Ebola

A second nurse from Dallas has come down with Ebola.  She has been flown to Atlanta for treatment.  The first nurse has been transferred to a facility in Maryland.  Both are under strict quarantine to prevent further spread.  Of course, they both contracted it from Thomas Duncan who was in quarantine.  Not a very effective quarantine, it turns out.  Mr. Duncan's family have been quarantined in their apartment for weeks though they have yet to exhibit symptoms.  What can we conclude?  Quarantine is the best known method for preventing the spread of the virus.

The Ebola outbreak is centered in 3 West African countries.  These countries have not been quarantined, which is how Mr. Duncan found his way to a Dallas, Texas.  Great Britain has banned travel from the region.  Why haven't we?  The current panic that is spreading across the country could have been averted if we had a travel ban.  Rather than a ban, the government has decided to check the temperature of travelers from the region, a policy that - if in place at the time - would have allowed Thomas Duncan into the country!  Are we morons?  Moreover, the policy has only been instituted at 5 airports which handle 90 to 95% of the all traffic from the region.  Therefore, we are allowing 5 to 10% of travelers from Ebola-plagued countries to enter the US without even this inadequate screening?

 

What of the CDC director?  Thomas Frieden was part of former NYC Mayor Bloomberg's bans against large sodas.  Here is a man willing to impose policies that will prevent you from drinking too much soda and bringing on health problems years or decades from now but is unwilling to suggest a policy to prevent a virus that has a 50 to 90% fatality rate days after being contracted.  If only he could be as determined to prevent Ebola as he is to prevent obesity.

 

To add to the incomprehensibility of the government response, we are sending thousands of troops to the afflicted regions.  To what end?  Short of killing off anyone who might be infected (which would be immoral and criminal) like in the opening of the movie Outbreak, the military is just going to put more Americans in the path of the virus.  It feels like we are sending the troops in order to claim to be 'doing something' about Ebola.  It may not be doing any good but at least action is being taken.

Foregin Policy Blunder

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11156264/Iraq-asks-for-US-ground-troops-as-Isil-threaten-Baghdad.html

As many predicted, pulling every US troop out of Iraq meant it was virtually certain that all the gains achieved would be reversed.  Such has come to pass.  Unfortunately for Obama, he is still in office.  He withdrew the troops, he proudly ran for re-election on the fact that he withdrew the troops, and now Iraq is crumbling.

We stayed in Germany after World War II until... oh, yeah, we're still there.  How is Germany doing?  We stayed in Japan after WWII until... still there.  Japan doing okay?  What about South Korea?  Still there and it is prospering.  Let's look at the places where we didn't stay.  Vietnam?  It got pretty ugly after we left.  How about Haiti?  We've sent troops to Haiti many times but they always left.  Haiti is a basket case.  With this sort of record, why would we choose to leave?  It was a virtual guarantee of disaster.  But it made for a good campaign slogan for Obama's final election.

 

There are two strategic options for dealing with ISIS.  The first is to fight to win.  That would mean ground troops, tanks, re-established bases in Iraq, and a real war.  The second is to wash our hands of the matter and let the locals sort it out.  Either you want to beat them or you don't.  Now, there are also political options.  Strategic option 1 is anathema to the Democrat-base in the run-up to a midterm election.  Also, option 1 lays bare the blunder in removing troops in the first place.  Strategic option 2 is unacceptable because the American people demand some sort of action in the wake of beheaded Americans.  Thus we have the political option.  We go to war just enough to be 'doing something' but not enough to actually win.

 

The president's rhetoric has sounded hawkish, claiming we will destroy ISIS.  He says that is the goal but he does not provide the means of achieving that end.  He is all talk.  As the saying goes, actions speak louder than words.  Obama's actions, be they with regard to Russia's invasion of the Ukraine, Syria's use of chemical weapons, or a desire to defeat ISIS, always show that his threats are idle.  The thugs of the world have a couple years in which to seize power and territory because Obama isn't going to commit to stopping them.