PRO/CON: Should U.S.

soldiers be in West Africa fighting

Ebola?
By Tribune News Service, adapted by Newsela staff
Dec. 03, 2014 2:00 AM

U.S. Air Force personnel load boxes containing tents onto a truck at the airport in Monrovia, Liberia, Sept.
27, 2014. Six months into the worlds worst-ever Ebola outbreak, and the first to happen in an unprepared
West Africa, the gap between what has been sent by other countries and private groups and what is desperately
needed is huge.

PRO: We have to help fight Ebola by sending troops

WASHINGTONPresident Barack Obama sent U.S. troops to West Africa to help stop the Ebola
outbreak. It was the right thing to do. But he did it for the wrong reasons.
Obama called it a national security mission. It is not.
Our government protects our national security. It uses the military to keep the nation safe.
True national security issues are caused by the violent actions of humans. It might be war between
countries or attacks by extremist groups like al-Qaida. They threaten the lives of Americans.

Helping People
Other types of challenges, such as bad bugs or bad weather, are different. They are just problems
to be solved.
Helping West Africa deal with Ebola is a humanitarian mission. It is about helping people. It is
not about security.
It is, of course, right for us to provide humanitarian aid when we can.
America sent humanitarian aid to help after the 2004 Tsunami in Asia.
The U.S. military often launches these kind of missions. Our military is skilled at humanitarian
emergencies. It sandbags rivers during storms to prevent floods. After disaster strikes, it delivers
supplies and rescues people.
It is not the main job of our military. But it should be done when U.S. troops are needed and
available.

Stopping The Disease

Deciding when to launch these missions depends on if they are right, can be done, and are acceptable.
Without question, the West African crisis is the right use of U.S. forces. The Pentagon can quickly
send troops, experts, and support to help people there stop the disease.
And its in our own interest. The best way to keep more Ebola cases from reaching the U.S. is to
help defeat the outbreak in West Africa. Preventing people from traveling from West Africa does
not fix the problem.
Sending troops to West Africa is also possible and acceptable. However, the mission will be risky
for our troops.
Even health workers who try to take all the right safety steps have caught the disease. But, our
troops know the ways to lower their risk.
They understand the danger. They accept it. It is part of the job.
ABOUT THE WRITER: A 25-year Army veteran, James Jay Carafano is vice president of Defense
and Foreign Policy Studies for The Heritage Foundation, (heritage.org), a conservative think tank
on Capitol Hill. Readers may write him at Heritage, 214 Massachusetts Ave. NE, Washington, DC
20002.
2

This essay is available to Tribune News Service subscribers. Tribune did not subsidize the writing
of this column; the opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of
Tribune or Newsela.

CON: We should not put our troops at risk

WASHINGTONPresident Barack Obama is using American troops to fight Ebola. It shows the
world he cares enough to send our best people. But hes putting them at risk.
Like many of Obamas plans, he is acting without thinking.
Here are four reasons why sending our military isnt the best way to help:
Our military is already doing too much. The president has decided to cut the Army from 570,000
soldiers to 440,000. A government study said this makes it difficult to deal with more than one
large military problem at a time.

A Dangerous Mission
Now the president will send 4,000 soldiers to West Africa. And that number is sure to go up.
The president just decided to call up National Guard soldiers, who are off duty. The U.S. is also
now bombing the extremist group Islamic State. And our troops may need to go fight that group
soon.
These are big challenges. Army Chief of Staff General Ray Odierno recently questioned the plan to
cut the number of U.S. troops.
Our troops risk getting stuck in West Africa. Besides giving humanitarian aid, our military might
have to keep the peace as well.
International affairs expert Janine Davidson said, As the disease spreads, so does panicand panic
leads to violence. Keeping the peace in African countries could be risky.
For one, it would take many more troops in the future, stretching our military even further. The
World Health Organization says there could be 10,000 new Ebola cases each week by December.
That could cause a lot of panic and violence. Our troops would need to keep the peace.
For another, it could place our soldiers in a position like the one Liberian soldiers recently found
themselves. They had to choose between their safety and the publics. A neighborhood was put
under quarantine and people were not allowed to leave their homes. Violent rioting started. It left
four people wounded and one 16-year-old boy dead.
3

Imagine U.S. soldiers being forced to make the same choice: Having to shoot unarmed, possibly
infected Liberians or allow Ebola to spread.

Unstable Countries
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) isnt ready. All of the Ebola patients who caught the
disease on U.S. soil were health care workers. They caught Ebola while treating it and using the
instructions of the CDC. The CDC is not ready to help in Africa.
Bringing the military into humanitarian aid risks getting the U.S. dragged into the problems inside West African countries. All three countries at the center of the Ebola outbreak have weak
governments.
Civil wars ended in Sierra Leone and Liberia not long ago. Guinea was ruled by the military until
2010. These countries could be so unstable that just stopping travel there from the U.S. could cause
chaos.
You isolate them, you can cause unrest in the country, said the National Institutes of Healths
Anthony Fauci. Its conceivable that government could fall.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration still doesnt want to stop travel from West Africa. Yet, its
the one way that might give Americans some protection.
Our soldiers face enormous risk. And its all because the president is unwilling stop the flow of
possibly infected people from West Africa.
ABOUT THE WRITER: David A. Ridenour is president of the National Center for Public Policy Research (nationalcenter.org), a nonpartisan conservative think tank located on Capitol Hill.
Readers may write him at NCPPR, 501 Capitol Court NE, Washington, DC 20006.
This essay is available to Tribune News Service subscribers. Tribune did not subsidize the writing
of this column; the opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of
Tribune or Newsela.

Quiz
1. What point do the two authors AGREE on?
(a) that sending troops is the right way to help
(b) that the U.S. military faces risks in West Africa
(c) that sending troops is the right use of the military
(d) that we should stop travel from West Africa to the U.S.
2. What point does only the CON author discuss?
(a) the dangers U.S. troops face in West Africa
(b) that U.S. health care workers have caught Ebola
(c) how unstable the three West African countries are
(d) the importance of preventing Ebola from reaching the U.S.
3. Which selection from the PRO articles section Helping People describes specific types of
humanitarian aid that have been offered by the United States?
(a) Other types of challenges, such as bad bugs or bad weather, are different. They are just
problems to be solved. Helping West Africa deal with Ebola is a humanitarian mission.
It is about helping people. It is not about security.
(b) It is, of course, right for us to provide humanitarian aid when we can. America sent
humanitarian aid to help after the 2004 Tsunami in Asia.
(c) The U.S. military often launches these kind of missions. Our military is skilled at humanitarian emergencies. It sandbags rivers during storms to prevent floods. After disaster
strikes, it delivers supplies and rescues people.
(d) It is not the main job of our military. But it should be done when U.S. troops are needed
and available.
4. Which sentence from the CON articles section Unstable Countries provides evidence supporting the section title?
(a) Civil wars ended in Sierra Leone and Liberia not long ago.
(b) All three countries at the center of the Ebola outbreak have weak governments.
(c) These countries could be so unstable that just stopping travel there from the U.S. could
cause chaos.
(d) Bringing the military into humanitarian aid risks getting the U.S. dragged into the problems inside West African countries.

Answer Key
1. What point do the two authors AGREE on?
(a) that sending troops is the right way to help
(b) that the U.S. military faces risks in West Africa
(c) that sending troops is the right use of the military
(d) that we should stop travel from West Africa to the U.S.
2. What point does only the CON author discuss?
(a) the dangers U.S. troops face in West Africa
(b) that U.S. health care workers have caught Ebola
(c) how unstable the three West African countries are
(d) the importance of preventing Ebola from reaching the U.S.
3. Which selection from the PRO articles section Helping People describes specific types of
humanitarian aid that have been offered by the United States?
(a) Other types of challenges, such as bad bugs or bad weather, are different. They are just
problems to be solved. Helping West Africa deal with Ebola is a humanitarian mission.
It is about helping people. It is not about security.
(b) It is, of course, right for us to provide humanitarian aid when we can. America sent
humanitarian aid to help after the 2004 Tsunami in Asia.
(c) The U.S. military often launches these kind of missions. Our military is
skilled at humanitarian emergencies. It sandbags rivers during storms to
prevent floods. After disaster strikes, it delivers supplies and rescues people.
(d) It is not the main job of our military. But it should be done when U.S. troops are needed
and available.
4. Which sentence from the CON articles section Unstable Countries provides evidence supporting the section title?
(a) Civil wars ended in Sierra Leone and Liberia not long ago.
(b) All three countries at the center of the Ebola outbreak have weak governments.
(c) These countries could be so unstable that just stopping travel there from the U.S. could
cause chaos.
(d) Bringing the military into humanitarian aid risks getting the U.S. dragged into the problems inside West African countries.