Comfort deploying to Latin America

[CommunityEditor]

In a past life, it was a tanker known as the Rose City. Converted in 1987 to a massive hospital ship, the Comfort was scheduled to deploy to coastal Latin America on Friday for the kind of goodwill mission the Navy has been honing in recent years.

More than 800 sailors, airmen, Coast Guard personnel, civilian volunteers and the Military Sealift Command ship’s crew are embarked on the mission. Of the contingent, 600 are active duty and reserve sailors, mostly medical specialists, as well as a detachment of Seabees, helicopter crews and a security force. They will spend 120 days in the Southern Command area visiting Latin American countries and providing medical assistance to impoverished communities.

Along with the Navy contingent, several nongovernmental organizations are participating. The Comfort will be coordinating its efforts with the Pan American Health Organization, as well as Project Hope, a public health charity that will provide $800,000 worth of donated medical supplies. Also participating is Norfolk-based Operation Smile, a medical charity that provided reconstructive surgery for children with cleft palates and cleft lips.

Capt. Bob Kapcio is the mission commander. A surface warfare officer, he embarks on the Comfort deployment from his current assignment as commodore of Destroyer Squadron 24 in Mayport.

“This is a huge, joint, civil-military evolution,” he said.

Kapcio said the Comfort’s mission, which will cost some $20 million, will be high profile.

The Comfort deployment and the Mercy’s mission throughout southeast Asia last year have given both ships a prominent role in U.S. foreign relations.

“We have found a new purpose for these ships as humanitarian platforms,” said Capt. Bruce Boynton, the commanding officer of the medical mission aboard Comfort.

The ship deployed with a detachment of two helicopters. Due to navigational factors, Comfort will stay far offshore some ports. If patients need care aboard, they may come to the ship via small boat or helicopter.

“It’s going to be an extreme logistical challenge,” Kapcio said.

Part of that challenge means treating everyone from babies to the elderly on a ship designed to handle up to 1,000 casualties. To prepare for the cruise, the ship has been equipped with cribs, incubators and even a playroom for young patients.

Nash was aboard the Comfort during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. She said using the ship to provide medical care in Latin America should go a long way towards creating a positive public image of the United States.



Full article: http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2007/06/navy_comfort_deployment_070614w/

[Unregistered]

why not "deploy" her here in the US. We have a huge poopulation of American citizens that are groslly underserved by our health care system. Let's take care of home first!

[leesea]

In reply to comment about deploying the USNS Comfort to a place in the US: WE ALREADY DID THAT.
Ship went to Gulf Coast & New Orleans. In the later city, it was "unwelcomed" by the state doctors (somthing about Navy docs not having Louisiana licenses?) and left prematurely. The ship could have supplanted the wrecked Primary Trauma Care facility but Navy was told we don't need you for that. Comfort left after only a few weeks as compared to the months she and the Mercy spent off foreign shores.

[Unregistered]

This really is two separate arguments. Yes, state based civilian docs are very 'territorial' about the Services pinching their patients, but it too soooooooo long for COMFORT to deploy from Baltimore and from Navy to define what her role would be that all the urgent stuff had been done by the time they arrived in the GoM after Katrina. COMFORT and MERCY are better utilised if you can forward deploy them in advance of "something" e.g. posturing before conflict or strategic, planned Humanitarian Assistance. The other use of the T-AHs is the old "gunboat diplomacy". If you deploy both ships off the coast of some recalcitrant nation it says "America is willing to take casualties to sort you out!!!!"

rfc
(former exchange officer with USN)
Brisbane, Australia

[Unregistered]

two separate arguments indeed.
1. Yes, state based civilian docs are very 'territorial' about the Services pinching their patients,
2. it too soooooooo long for COMFORT to deploy from Baltimore and from Navy to define what her role would be that all the urgent stuff had been done by the time they arrived in the GoM after Katrina.
rfc
(former exchange officer with USN)
Brisbane, Australia

Are you even aware of what you are commenting about?
I am an Air Force medic that deployed to Louisiana after Katrina. The biggest problem we had was the Mayor allowing aid in. It is not the Mercy’s fault that the cities mayor was incompetent.
You do a great disservice to blame the comfort for the mishandling of resources.
I was there and welcomed the Comfort upon her arrival.
As far as the Doctors and their territoriality go, they should get over it, and if they were the reason the Comfort was unable to supply aid they should be disbarred.
Are these people in it for the money or to help people?
The care of the patient should come first and not making a quick buck off those in need.
To support this mind set is no better than committing the act.
While I was there the medical team saw thousands of patients. We left when the local hospitals were able to handle the load.

[Unregistered]

This really is two separate arguments. Yes, state based civilian docs are very 'territorial' about the Services pinching their patients, but it too soooooooo long for COMFORT to deploy from Baltimore and from Navy to define what her role would be that all the urgent stuff had been done by the time they arrived in the GoM after Katrina. COMFORT and MERCY are better utilised if you can forward deploy them in advance of "something" e.g. posturing before conflict or strategic, planned Humanitarian Assistance. The other use of the T-AHs is the old "gunboat diplomacy". If you deploy both ships off the coast of some recalcitrant nation it says "America is willing to take casualties to sort you out!!!!"

rfc
(former exchange officer with USN)
Brisbane, Australia

In other words: we haven't learned anything from past mistakes and saber rattling all over the the world.
To stay off shore a "recalcitrant nation" means what? If they don't do what they are told we are going in? This kind of macho posturing only serves to alienate any country subject to your gunboat diplomacy, and I really hope that this deployment of the Comfort doesn't include CIA operatives to spy on some imaginary danger to us from Latin America. We've had enough of that circus from this Administration.

[Unregistered]

In other words: we haven't learned anything from past mistakes and saber rattling all over the the world.
To stay off shore a "recalcitrant nation" means what? If they don't do what they are told we are going in? This kind of macho posturing only serves to alienate any country subject to your gunboat diplomacy, and I really hope that this deployment of the Comfort doesn't include CIA operatives to spy on some imaginary danger to us from Latin America. We've had enough of that circus from this Administration.

Just take note of the fact that he is an ex-exchange officer with the USN.
That should show the extent of his knowledge base right there.
Most of us in the US military are against the ol "Saber rattling" mindset.
The whole point of the two ships is to supply air where needed, not make with a threat.
They deploy to places like LA, the tidal wave victims and anyplace injured are overrunning the local health system. They are there to provide comfort to the sick and injured not rattle a saber.
They have no means of self defense and would be sitting ducks anyway.
It is closed minded attitudes like that which give the military a bad name.

[Unregistered]

Just take note of the fact that he is an ex-exchange officer with the USN.
That should show the extent of his knowledge base right there.
Most of us in the US military are against the ol "Saber rattling" mindset.
The whole point of the two ships is to supply air where needed, not make with a threat.
They deploy to places like LA, the tidal wave victims and anyplace injured are overrunning the local health system. They are there to provide comfort to the sick and injured not rattle a saber.
They have no means of self defense and would be sitting ducks anyway.
It is closed minded attitudes like that which give the military a bad name.


Excuse me, but It was not I who posted the following:

"If you deploy both ships off the coast of some recalcitrant nation it says "America is willing to take casualties to sort you out!!!!"

That sounds like a threat to me. And again I ask, isn't that saber rattling? What gives us the right to deploy "anything" off anybody's coast in order to "sort them out". It may not be the policy of the US military but it has certainly been the US foreign policy for decades, which accounts for the sentiments many nations around the world have toward us. And it's not love.
If we are talking about help and comfort to other countries I'm all for it, but let's not fool ourselves into believing that an opportunity like that will not be used for other purposes that have nothing to do with humanitarian aid.

[Unregistered]

You may not have said it but you defended it. Saber rattling is not the issue when the two completely defenseless ships show up somewhere. It is when a battle group deploys that we mean business. Sending the either of the medical ships as a forward “preserved” threat is akin to having Gandhi deliver a war ultimatum to Pol-Pot.

US foreign policy is generally in the realm of our own best interests at the time.
If you think any other nation is better, move there.
Things like the Shaw of Iran and Hussein being a complete whack job are beyond our control.
When we were friend with the various nations they had more-or-less level headed thinks at the helm. The fact that a militant dictator took over is not our fault.

As far as the sentiments of “most” nations is concerned, you should try visiting these so called nations. I have been around the planet and have been to just about every continent.
When out of uniform I speak with the people. They have a vary positive view of America. To answer your next question yes I have learned the language of each country I visited. It is my job to speak the language of the country I am in.
Yes there are some people that do not like Americans. I don’t like some Americans just as I do not like some people I have met while abroad, it is par-for-course. If you think we are going to please everyone you should really take a class on reality.

With your obvious regurgitated rhetoric you must be watching the liberal biased hate news like CNN and MSNBC and you would think the whole world hates the US. Truth is we are actually looked upon favorably as a nation that will come to the aid of those in need.

The US is consistently the country that stands up to dictators and overlords and says in no uncertain terms, you will do no more harm. We are not going to let you get away with that type of behavior. Unless you are a Demarcate and prefer the cut and run diplomacy of military action.

[Unregistered]

Sending the either of the medical ships as a forward “preserved” threat is akin to having Gandhi deliver a war ultimatum to Pol-Pot.

Please excuse my errors on grammar and spelling and insert the following above:
Sending either of the medical ships as a forward “perceived” threat is akin to having Gandhi deliver a war ultimatum to Pol-Pot.

[The Universal Curmudgeon_guest]

Things like the Shaw of Iran and Hussein being a complete whack job are beyond our control.Just a "minor" point here - the Shaw of Iran was installed by the government of the United States of America following a US government backed coup that overthrew the democraticly elected government of Iran (when that government started to make noises that sounded a lot like "Hey, it's OUR oil - why should American oil companies be making all the money off it?" and Saddam Hussein would have been out of power in 1992 if the government of the United States of America had actually honoured the promises that it had made to the Iraqis who had revolted against Hussein's government and controlled 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces.
The fact that a militant dictator took over is not our fault.Of course it isn't - no more so that it was in any of the other countries that the government of the United States of America backed the ousting of their government in order to install an "American Friendly" one - regardless of whether that "American Friendly" one was headed by a murderous, larcenous, thug of a dictator or not.
They have a vary positive view of America.More correctly they have a very positive view of Americans, their views of the United States of America is significantly less positive than it is of Americans
Truth is we are actually looked upon favorably as a nation that will come to the aid of those in need.It is always surprising to see how well-informed some people are.
The US is consistently the country that stands up to dictators and overlords and says in no uncertain terms, you will do no more harm. We are not going to let you get away with that type of behavior.You really do believe that, don't you? Unfortunately the facts don't quite bear you out. The government of the United States of America has a lengthy record of "standing up for" anyone who will "protect American Interests" (read as "let American companies have a free hand") regardless of how "democratic" those countries leaders are and regardless of how big a murderous thug they are.
Unless you are a Demarcate and prefer the cut and run diplomacy of military action.That sentence makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Would you like to try it in English?

[Unregistered]

First, my bad, the Shah was the leader of that country during a temporary friendship with the west. Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi the Shaw who ruled until 1979, was overthrown in a violent uprising by extreme Muslims, that administration which gained power has been an enemy of America ever since. Whether the overthrow of the Shah was for good or bad is yet to be scene. On the one hand a hard-line Islamic extremist group led by Muslim clerics took over. On the other Pahlavi was turning himself into a very repressive dictator in his own right. All this occurred after years of friend ship with the west. Would that friendship have continued with his attitude at the end? We may never know. So no my original statement taken in a very pin-point perspective would be wrong. With the entire history taken into account I am still correct.

As I stated, and I noticed you felt obliged to keep this out of you misled reply, I have been to just about every continent on this planet and have met the people you speak of, out of uniform. The most prevalent sentiment is one of appreciation of what we do. The American Government is regarded slightly less favorably but still favorably.

Yes it is surprising how “well-informed” some people are. You are the epitome of this statement so don’t throw stones.

Yes I firmly believe the statement concerning our intentions. I have seen first hand our deployment to many of these areas. Much to the dismay of the liberal left, we are not always there for money, how much money did we make off WWII, Korea, Vietnam and the multitude of small conflicts we participated in? Until Iraq we were invited by the host country. When we invaded Iraq I am fairly certain Hussein would not have invited us. I am still waiting for the “oil” break from the Middle East. Unless you have not purchased gas in the past 25 years you would see our oil prices climbing not sinking. If we were there for the oil wouldn’t our oil prices be going down?

If you watched anything other that MSNBC and CNN you may actually get true unbiased news reporting. Unfortunately those two along with other less notable ones hate America more than your mysterious other countries citizens. Another statement you carefully left out had to do with us making enemies. Yes there are people who do not agree with us and will do everything they can to discredit us and stop what we do. They are called left wing liberals. I dislike those people almost as much as I dislike liver, and I really do not like liver.

My final cut ant run statement is very clear for anyone with an education that watches the news. Clinton cut-and-ran from Somalia after one operation which took out over one-thousand enemy troops caused two US helicopters to crash; and we took less than 15 casualties. Now in Iraq after unwavering support in the beginning the Dem’s want to cut and run before the job is done. That is a discredit to the troops and a discredit to the American people.

You are obviously oblivious to the actual truth and have no regard for it. Go hide your head in the sand and maybe all the troubles will go away. Meanwhile I will take an active part in making this planet a safer place without lying.