The U.S. should lead the fight against Ebola

As I read about the various international crises currently going on—the rise of Islamic State, the Russian invasion of East Ukraine, the Syrian Civil War, Gazan ceasefires  that may or may not hold—it’s difficult to judge when and how the United States should get involved.  On which side should we intervene?  Are economic sanctions enough?  Do airstrikes in Iraq support the Assad regime in Syria?  This recent WSJ graphic highlights the strange alliances that the threat of the Islamic State has created.  Who should we be cautious of supporting now, should it come to haunt us in the future?

There is one current crisis, though, that involves a clear-cut enemy, a true bad guy: Ebola.  The Ebola epidemic in West Africa has already killed more than 1,400 people.  The virus is mutating quickly, and risks rise as the epidemic continues to spread.  According to Charles Chiu, an infectious-disease physician at UC-San Francisco, “The longer we allow the outbreak to continue, the greater the opportunity the virus has to mutate, and it’s possible that it will mutate into a form that would be an even greater threat than it is right now.”

The World Health Organization has estimated that $490 million will be required to control the outbreak for the next six to nine months.  This is based on the estimate that 20,000 people will be infected.  WHO’s member states (194 members of the United Nations) have the opportunity to foot the bill. The agency’s three-part plan to fight Ebola involves the following: “First, governments and first responders must ensure that all affected geographic areas have adequate surveillance and health care in the next three months so that standard strategies for containment and tracking the spread of the disease will work. Second, countries need to contain any outbreaks in new regions within eight weeks; and finally, countries must strengthen their capacity to detect and respond to cases.”

This is a situation where the United States can and should intervene. Just as in our results-based cash influx for providing AIDS relief, our help is much more than just a humanitarian mission.  President George W. Bush described PEPFAR as a way of strengthening U.S. national security interests.  So, too, would our response to the Ebola outbreak.  If we assist West African nations not only when they are threatened by other countries, but also when they are threatened by disease, we build up international goodwill.  It is simply the right thing to do.