Fighting Covid-19: How Post 9/11 Security Discourses Shape America’s Response to Infectious Disease
Context
Prior to 2001, biosecurity largely referred to protecting livestock and crops from disease. Scroll down to learn about how two major events in the fall of 2001 led to the radical redefining of American Biosecurity.
The first event was the 9/11 terrorist attacks which radically alter the way Americans view the world and conceptualize threats. In response, the U.S. entered a state of constant war and preparation for the possibility of war. Issues that previously did not fall within the rubric of national security or defense concern were now framed and approached through a militarized lens.
The second event was the 2001 anthrax letter attack which occurred a few weeks after 9/11. These two events brought together the twin dangers of mass casualty terrorism and biological weapons in a terrifying new way that launched bioterrorism to the forefront of national security agendas.
The U.S. Response to H5N1 (Bird Flu) was the first instance when post 9/11 security discourses were applied to a disease outbreak.
“By putting in place and exercising pandemic emergency plans across the nation, we can help our nation prepare for other dangers -- such as a terrorist attack using chemical or biological weapons” - President Bush
During this outbreak, the U.S. released two pandemic strategy plans that outlined roles for law enforcement and the Department of Defense in the case of a pandemic
The U.S. response to the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa marks the first time in history that the U.S. deployed combat troops abroad to handle a disease outbreak.
This militarized response highlights the tendency for the U.S. to respond to national security matters, regardless of their nature, with counterterrorism measures in the post 9/11 era.
Increased border security and the singular focus on the georgrapahic origin of the disease contributed to an increase in discrimination experienced by West Africans in the U.S.
What H5N1 and Ebola Show
In both outbreaks, the framing of disease as bioterror, as warfare, or as an imminent threat to America, reflects the security rhetoric of the post 9/11 era. Understanding the threat posed by infectious disease as a militaristic or terror attack strengthens war-like strategy of disease control.
Research Findings
Since the fall of 2001, the U.S. has been in a constant state of war and counterterror. We have reorganized the government and spending to align with priorities of that specific moment. As a result, we have hollowed out America’s public health spending in favor of military spending and neglected to prepare for the likely case of a pandemic like COVID-19 in favor of preparing for a rare bioterror event.
As a consequence, when a pandemic does occur, we are woefully unprepared for it. In light of not having the necessary tools, we turn to the military. The military has become our go-to solution that is most readily available to try to bridge gaps in public health and humanitarian capacity.
Framing Disease: War Rhetoric
"Equating a 'determined, coordinated national response' with war mobilization, rather than with community care, is precisely the problem. In fact, part of the reason we're in this predicament is that we hallowed out America's public health system in favor of military spending" - Catherine Lutz, Professor of Anthropology and International Studies
The use of war metaphors, especially when combined with the singular focus on the geographical origins of COVID-19, by public officials has been linked with an increase in discrimination towards Asians across America.
Such language encourages and justifies a more prominent role for the military in the national response
Fighting the Virus: Wrong Tools
"If i'm blunt about it, it's a joke"
- Michael Dowling, Head of Northwell Health, in response to the deployment of the USNS Comfort
The military's strict rules prevented the ship from aiding those actually in need of help and added to the burden of the hospitals, despite being hailed as a promise of relief
Fighting the Virus: Different Priorities
Under the CARES Act, Congress allocated $1 billion for purchases of medical equipment and protective gear. An analysis discovered that most of this money had been shifted to the Defense Department, which spent $688 million of it on semiconductors, ship building, and space surveillance. This highlights how the military’s priorities are not necessarily compatible with those of a health crisis.
Preparing for the wrong event
Throughout most of the last decade, the government has spent nearly half of the stockpile’s half-billion-dollar annual budget on anthrax vaccines.
The stockpile demonstrates that the United States has the resources and knowledge to be better prepared for threats like COVID-19, however the government’s priorities are so entrenched in war and terrorism that it fails to invest in the necessary tools to protect Americans.
Moving Forward
Right now, national security spending and priorities do not protect citizens from the things that are most likely to kill Americans, like pandemics. While America is still dealing with COVID-19, health experts are already urging governments of the importance of preparing for future epidemics. As we move forward, America needs to fundamentally rethink what national security means in an era where the most effective way to protect Americans is by investing in basic public health rather than bullets and aircraft carriers.