Panic Is Not For Everybody
On October 27, the US military admitted that it is quarantining soldiers who return from service in Ebola-ravaged West African states. The prescribed 21-day isolation is "to ensure soldiers, family members and their surrounding communities are confident that we are taking all steps necessary to protect their health", and was put into place by Army Chief of Staff General Raymond Odierno, according to an Army news release.
This is the opposite approach to what the US government has recommended for civilian volunteers in the region fighting the virus. The harsh quarantine measures imposed by the governors of New York and New Jersey drew sharp rebuke from the Obama Administration, which called them “uncoordinated” and “very hurried”.
Apparently, the same standard does not apply to the military.
Interestingly enough, the US military shouldn’t be in contact with Ebola patients themselves, as the personnel deployed there are strictly engaged in logistics and construction of medical facilities, unlike the civilian volunteers who deal with the victims daily. The stance of the Obama administration suggests that the popular feelings of Ebola-induced panic are more important to quell when they’re coming from the military than from civilians.
Militarizing Ebola
So here’s a quick riddle for you: what’s transnational, has killed thousands, and has prompted the US to send its troops to combat? If you guessed the Islamic State, you’re off track, since the US hasn’t yet put troops on the ground to fight this movement. The answer is Ebola, as the US has militarized its rhetoric and actions towards the virus even more than it has for ISIL. This started innocently enough, with media rhetoric aimed at a ‘war’ against Ebola that echoes the US’ War on Drugs from the 1970s. The problem is that the ‘war; against Ebola is easily expanded to become a war on those exposed to the disease.
While the analogy is justified with respect to drug traffickers, who often carry weapons and commit acts of murder, Ebola patients do not. So why the rhetoric? In October CNN quoted a US Army colonel in West Africa as saying “there’s no better fight worth fighting than the one in Liberia right now”. Before anyone knew it, thousands of troops were ordered into the region to participate in this battle of glory. Guns don’t kill viruses, doctors, medicine, and sanitation do. But the US media keeps militarizing this ‘fight’ without justification..
Why Is The US Military In West Africa To Begin With?
Some suspect that this has to do with oil off the coast. This seems unlikely. There’s definitely oil there, but is it enough, and does the US need it so badly, that it’s going to spend all the time, money, and resources that it is to get it? Considering that almost half of America’s oil consumption comes from the Western Hemisphere, and that, as they say, “there’s bigger fish to fry”, this seems an illogical conclusion.
No, what’s more plausible is that the US military’s presence in West Africa is related to a geopolitical game of influence on the continent. The US is competing with China for African resources and markets, not because America needs them, (any gains are mere bonuses for it, after all,) but because China does need them in order to keep growing. Sending a couple thousand troops to West Africa opens the door to an extended presence and a possibly wider regional footprint. And, once Ebola is eradicated, those countries’ economies will have to recover somehow, and instead of the Chinese moving in, the US would rather send its own contractors and companies, or those of its allies.
