and kill hundreds of thousands. All the meanwhile, opening a susceptible area for terrorism residency. The fight against Ebola is considered, in part, a national security issue because the disease threatens fragile governments in Africa and could lead to more safe havens for terrorists.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 17 at 2014 5:45 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 05:45:09 -0400

The mission for the incoming troops is education of civilian health care workers, building of hospitals (for staffing by civilian health care workers), and logistical planning/support (a huge problem in this area, regardless of local government or NGO entity).

The only ones with a risk of contracting EVD are those coming into DIRECT CONTACT with the bodily fluids of Ebola victims who are symptomatic. This mission should not have too many of those, and being the experts that they are they should be well versed in proper PPE usage. Other personnel aren't going to contract it unless they decide to hug or have sex with a symptomatic victim (Ebola aside, in this part of the world that is already a dangerous proposition with HIV and other STDs).

There are no plans for any of our personnel to secure or quarantine any areas.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 17 at 2014 9:19 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 09:19:54 -0400

Response by Sgt W Hibshman made Sep 17 at 2014 6:07 PM

Sgt W Hibshman — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 18:07:16 -0400

You are not alone. Major red flags here. Plus, how is this a military mission? US troops are war-fighters; not virus fighters.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 18 at 2014 6:22 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 18:22:04 -0400

Let's send the missionaries first and see what happens.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 18 at 2014 6:48 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 18:48:42 -0400

Maybe if they all had PhDs/MDs in microbiology or virology.

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made Sep 19 at 2014 3:10 AM

CPT Ahmed Faried — Fri, 19 Sep 2014 03:10:47 -0400

We are uniquely capable in combating this virus. It was no accident that we brought the two infected doctors back here to be treated, and they are healthy again as a result. Rather than wait on other countries to step up I think it is a good idea to get ahead of it and help contain it. If we allow this to spread, it will lead to a break down of those countries, create disorder and vacuum that would soon be filled by people who won't be favorably disposed to us and finally eventually it will cross that vast ocean and make its way here. I see nothing wrong in deploying capable medical troops to help contain this.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 19 at 2014 4:33 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 19 Sep 2014 04:33:48 -0400

You're not the only one concerned. But the facts would show that we, the troops, are not going toe to toe with the virus. We're going in to support the host nation, and other government agencies to ensure education to the masses and places to quarantine the sick.

The media skews so much. Work through chain of command to get information to better understand it.

Response by Sgt Packy Flickinger made Sep 19 at 2014 4:49 AM

Sgt Packy Flickinger — Fri, 19 Sep 2014 04:49:13 -0400

Its another example of our completely clueless POTUS. Ignore the real issues and attack the pointless ones. Then, ofcourse, go out and play a game of golf.

Maybe someone should tell this moron, the .223 is ineffective against a virus. Although a MOAB has been known to work, its a bit detrimental to the victims.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 19 at 2014 8:46 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 19 Sep 2014 08:46:49 -0400

Not to rain on anyone's POTUS hating parade or conspiracy theories but military troops aren't being sent over to fight EBOLA. they are being sent over to provide the infrastructure and to provide security for USAID and other professionals that are trained for just such situations. they are building camps and training facilities for when the doctors and bio chemist arrive they have a place to work. I know the truth isn't as sexy as thinking PFC JOE SNUFFY is going to carry around and M4 looking for the EBOLA virus.

First Shipment of the Ramped Up U.S. Military Response to Ebola Arrives in Liberia

A C-17 U.S. military aircraft arrived in Liberia Thursday with the first shipment of increased U.S. military equipment and personnel for the anti-Ebola fight, which was promised by President Barack Obama in a speech September 16 at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Sep 19 at 2014 11:35 AM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Fri, 19 Sep 2014 11:35:35 -0400

As an Air Force engineer, I worked Chem/Bio defense for several years. The bio protection problem is an order of magnitude more difficult than chem protection. It is unforgiving of a single mistake.

This policy is unlikely to turn around the outbreak in West Africa, but it will definitely increase the risk of introducing the virus more broadly into the US. A much better choice would be to support NGO efforts while shutting down commercial air travel from W Africa thru Europe to US, and delaying & screening all entries to US from that area.

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 4 at 2014 8:37 AM

1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 04 Oct 2014 08:37:33 -0400

Isn't this what the UN is for?!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 9 at 2014 6:51 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 18:51:48 -0400

As we move forward into this "fight" I see more civilians becoming infected in the Homeland. One man died in Dallas this week. Another 2 were treated in the Center/Heart of our country. Exposing a large number of troops will not make this better.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 10 at 2014 8:33 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 10 Oct 2014 20:33:33 -0400

500 more troops from Fort Hood heading to West Africa. Starting to wonder...

Response by SPC Richard White made Oct 13 at 2014 5:13 AM

SPC Richard White — Mon, 13 Oct 2014 05:13:32 -0400

I know one person personally who is being deployed to Africa on what is being called a Humanitarian mission.He works in Security for DOD,VA,AF reserves.He is dealing with it as it comes.Not sure how his roll will take place there. I think they should keep him here.He is already at Ft. Bliss just a short distance from where there 2 people who have been infected. I have another buddy who is thinking of reupping as a combat medic and I am for certain that if he does reup he will be assigned this duty as well. I personally think we have teams that are qualified for this job however it seems the government is send whomever it can and I don't see that as a wise decision.I think there should be a joint effort but the troops that being sent are not necessarily the right ones to send.

Response by MAJ Karen Wall made Oct 13 at 2014 3:05 PM

MAJ Karen Wall — Mon, 13 Oct 2014 15:05:56 -0400

UH...........NO

Response by MAJ Skip Bebernitz made Oct 13 at 2014 6:42 PM

MAJ Skip Bebernitz — Mon, 13 Oct 2014 18:42:33 -0400

Yesterday it was announced that a nurse in Texas is the latest to catch the disease. It was supposed contracted because the proper steps were not followed while taking off the protective clothing. People in the medical profession were the protective clothing as a routine part of their practice. If one of them can not get I right, what chance do our service members hvae of getting it right after a 1 or 2 day familiarization training prior to deployment?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2014 5:50 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Oct 2014 17:50:33 -0400

I support our efforts 100%. We bring unique capabilities that the WHO, Red Cross, etc can not bring to the table. Not only do we have infectious disease specialists, we have physicians and other medical/healthcare professionals which are use to austere and challenging roles, but we also have public health experts, engineering assets, security assets, and so many other resources that permit us to have an impact that would take multiple other organizations. We also can develop the sustainment channels which may permit CDC and other US Government, NGO, and contractors to assist in the effort.

With the growing trade and travel between western nations and Africa, I see this as having a direct impact economically and on the health of those in western countries. We have already seen two confirmed cases in the US related to travel. The chocolate and other industries are going to feel the pinch based on trade restrictions. If not contained, we can see this microclimate become the macroclimate collosus that could have dramatic impacts worldwide. Just think if this spread to other developing nations or developed nations that maybe do not have the methods to prevent the entrance of this disease. What if it hit the middle east with the petroleum industry? What about moving into Asia? What economic impact could restrictions have on oil, manufacturing, agricultural (even if not on continent)? What impact could we feel by a major trade partner becoming a casualty of the epidemic?

It's a much larger global issue than is being portrayed due to the localized nature of it. The outbreak in Central Africa in the mid 90's did not have as much of an impact as this one already has, and Africa was not as globalized as it is now at that time. As we have seen in Dallas, it only takes one infected person to get on a plane. If not caught, it can spread dramatically before being identified with such a long incubation period.

Response by A1C Kenneth Crocker made Oct 20 at 2014 4:55 PM

A1C Kenneth Crocker — Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:55:31 -0400

this is a very bad idea if u ask me and some very popular analyst are saying this could be very bad i have to go to work or would try to find the quotes i was hearing

Response by SFC Gary Fox made Oct 22 at 2014 12:31 PM

SFC Gary Fox — Wed, 22 Oct 2014 12:31:14 -0400

The Ebola epidemic in Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Liberia is a concern for the rest of the world because of people traveling into and out of those countries. The Liberian who traveled to Texas has proven that the screening methods used do not work. If one person can lie saying he had no contact with someone known to have Ebola can make it past the screeners others can lie successfully as well.

Another question is does everyone who is asked if they have had contact with someone with Ebola know they have? One only has to look at the nurse from Texas who helped in the care for the Liberian who had Ebola. She was allowed to travel to Ohio with a fever of 99.5 after getting permission from the CDC to do so because she did not have a fever of 100.5. The CDC was irresponsible to grant her permission to travel; especially since we are told one of the early symptoms of Ebola is a fever; one that will increase as the virus spreads throughout the body.

Because Ebola can spread through infected people throughout the world, why are we the only country sending in military personnel to provide assistance? Why do we allow the continued travel to and from those countries endangering the rest of the world? Should we not take measures to quarantine the country to eliminate the spread of the virus?

Another concern is the redeployment of these troops we're deploying there? What measures are going to be in place to protect them from the virus? Will we also quarantine them for 21 days after they return to the US or before they redeploy? What is the exit strategy? What procedures will be followed if one of our troops becomes infected; will we send them back to the US for treatment or will they be treated there?

I would have lots of questions and concerns if I were one of those deploying.

Response by MSG Gordon Berryessa made Oct 22 at 2014 3:07 PM

MSG Gordon Berryessa — Wed, 22 Oct 2014 15:07:00 -0400

When I was on active duty, one of my specialties was Biological Warfare, along with leading CBR units to respond to attacks or incidents involving these elements. I know there was a great deal of interest about Biological Warfare, because I always found 06's & General Officer's attending my Lectures, years ago.
Know doubt us who have these skills to protect our soldiers & non-combatants are more than capable of properly executing the proper procedures & know more about decontamination than any others in our government.
But, those that were sent to Africa appear to never had any training in this area, & are only regular members of an army unit. Just knowing this, they will just fall victim to Ebola, at sometime during this assignment. Sure they can build facilities to house Ebola victims & attempt to provide security so this epidemic will not spread any further. But, most regular soldiers just do not get sufficient training to even protect themselves. Each unit in the service have only a handful of soldiers with the skills to survive a Biological or Epidemic attack. This task should of been given to an assembled group of civilian medically trained men & women, who deal specific with Epidemics, from our Medical Community. Each time we compel an element of our services down with a commitment, it lessens are chances for being fully capable in War to defend America. And I know perfectly well our Enemies are sizing us up now as I type this. Just look at the latest news of Russian Aircraft overflying the North American Continent, & that Russian Nuclear Sub in Swedish waters. They are probing our defenses, & organizing an attack over the Poles to attack us, & constantly reviewing our limited capabilities. Time is running out & we better get a better stronger President soon, & some General's with Backbone, or our liberty & health will be of the past. May I add that we do not need Dreamers, without intelligence or skills in our services. The Department of Defense must insist better background checks on new recruits & to reach out to Universities & Junior Colleges for the next generation of leaders. One must remember that America presented one of the greatest fighting forces ever seen, during WW II. And they included motivated & skilled members of the civilian society. Otherwise, at that time our services was undermanned & without very much training, due to those that were leading our government at that time. It is doubtful that we could pull this off ever again, because so many years have passed without men or even women caring to serve. And we know who again to Thank, for this attitude.

Response by Maj Chris Nelson made Oct 22 at 2014 3:55 PM

Maj Chris Nelson — Wed, 22 Oct 2014 15:55:37 -0400

I have a teenage nephew that posted on facebook something to the effect of "Ebola is over there, so there is no real reason for us to get all bent out of shape and excited about this"...this was before there were any cases outside of Africa. I told him that from a military perspective, that this was a really big deal as it could be used for biological warfare and even accidently through world travel. Once I explained to him that until he has a few years in the military to actually understand some of the outlying factors, that maybe he should not be quite as blah...., I did however, agree that the media WAS inciting panic and unrest to a degree that is/was not warrented yet (there is a huge difference between providing news/info and propagating panic).