Battling More Than Bullets: Zoonotic Diseases in Armed Conflicts

Written By Kelsey Tran
Remember that scene in World War Z where Brad Pitt's character discovers that the virus spreads fastest in crowded refugee camps and chaos-stricken cities? While Hollywood's zombie pandemic might be fiction, it accidentally stumbled upon a brutal truth about modern warfare: in conflict zones, diseases can become deadlier than bullets.
As military strategists focus on kinetic warfare and territorial control, an invisible enemy exploits the chaos of conflict. From medieval warfare to modern battlegrounds, zoonotic diseases – pathogens that jump from animals to humans – have shaped military outcomes more often than our history books admit.

🎮 Survival Strategy Simulator: You're a military commander managing a humanitarian crisis, and a refugee camp has been established near your forward operating base. Intel suggests a potential disease outbreak.

Choose your strategy:

  • Risk Factor: Resource drain

  • Risk Factor: Logistical nightmare

  • Risk Factor: Delayed response

  • Risk Factor: Political complications

👉 Share your choice in the comments - what would you prioritize and why? Let's explore how your strategy would play out in real conflict zones…

Disease as a Weapon and Consequence of War

The relationship between warfare and disease isn't just ancient history – it's a clear and present danger in modern conflicts. When the Mongols hurled plague-infected corpses over Caffa's walls in the 14th century, they demonstrated how biological threats could reshape military outcomes. While we've moved past such medieval tactics, today's conflicts create equally perfect conditions for diseases to thrive and spread.

The pattern repeats through military history like a deadly chorus. World War I's trenches became breeding grounds for typhus and malaria, while World War II's Pacific theater saw entire units crippled not by bullets but by scrub typhus carried by tiny mites. During the Korean War, UN forces learned harsh lessons about hantavirus, and Vietnam proved that mosquito-borne diseases could hobble even the most sophisticated military operations.

Modern warfare amplifies these risks in ways our predecessors never imagined. When conflict erupts, it doesn't just destroy buildings and displace people – it shatters entire ecosystems. The consequences ripple through both human and animal populations with devastating efficiency. Take Sudan's ongoing conflict, where the destruction of veterinary facilities created a perfect storm for diseases like Rift Valley Fever. As livestock migration patterns shifted under the pressure of war, animals, and humans were forced into a dangerous new proximity, creating ideal conditions for pathogens to jump species barriers.

Case Study: Syrian Conflict and Leishmaniasis

But perhaps no recent conflict better illustrates this deadly dynamic than Syria's battle with leishmaniasis. Before 2011, Syria had effectively managed this sandfly-transmitted disease through a robust public health system. Regular monitoring, treatment programs, and vector control kept the endemic disease in check. When civil war erupted, this protective infrastructure crumbled like so many bombed-out buildings.

The consequences were swift and severe. As millions fled their homes, overcrowded refugee camps became perfect incubators for disease. These hastily established settlements, lacking basic sanitation and healthcare infrastructure, turned into breeding grounds for sandflies. The parasites they carried found easy targets among displaced populations with limited access to medical care. What had once been a manageable health concern exploded into a regional crisis.

The spillover effects rippled across borders. As refugees sought safety in neighboring Lebanon and Turkey, they carried the disease with them. Soon, countries that had rarely dealt with leishmaniasis faced their own outbreaks. Medical facilities in these nations, already strained by the refugee crisis, struggled to cope with this unfamiliar threat. The disease's spread highlighted a crucial lesson: in our interconnected world, health crises spawned by conflict refuse to respect national boundaries.

Syria's leishmaniasis outbreak serves as a stark warning about the complex interplay between conflict and disease. When war destroys healthcare systems, disrupts disease surveillance, and forces populations into unsafe conditions, it creates perfect conditions for pathogens to thrive. The collapse of veterinary services, combined with large-scale population displacement, turns previously manageable health risks into regional crises. This pattern, seen throughout history but magnified in modern conflicts, demands a fundamental rethinking of how we approach health security in war zones.

The challenges faced in Syria – from limited access to antileishmanial drugs to the difficulties of implementing vector control in conflict zones – underscore the need for innovative approaches to disease control during wartime. As international organizations struggled to fill the gaps left by Syria's collapsed healthcare system, their efforts were often hampered by security concerns and logistical barriers. This reality check forces us to confront an uncomfortable truth: our traditional approaches to both military strategy and public health may be inadequate for the complex challenges posed by modern conflicts.

Military and Civilian Synergy Through the One Health Approach

The military response to these biological threats has evolved significantly, yet remains insufficient for modern challenges. NATO's guidelines now emphasize the One Health approach – a framework that recognizes the interconnection between human, animal, and environmental health. It's not just theoretical; this approach saves lives when properly implemented in conflict zones.

The chaos of conflict zones breeds conditions ripe for disease outbreaks. Crumbling health systems, displaced populations, and disrupted ecosystems create fertile ground for pathogens to spread. In these volatile environments, where human and animal health intertwine precariously, the military emerges as an unexpected, yet crucial, player in combating the silent threat of zoonotic diseases – illnesses that leap from animals to humans.

Military units possess unique agility, deploying rapidly to establish disease surveillance systems that often surpass civilian capabilities. These mobile teams, venturing into the heart of conflict, gather vital data on the health of livestock and wildlife, forming the first line of defense against emerging threats. We've witnessed their effectiveness in military-led vaccination campaigns, where soldiers protect not only their own ranks but also vaccinate livestock, preventing diseases like Rift Valley Fever from taking hold in vulnerable communities.

Beyond their boots on the ground, the military's logistical prowess shines. In regions where civilian healthcare has crumbled, military field hospitals often become the only places people can get medical help. These facilities, when equipped appropriately, transform into vital outposts of the "One Health" approach – recognizing the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health. They provide care for both soldiers and civilians and with the right resources, can address animal health concerns as well, stopping zoonotic diseases from spreading further.

However, getting military and civilian health experts to work together smoothly isn't easy. Clashes of organizational cultures, competing priorities, and resources often hinder cooperation precisely when it's most needed. While success stories exist, particularly within NATO-led initiatives, they remain the exceptions. Bridging the gap between military efficiency and civilian healthcare knowledge remains a persistent challenge.

Building Resilience in Crisis Zones

To effectively control zoonotic diseases amidst conflict, we need a paradigm shift in our approach. Integrated surveillance teams, combining military logistical capabilities with civilian medical expertise, are essential. These teams must be equipped and trained to monitor not only human health but also track disease patterns in animal populations. The military's ability to navigate hostile terrain makes them uniquely suited for this role, provided they understand the principles of One Health.

Mobile veterinary clinics are also critical in conflict zones. When traditional veterinary services collapse, these mobile units become essential for safeguarding animal health and preventing diseases from spilling over into human populations. Military support for these operations transcends humanitarian aid; it's a strategic imperative, preventing outbreaks that could derail entire military campaigns.

Furthermore, forging joint task forces between military and civilian organizations is crucial. These partnerships must evolve beyond ad-hoc cooperation to become standard practice in conflict zones. Successful partnerships leverage military logistics and security capabilities alongside civilian medical expertise and local knowledge. This synergy creates resilient response systems capable of tackling both immediate health crises and long-term disease management challenges.

The challenge extends beyond merely preventing outbreaks; it's about building resilience in our response systems. Military strategists must integrate zoonotic disease risks into their planning from the outset, not as an afterthought. Training becomes paramount in this new reality. Military personnel require more than basic field medicine; they need a deep understanding of zoonotic disease transmission, ecosystem disruption indicators, and early warning signs of potential outbreaks. This knowledge must be woven into standard military doctrine, not treated as a specialized add-on for medical units. 

The world can no longer afford to view disease outbreaks in conflict zones solely through a humanitarian lens. They are threats that can destabilize entire regions, jeopardize military operations, and trigger humanitarian crises that endure long after the fighting ceases. The convergence of armed conflict and zoonotic disease demands a new strategic mindset—one that recognizes these invisible enemies as potent adversaries.

The future of conflict medicine lies not only in treating battlefield injuries but also in stopping the wave of health crises that follow the war. Recent conflicts have starkly demonstrated that when health infrastructure collapses, disease outbreaks can linger long after peace accords are signed. Furthermore, the lessons from Syria's leishmaniasis outbreak and Sudan's struggles with Rift Valley Fever underscore a clear conclusion: tomorrow's battlefields demand a new kind of preparedness. As climate change and political instability create more opportunities for zoonotic diseases to emerge and spread, military organizations must adapt. 

Our understanding of these challenges has evolved significantly since the days of the Siege of Caffa, where plague-ridden corpses were catapulted into a besieged city, but the fundamental truth remains: in conflict zones, diseases can be deadlier than bullets. The choice isn't between military objectives and health security – they are inextricably linked in modern conflict management. As we face a world of increasing instability, our ability to prevent and respond to disease outbreaks in conflict zones may well determine the outcome of future crises. 

The One Health approach provides a blueprint for this integration. By recognizing the intricate links between human, animal, and environmental health, militaries can develop more holistic response strategies. Mobile veterinary clinics, disease surveillance teams, and rapid response units must become standard components of military operations in conflict zones. These are not merely humanitarian considerations; they are strategic imperatives directly impacting military effectiveness. 

The blueprint exists; now we need the will to implement it.

  • Subscribe to our Global Flashpoints Monitor for monthly strategic analysis of critical developments shaping geopolitical security architecture.

    For timely analysis of strategic developments in European security, follow The Political Pawprint's analytical coverage.

  • 1. World Health Organization. (2023, August 3). Emerging zoonotic diseases and the One Health approach: An overview (EPI-WIN Digest 4). World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240062641

    2. Rahman, M. T., Sobur, M. A., Islam, M. S., Ievy, S., Hossain, M. J., El Zowalaty, M. E., Rahman, A. T., & Ashour, H. M. (2020). Zoonotic Diseases: Etiology, Impact, and Control. Microorganisms, 8(9), 1405. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8091405

    3. Sundaram, M., Filion, A., Akaribo, B. E., & Stephens, P. R. (2023). Footprint of war: integrating armed conflicts in disease ecology. Trends in parasitology, 39(4), 238–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pt.2023.01.007

    4. Shuaib Y. A. (2024). Zoonotic disease vulnerability escalates amid Sudan's armed conflict. Lancet (London, England), 403(10431), 1019–1020. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(23)02458-3

    5. The Lancet Infectious Diseases (2022). War and infectious diseases: brothers in arms. The Lancet. Infectious diseases, 22(5), 563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00235-3

    6. Biselli, R.; Nisini, R.; Lista, F.; Autore, A.; Lastilla, M.; De Lorenzo, G.; Peragallo, M.S.; Stroffolini, T.; D'Amelio, R. A Historical Review of Military Medical Strategies for Fighting Infectious Diseases: From Battlefields to Global Health. Biomedicines 2022, 10, 2050. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines10082050

    7. NATO. (2021). Non-binding Guidelines for Civil-Military Medical Cooperation in Response to Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Mass Casualty Incidents. NATO. https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2022_03/20220310_Guidelines-Civil-Military.pdf

Kelsey Tran