Why is Pentagon quarantining troops who had no contact with Ebola patients?

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Wednesday signed off on a policy of 21-day quarantines for all troops deployed to West Africa on Ebola-related missions. It speaks to the military's 'ultra-cautious' culture.

Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel speaks at the 'Washington Ideas Forum' in Washington Wednesday. The same day, he approved a recommendation by military leaders that all US troops returning from Ebola response missions in West Africa be kept in supervised isolation for 21 days.

The Pentagon's "ultra" conservative approach to Ebola, with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Wednesday endorsing a sweeping 21-day quarantine for all US troops returning from West Africa, is a window into how the military makes decisions, but not necessarily a good yardstick for public policy, says one expert.

With the “drama at home” about the wisdom of quarantines, some people have looked at the military decision with interest. The governors of New York and New Jersey have insisted on 21-day quarantines for anyone who has come in contact with Ebola patients in West Africa, while President Obama and health officials have said such quarantines are medically pointless and only stigmatize health workers.

The fact that Secretary Hagel signed off on the quarantine policy might suggest that the governors are taking a more prudent course. But "trying to place this in a box of, 'Does this affirm the outlook of some governors or does this contradict them?' " is "a little bit awkward," says Stephen Morrison, director of the Global Health Policy Center at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“The military is the military – it makes sense that they would do this,” he says. “It’s logically consistent from a military command standpoint that you’re going to start from a point of being ultra-cautious,” particularly since US troops “are in a military structure where they have signed over some of their rights.”

If by some fluke troops were diagnosed with Ebola “it could open the door to havoc and undermine bipartisan support for this mission,” he adds, noting that while Congress has allocated $750 million for the first six months of Ebola response in West Africa, US officials have “to go back to the well and ask for another big shot of cash to finish the job.”

While the Pentagon’s top officers recommended the quarantine, the policy wasn't official until Secretary Hagel signed an order Wednesday. The order puts all US military servicemembers returning from Ebola-related activities in West Africa into quarantine.

The quarantine – which could affect some 4,000 American service members – runs counter to the recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and other public health officials. They emphasize that the disease is exceedingly difficult to catch, since it can be transferred only when the carrier has easily-identifiable symptoms.

At a Tuesday briefing, before Hagel signed the order, Defense officials said they share the concern that the quarantine could have an impact on the public debate, with the unintended side effect of increasing fears surrounding the disease. 

Hagel is aware of the “spillover effects on other agencies and the American people,” Rear Adm. John Kirby, Pentagon press secretary, said in a briefing with reporters Tuesday. 

But Rear Admiral Kirby also suggested Tuesday that Hagel was inclined to defer to military officials: “He is not going to oppose or get in the way of the decision that Army leadership made, with respect to this group of soldiers coming back.”

The current quarantine affects a dozen US troops who are returning from Liberia, including the general who is commanding them. But Hagel's action Wednesday means dozens more US soldiers returning from West Africa through Italy later this week will also be impacted.

The original quarantine decision was made by Gen. Raymond Odierno, the Army chief of staff. The Pentagon has repeatedly emphasized that the US troops deploying to the region – mostly of engineers, logisticians, and aviators – are not going to be in contact with Ebola patients.

Kirby did so again at the Tuesday briefing. “I think it’s important to remind that nothing has changed about the fact that these troops – our troops in Liberia – are not going to be treating Ebola patients. They’re not going to be coming into direct contact with people who have the disease.”

Given this, reporters during the briefing asked about the need for quarantine. “There’s no science to back up what appears to be happening,” one reporter noted. So if the decision to quarantine is “not based on science, what is it based on?” another reporter wondered aloud.

“An abundance of caution,” Kirby responded.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Why is Pentagon quarantining troops who had no contact with Ebola patients?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today