Comments on: Doug Bandow rocks

By: The Marmot

The Marmot — Sat, 06 Sep 2003 03:34:44 +0000

Mr. Sefton, I wish I could come up with a counter-position, but I can’t. I think North Korea is an indirect threat to the US in the sense that it can sell nuclear technology to people who ARE a direct threat, but even then, our troop presence in South Korea do nothing to help us combat that threat; in fact, all it does is give the North Koreans 36,000 hostages in the case we order airstrikes and / or a blockage of Nork ports (and not to mention makes South Korea a target). I know why the South Korean government wants the troops here, and while I applaud them for sticking up for their national interests, Washington doesn’t share those interests, and therefore should act accordingly.

By: MF

MF — Fri, 05 Sep 2003 17:56:36 +0000

“the alliance should not be maintained simply for its own sake.”

Tell that to the Koreans.

By: Andrew Sefton

Andrew Sefton — Fri, 05 Sep 2003 08:11:54 +0000

Aside from the probable economic disadvantages to the U.S. and global economy (which may comprise a sufficient level of US national interest to reject the following idea), why would it not be in the U.S.??р꽓s best interest to agree to a staged removal of all U.S. troops from South Korea as a concession for North Korea??р꽓s agreement to UN nuclear monitoring agencies and an agreement to support the war on terrorism (implying that $/good from North Korea or to North Korea from recognized terrorist-supporting nations would be prohibited)?

?쨌 I assume that North Korea will violate written agreement.
?쨌 I assume that the UN monitoring agency will be inept.
(Upon violation, the agreement between North Korea and the US will detail the punishment)
?쨌 I assume that the US will monitor trade to and from North Korea and will intercept.
(Upon violation, the agreement between North Korea and the US will detail the punishment)
?쨌 I assume that the US will leave certain weaponry (scale uncertain) for both South Korea and Japan in exchange for an agreement by which Japan and South Korea understand that the US will take whatever means necessary to prevent a nuclear North Korea (thus it is in the best interest of Japan and South Korea to prevent a nuclear North Korea)
(A further agreement may be required between Japan and China and South Korea and China in which the weaponry loaned by the US be removed at the mutually-agreed conclusion of North Korea as a threat)
?쨌 I assume that the US and South Korea will sign an agreement allowing for US ground forces to be permitted on South Korean soil in the event of a North Korean attack.

I do not see the departure of US troops from South Korean soil a violation of the memory of those who bravely defended South Korea from North Korean/Chinese/Russian aggression.

In the end, North Korea is not a direct threat to the US, which could be considered no different than many other nations hostile to the US, so the presence or absence of US troops is only for the benefit of South Korea.

I seek a counter-position.

Andrew

By: Kevin Kim

Kevin Kim — Fri, 05 Sep 2003 06:42:16 +0000

And it looks instead like Rumsfeld et al. might be wanting to keep a larger patch of Seoul than originally planned. What’s going ON, here? This is counterintuitive.

Bandow’s refrain seems to be “let’s pull the troops out.” He’s written essay after essay on the subject. I agree, but think they should be tucked somewhere nearby, not sent all the way home, which I think Bandow has recommended in a couple of his writings.

Kevin