By Brian Tincher
Special Contributor for In Homeland Security
The outbreak of the Ebola virus in West Africa raises questions about the level of commitment by the United States Government to protect its citizens from an unseen enemy.
The potential spread of the Ebola virus by travelers to the U.S. is under scrutiny across socio-political boundaries; can the virus be spread by casual contact? If there is no consensus, is it safe to accept the current policy of the government which is to rely on the screening processes carried out by overseas airport personnel? Keep in mind that the first non-citizen to enter into the U.S. with the virus, Mr. Thomas Eric Duncan, is now residing in a Dallas hospital as the number of people he came in contact with—and who may become sick—continues to rise.
White House adviser Lisa Monaco recently stated that there were no plans to implement travel restrictions to or from West Africa. The position of the White House is that these types of restrictions would actually impede the response process. Helping those who are suffering in West Africa is important, but the bigger issue is how to protect the American people. Do we risk a problem in Africa becoming a larger problem here in the United States? We, as citizens, rely on our government to make decisions in our best interests. We have an expectation that the best decisions for us come first—which should include a serious look at travel restrictions.
The reliance on foreign authorities to accurately decide who is allowed to leave their home nation, especially if that person is ill, is too much of a risk to our own national security. The notion that a country would want to keep their sick at home for treatment is to deny that the sick could serve two purposes: one is to eradicate the disease thereby ridding the country of the carriers, and the second is to draw attention to the economic conditions of their nation by making the disease more widespread. Perhaps by making Ebola a worldwide issue the economic aid to West Africa might increase. This, of course, is only speculation but not outside the realm of possibility. Either way, the need to protect American citizens is paramount.
The focus in my mind is singular to the point of isolation, and I assign the label of foreign enemy to the virus known as Ebola. A disease that threatens the daily lives of American citizens is an enemy to American citizens, especially if the disease can be limited or contained outside of America. Homeland Security, or put more simply Security OF the Homeland, should be first and foremost on the minds of President Barack Obama, the Secretary of State and the entire United States Government with respect to foreign policy. The issue of security is shared by all, and the responsibility to enforce security measures belongs solely to our government.
American citizens expect to be completely represented in matters of security by their elected government. Some might call this expectation a social contract because we are governed regardless of the manner in which we became citizens. Citizens elect fellow citizens to represent us in all forms of government and these elected citizens then create laws which are to be obeyed. This process is how we create order and there are expectations among all citizens to respect this process. The meaning of this contract (explicit or implicit) is that citizens are of vital importance.
The argument over what is responsible security is negligible given that American citizens are the focal point of all Homeland Security. Protecting the Homeland, even from a virus that some say is not a major risk, is a massive responsibility and should never be seen as a hindrance—especially by the White House.
Thomas Eric Duncan lied to authorities in Liberia so he could travel to the United States. What other extremes would someone else do that is far worse than lying? One breach in security is all it takes to bring enemies of all sorts to American soil. The enemies should not arrive here in the form of a virus or anything else.
Security OF the Homeland is and always should be the highest priority of the government.
About the author:
Brian Tincher is an independent writer who is active in local politics as an elected member of his Township Advisory Board. Mr. Tincher is a graduate of Ashford University with a BA (with Honors) in History, and earned a Master’s Degree in Public Policy from Liberty University’s Helms School of Government. Mr. Tincher works for United Technologies Corporation, makers of Sikorsky Helicopters and Pratt and Whitney Engines, in their Aerospace Division as a Manufacturing Planner instituting proprietary processes. Mr. Tincher is a member of the American Historical Association.
Comments are closed.