The unveiling of President Obama’s new plan to contain the Ebola virus did little to appease critics who questioned the White House’s commitment to halting an epidemic with wide-ranging national security consequences.
After weeks of prodding from African nations, the president on Tuesday used a trip to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to announce a blueprint to send up to 3,000 military personnel to West Africa, part of an effort to spend roughly $750 million to limit the spread of Ebola.
“Ebola is now an epidemic of the likes we have not seen before,” Obama insisted. “It is spiraling out of control. It is getting worse. It is spreading faster and exponentially.”
“We can’t dawdle on this one, we have to act with force,” he added.
Those remarks, however, left a series of unanswered questions that Obama will have to answer to effectively combat the evolving challenge.
1. Is it too little, too late?
Many African leaders welcomed the new U.S. commitment but were confused as to why it took so long to materialize.
Around 2,500 people have already died from the virus this year, a death toll that has doubled in the last month alone.
Previously, the White House called for the construction of a 25-bed portable hospital in Liberia, which was swiftly dismissed by African nations where Ebola is concentrated as insufficient.
Republicans, though generally supportive of Obama’s latest actions, questioned the president’s commitment to the cause.
“I think this Ebola outbreak in Africa is a serious problem and I’m a bit surprised the administration hasn’t acted more quickly to address what is a serious threat, not only to Africans but to others around the world,” House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Tuesday.
The question now becomes how long it will take the U.S. to set up 17 Ebola treatment centers in Liberia and train African health workers to contain a disease that has spread more rapidly than health officials originally expected.
And analysts said the U.S. would need to extend its efforts beyond Liberia, where it is now devoting most resources, if it seriously hopes to slow the disease.
2. Will other international crises overshadow the Ebola fight?
Obama has plenty on his international plate, including a growing military campaign against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and a showdown with Russian President Vladimir Putin over his repeated aggressions in Ukraine.
The president must prove that he can handle the Ebola problem during a second term already overrun by events his White House did not see coming.
“There was misplaced faith in the capacity and the willingness of existing international institutions to deal with” the Ebola threat, said Stewart M. Patrick, a senior fellow and director of the International Institutions and Global Governance Program at the Council on Foreign Relations.
“The administration has probably been distracted by the fact that they’re dealing with multiple crises at once,” he added. “Their eye was more on the ball with [the Islamic State] and dealing with Russia.”
The president has long defended the ability of his White House to “walk and chew gum at the same time.” That will now be put to the test arguably more than ever before.
3. How much will it cost?
The World Health Organization estimated on Tuesday that it would cost $1 billion just to keep Ebola limited to tens of thousands of patients.
In other words, it will cost far more to eliminate the virus, something senior administration officials acknowledged as they trumpeted the $750 million initial effort.
“Quite frankly, ladies and gentlemen, this health crisis we’re facing is unparalleled in modern times,” said World Health Organization Assistant Director General Bruce Aylward. “We don’t know where the numbers are going on this.”
Given that uncertainty, the White House has been resistant to put a long-term dollar figure on its Ebola actions. But with much of the public becoming more aware of the health scare, the administration will be forced to articulate a spending plan that goes beyond 2014.
4. What about people entering the U.S.?
Obama has repeatedly insisted that there is little risk of an Ebola epidemic on American soil.
“The chances of an Ebola outbreak here in the United States are extremely low,” he said Tuesday.
And his new plan deals almost exclusively with treating the virus in Africa rather than significantly stepping up security to protect the homeland.
Some Republicans wonder why the president isn’t more focused on the latter part of that equation.
Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, for example, is calling on the Obama administration to administer screenings for more people entering the country with Ebola symptoms.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection “is under direction to only use ‘passive screening’ for Ebola at U.S. points of entry,” Portman said. “Based on the [World Health Organization’s] recommendations and the large number of international entry points into the U.S., I am concerned that the CDC is not providing appropriate and timely guidance to the CBP as they monitor the U.S. points of entry.”
5. How does this affect your legacy on African issues?
As the first black president in U.S. history, Obama faced massive expectations for growing the American footprint in Africa.
Yet, for much of his White House tenure, Obama has been compared unfavorably to President George W. Bush, who focused extensively on combating HIV/AIDS in Africa.
Obama hosted a summit in Washington last month meant to showcase his administration’s commitment to Africa.
But that gathering seems like a distant memory after the rapid spread of Ebola, and analysts say this crisis represents yet another litmus test for the president.
“The estimates of what the epidemic will top out at are more than 200,000 cases, which is quite dramatic,” said the Council on Foreign Relations’ Patrick. “Not only would the economies of the three most badly affected countries be damaged — many countries in Africa have enjoyed relatively sustained growth. You don’t want to see that go into retreat.”
Obama’s aides insist that president isn’t worried about how his efforts will affect his legacy. Yet, they still attempted to defend it.
“This is about fixing a problem,” one senior administration official told the Washington Examiner of the Ebola fight. “The president isn’t concerned with what it means for his legacy — his record speaks for itself.”
