Ebola & American Intervention

In 2014, a highly contagious and deadly virus, Ebola, emerged in Western Africa, primarily in the countries
of Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea. The epidemic caught world health authorities off guard, ultimately
killing thousands and threatening to develop into a worldwide epidemic. A broad range of organizations
and politicians, from health care authorities and Doctors Without Borders to the World Health
Organization and Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, made dramatic appeals for American military
intervention. The legacy of colonial ties affected the perceptions of responsibility for provision of
assistance. The United Kingdom took charge of relief efforts in Sierra Leone, France in Guinea, and the
th
United States in Liberia, a state founded in the 19 century by former African-‐American slaves.

After initially receiving criticism for acting too cautiously, President Obama responded by sending over
3,000 military personnel, mostly medics and engineers, to Liberia. It was the largest American
intervention ever in a global health crisis. President Obama justified this decision by arguing that the
United States had an ethical obligation as a leader of the global community to address the
humanitarian crisis in Liberia as well as a security interest in controlling the epidemic in Africa so that it
did not spread to the U.S. and other countries. According to President Obama, only the American
military had the resources, hierarchical structure, and discipline to carry out such a largescale effort.

Objections to the “militarization” of this relief effort came in several forms. Conservative critics argued
that militaries are for fighting and winning wars, not providing humanitarian assistance. Others argued
the humanitarian effort could morph into security and military engagement. David Ridenhour,
president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, worried that American soldiers could be
faced with difficult moral dilemmas, such as “having to shoot unarmed, possibly infected Liberian
civilians or allow Ebola to spread.” Some critics were concerned that U.S. military intervention
jeopardized the principle of neutrality that health relief organizations try to maintain. Historian Andrew
Bacevich argued that a military response to a humanitarian crisis, even if successful, would mask and
perpetuate gross misallocation of resources toward building military capacity rather than address
global health care needs.

Ultimately, the Ebola epidemic was brought under control in Liberia and the rest of Western Africa. The
United States military built 11 treatment units and the government expended hundreds of millions of
dollars in the relief effort. However, as The New York
Times reported, there is limited evidence that these
efforts played any significant role. Only 28 Ebola
patients were treated in the 11 treatment centers built
by the military. The number of new Ebola cases peaked
at 635 the week after President Obama announced the
military intervention, but dropped to just over 100 by
the time the first medical unit was opened. By the time
the additional units were operational, Ebola cases had
dwindled to less than 50.

Case Study – Ebola & American Intervention -‐ Page 1 of 2

This study source was downloaded by 100000847436246 from CourseHero.com on 05-18-2022 16:13:32 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/140684782/Ebola-American-Interventiondoc/
 Discussion Questions:

1. Do you think the United States is ethically required to respond to epidemics and other health
crises in foreign countries? Why or why not?

They are ethically required. This is because they are a developed country and they are equipped
with multiple skills, technology and finance to tackle threatening viruses that are potential global
pandemics.

2. Should the U.K., France, and the U.S. have concentrated their relief efforts along historical
colonial lines during the Ebola outbreak? In general, do the U.S. and other imperialist nations
have particular ethical responsibilities to aid their former colonies? Explain your reasoning.

They shouldn’t have concentrated their relief efforts on the historical colonial lines, that is
because I personally believe that individual countries should rely on themselves and themselves
only, accepting aid can come with a lot of hidden ties, especially coming from your former
coloniser

3. Do you think it is ethically permissible to deploy the U.S. military in humanitarian relief efforts?
What are the potential harms and benefits of such a decision? Explain.

It is not ethically permissible. The NATO and U.S military have been accused of misconducts in
multiple under developed countries and countries that are in war. They take the advantage of the
chaos to carry out whatever desired missions.

4. Do you think that President Obama’s response to the Ebola epidemic was too cautious,
sufficient, or too ambitious? What policy would you have followed if you were in his position?
Explain your reasoning.

It was too ambitious. I would have monitored the spread, the number of people infected, the
mortality rate, do the projections of the virus spread, and then take action if needed

5. Many of the medical treatment facilities that were built by the American military were never
utilized to treat Ebola victims. How, if at all, does this outcome affect your judgment of
President Obama’s response?

I think the US might have been after something in Liberia, they have to use an excuse of the
relief in order for the US Military to gain access in Liberia. Or the US president was just too
ambitious and ended up not doing the necessary research before deploying the relief.

Task:
Create a presentation in response to these questions

Resources:
This study source was downloaded by 100000847436246 from CourseHero.com on 05-18-2022 16:13:32 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/140684782/Ebola-American-Interventiondoc/
 Liberian President Pleads With Obama for Assistance in Combating Ebola
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/world/africa/liberian- ‐president-‐pleads-‐with-‐
obama-‐for-‐ assistance-‐in-‐combating-‐ebola.html
The US military should be winning wars, not fighting Ebola http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/10/the-‐
us-‐military-‐should-‐be-‐winning-‐wars-‐not-‐fighting-‐ebola/ AFRICOM’s Ebola response and the
militarization of humanitarian aid https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-‐
cage/wp/2014/09/25/africoms-‐ebola-‐response-‐and-‐ the-‐militarization-‐of-‐humanitarian-‐aid/
The Rank Injustice of Sending U.S. Troops to Fight Ebola
http://triblive.com/opinion/featuredcommentary/7059273-‐74/ebola-‐
military-‐ soldiers#axzz3HwlUQVDC
Empty Ebola Clinics in Liberia Are Seen as Misstep in U.S. Relief Effort
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/12/world/africa/idle-‐ebola-‐clinics-‐in-‐liberia-‐are-‐seen-‐as-‐
misstep-‐in-‐ us-‐relief-‐effort.html

Case Study – Ebola & American Intervention -‐ Page 2 of 2

This study source was downloaded by 100000847436246 from CourseHero.com on 05-18-2022 16:13:32 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/140684782/Ebola-American-Interventiondoc/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)