As I looked out over the headlines this morning, on Ebola (likely to become endemic in West Africa now), ISIS (we’re going to oppose them with a limited strategy), and Ukraine (still unclear why we’re supporting the government there), I notice that each of these had something in common: they are only threats to us as a consequence of policy. In each instance there is a strained case for our involvement.
The best case is with respect to the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. There are humanitarian reasons we should be involved there but even those are conditional. We should only be involved insofar and to the degree that we can actually help there.
I understand the policies at stake but it’s not clear to me that the risks and rewards of the policies are being distributed equally. It seems to me that increasingly we’re all bearing the risks while the policies only benefit a relative few.
I would like to see this complaint fleshed out a bit more:
I notice that each of these had something in common: they are only threats to us as a consequence of policy.
What would be different in each of these cases if policy were different, and specifically, is it credible to think that a “non-policy” (not getting involved) is both possible and preferable? Not doing things has consequences as well.
Let’s take the case of Ebola. To the extent that’s a threat at all it’s a threat because of our policies on travel.
Ukraine is only an issue at all because we have a kneejerk anti-Russian reflex that’s made its way into policy.
List for yourself why ISIS is a threat. I think that the reasons aren’t laws of nature but the consequence of policies.
I particularly don’t understand the case of Ebola. What travel policies would eliminate the threat?
To and from Africa.
On the other two issues, my initial question applies. We have these knee jerk policies because we perceive a need to contain others who might be aggressors. You can certainly argue that our perception is completely wrong or that it is overblown, but t)3 opposite perception could also be wrong.
I keep wanting to be convinced that less intervention would solve many of our problems, but I never see alternatives that appear realistic for containing threats to regional and global stability.
We have a kneejerk response to Russia because so many policymakers came of age when being anti-Soviet made sense. Although the Soviet Union was largely a vehicle for Russian imperialism, Russia isn’t the threat that the Soviet Union was if only because the figleaf is gone now.
I don’t think anyone seriously believes that we should be concerned about Russian tanks rolling through the streets of Berlin or Paris let alone the streets of New York. No to mention that there are some streets in New York I would advise them not to roll through.
ISIS is mostly a threat to Jordan and the KSA. They’re only a threat to us to the extent that we allow them to be. The KSA is only important to us because we have energy and trade policies that make it so.
You would have to restrict ALL travel in and out of the country to significantly diminish the Ebola threat. Restricting direct travel in and out of Africa still leaves a lot of indirect travel, especially for people travelling in and out of China or Europe.
I think we have a true interest in containing or mitigating the Ebola outbreak, especially since the people running this country want completely open birders. Well, for everyone except actual citizens.
I still don’t understand the travel policy issue- we currently have some regulation but not much, to and from Africa. Your mindset seems to be that there should be no policy, which would mean travel completely unrestricted, or are you suggesting in this case that a different policy should replace the current one, so that travel to and from Africa would be much more restricted?
Ellipsis:
You’re pointing out that present policy is practical, with which I agree, not that is isn’t policy.
Most of my point here is that we have become accustomed to thinking of policies as though they were laws of nature rather than choices which is what they are.
As a Pole, I can’t agree that Russia wasn’t a threat before the Soviets but I realize that doesn’t necessarily translate to a US interest.
I think our interests in both the Middle East and Russia/Eastern Europe relate to energy. You don’t have to imagine tanks rolling into Berlin or Paris, just the gas pipelines being cut off. Again, that is still only indirectly related to US interests, but so were both world wars.
Most of my point here is that we have become accustomed to thinking of policies as though they were laws of nature rather than choices which is what they are.
OK, but that observation isn’t very useful unless we can conceive of a different set of policies that would be likely to produce better outcomes.
CStanley, Schuler is stating that if we didn’t have such permissive travel policies, we wouldn’t need to worry so much about contagion making it’s way here. One could restrict travel out, and quarantine anyone coming back, for example.
He’s right that changing travel policies would mitigate the risk to the US. He’s wrong if he thinks that JUST restricting travel in and out of Africa would fix it. A lot of companies in Europe and China specifically do a lot of business in Africa, and employees of those companies travel in and out of Africa and then meet with American counterparts all the time, well within the window of contagion for Ebola. My wife’s company’s office here in Central Florida has that kind of contact all the time, when they’re not sending people directly to Africa.
And if Ebola makes the jump to spread easily through coughing and sneezing, you’d have to stop all travel in and out of the country.
It’s true that this is policy, but unless you think the government actually CAN secure all entry and egress from the country, it isn’t JUST policy.
Incidentally, there’s an awful lot of Chinese money to be made in Africa.
And none of it matters if the borders aren’t secure, and they’re not, as a matter of policy.
Although since Schuler doesn’t seem to think the borders could be secured anyway, I think he’s overly fixated on this distinction.
I’m just talking about mitigation not complete elimination of any threat. We can’t eliminate all threats. Some mitigation here and some mitigation there can potentially go a long way.
I just don’t think you’ll get any mitigation without restricting all foreign travel and the border.
Restricting foreign travel like that would have large political and economic consequences of their own. And that makes such travel restrictions an economic interest which goes beyond mere policy.
I am with you on Russia and ISIS. You are reaching on Ebola. If we had just ignored West Africa, which we mostly do, it would still be a problem. A policy where we will forbid all travel, direct and indirect, from Africa is not possible and makes no sense.
Steve
I see now what Dave meant (I mistakenly assumed he meant that our policy should be more hands off.)
I agree that travel bans would be impossible at the level needed to be effective. Africa would have to be on complete lockdown, and to suggest this seems to strike of American hubris (up characteristic of Dave.)
If anything, I’d say a different aspect of policy can be faulted with the Ebola epidemic. It seems to me that the interventions were reasonably good for treating patients, but not good on the quarantine aspects. That’s actually a very dangerous combination because more people are surviving and transmitting the virus and giving it opportunity to genetically modify to a much more dangerous pathogen.
“Uncharacteristic of Dave”
My latest hire is married to an infectious disease person. We talked about this. Care is mostly supportive. We aren’t extending many lives. You make it or you don’t. The few brought back to the states are getting actual treatments. The big problem where it is spreading is that they don’t do quarantine well. Stopping the spread of the disease is the best we can do to stop mutation. Also, fwiw, I don’t believe any of the known viral pathogens has ever changed its mode of transmission.
Steve
I think the point is that Ebola (or a close relative) has been demonstrated to be transmissible via air between monkeys. Not that I’m saying it could make the leap. Not my area of expertise.
@steve-I’m pretty sure I’ve seen stats with considerably lower mortality rates than in previous epidemics. Maybe that’s due to viral mutation but I assumed they were treating with more aggressive supportive care.
CStanley, you wouldn’t put Africa on lock down, you’d put the US in lock down. Don’t let anyone go without a very important reason. (Eco-tourism wouldn’t qualify, for example.) Don’t let in foreigners who have been to Africa. Quarantine all Americans returning from Africa.
Everything to be done would be done here. The problem is people interacting with people who have been in the hot zones could still come in. Thus the need for wider restrictions, which isn’t going to happen.
And all of it is meaningless as long as the borders are completely open. Crossing from Canada for the wealthier folks, crossing from Mexico for the poorer folks.
BTW, please don’t conflate analysis with advocacy. Again, I’m just pointing out that over the years we have made a series of decisions that have implications. These decisions tend to have constituencies who are dependent on them and will defend them to the death.
But they remain decisions rather than laws of nature and should be subjected to cost-benefit analysis.
“List for yourself why ISIS is a threat. I think that the reasons aren’t laws of nature but the consequence of policies.”
In this context, I think the point about ISIS is that it is following a religious mandate from the Koran: “when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them.”
ISIS is an organization or proto-state that sees itself at war with the United States and plans to keep killing Americans at the very least as it encounters them. That is not U.S. policy, that is their agency. U.S. policy is to figure out what it can or should do in response. Combined with the comment about Ebola, the U.S. policy Dave is discussing, though not advocating, is the failure to isolate.
PD, you’ve always been good at finding text. Thanks for that little bit.
(Now that I’ve stroked your feathers, will you please ask your wife if this dribbling idiocy due to risperidone ever goes away. Between a stuffed nose from gardening and drug-induced drooling, I’m afraid to go out on the streets. People will take me for a mouth-breathing psycho killer. //Not that I’m far off from that.//)
CS- There are several strains. The one causing most of the trouble now has a mortality of about 60%. At least one of the strains is over 90%.
Steve
Dave,
The lesson of history is not that studying it will lead to good decisions, but that there are (in foreign affairs) no good decisions to make. The U.S. military can smash the Islamic State and then we’ll reap the unintended consequences, just as our actions over the past thirty years were primarily responsible for this new enemy’s birth.
Every time we take down a “bad guy” they’re replaced by something even worse.
I’m in East Africa and while we’re watching Ebola carefully, we’re not too worried about it here. The probability it would have any appreciable effect on the US mainland is even lower. AFAIK there are no air carriers that have non-stop flights from the US to the affected countries. They all go through Europe, Morroco or other third countries. Those air transport corridors are either closed or carefully monitored. Where I’m at, most of the governments have opted to simply deny entry to anyone from that region, particularly anyone coming from the five countries with confirmed cases.
Steve’s right about the mortality rate for the currently active strain, but the WHO’s current figures put the mortality rate at around 50%. Of course, their statistics and data collection aren’t perfect.
As far as ISIS goes, with a different policy they could be a useful tool. If we weren’t fighting them others would, particularly Iran. For Iran, the defeat of Assad and the presence of ISIS on their border are existential threats. Iran would be forced to drain their resources fighting ISIS on their border while trying to support Assad in Syria at the same time.
Maybe Millard Fillmore wasn’t so bad….
http://zenpundit.com/?p=40103
Wow! Would never have thought Fillmore would be the guy to giver a speech like that.
Steve
Bring back the Know Nothings!!!
We can see where his advice got the US. WW1, WW2, and 9/11 would have been prevented had the US reshaped Europe and the Middle East.
When will these damn non-interventionists face reality? Can they not imagine the world as it is in our dreams?
Ebola continues to concern me, even with the tight controls described by Andy. The long incubation period is troubling, in that there is a significant time factor between exposure to when the red flags of symptoms appear.
Also, speculation about containing and treating ebola is based on what we know about the disease today. What I’m hearing, though, is that the rate of mutation is high. In fact one doctor termed it a matter of “Russian roulette,” in attempting to calculate how it might be altered in the near future, which then may change currently viable treatment options as well. Furthermore, some doctors are seeing the possibility of airbourn contagion, which would then change the calculus of it speading to far higher numbers.
ISIS, like ebola, is also mutating…quickly. It’s growth has almost doubled in a relatively short period of time. It’s brazen, ruthless tactics seems to be attracting large numbers of recruits with the same kind of zeal and mind set. It is a self-funding group, having sophisticated people in it’s core who can manage social media, weaponry and strategy more efficiently than most ragtag type of terrorists. I think they should not be under- estimated for what havoc they can cause in the world
Wasn’t 50% about the mortality rate of small pox?