Comments on: Please, oh God, let this be true

By: clnsmi

clnsmi — Wed, 05 Nov 2003 22:47:46 +0000

Personally, I think the importance of USFK to ROK security is overblown.
37,000 to over 600,000 ROK soldiers, sailors, etc? Removing USFK wouldn’t
be much more than throwing a lawnchair off the Titanic. USFK really only
provides psychological support (or if you’re one of Justin Yoshida’s friends,
a psychological occupation). The ROK has a robust modern economy, and is
quite capable of defending itself.

PING:
TITLE: US Troop Reductions in South Korea?
BLOG NAME: Jim Lynch’s Blog
Marmot has a story by the AP that the US is negotiating a large reduction of its troops in South Korea. Works for me, as I said on Marmot’s blog I’d like to see as many as possible removed from…

PING:
TITLE: US Continues Plan to Reduce Forces in Korea
BLOG NAME: Solomonia
The Marmot points out this AP story. Damn good news. We’ve been hearing rumblings about this for some time, but now it sounds as though it’s actually going to happen. The US will reduce its force strength on the peninsula…

PING:
TITLE: Eyes On Korea: 2003-11-11
BLOG NAME: Winds of Change.NET
NOV 11/03 TOPICS INCL: North Korea, North Korea, and MORE North Korea, fecklessness at the South Korean Ministry of Unification, the debate on sending South Korean troops to Iraq, unionists turn downtown Seoul into a “sea of fire,” moon pies (yes, moon…

By: Toolboy

Toolboy — Tue, 21 Oct 2003 18:35:35 +0000

I hate to say it, but if the ROK does indeed dispatch 5,000 troops to Iraq, the U.S. will owe Korea big time. This means South Korea gets serious leverage in future troop realignment talks. Also remember, the ROK and U.S. agreed to relocate Eighth Army from Seoul back way back in 1990. Well, it’s 2003 now and not a single U.S. troop has left Yongsan Garrison.

By: John Thacker

John Thacker — Tue, 21 Oct 2003 08:15:44 +0000

I’d also add that the threat, even if not followed out, has ancillary benefits as well. It forces the ROK government to publically defend the presence of the USFK and demand that they stay. It has to be at least a little more difficult to complain about the US troops as unwanted occupiers when you’re simultaneously demanding that they stay. (Although, perhaps I should never underestimate the flexible thinking of Korean politicians, or any politicians for that matter.)

By: The Marmot

The Marmot — Tue, 21 Oct 2003 06:46:17 +0000

Unfortunately, USinKorea writes with much historical justification - troop reductions/redeployments have been discussed for ages, but they never seem to happen. And yes, expect the “politics of the street” crowd to be out in force. On the positive side, the current Administration in Washington seems as if it really, really wants to get this thing finally done - I know if it were up to Rummy, USFK would be out tomorrow.

Infidel - ROK, ROC, Japan, and the Philippines drawn into a coherent strategy in East Asia? Lord knows the region needs something approximating a multilateral security mechanism. The only problem is, these countries have based their security policies on bilateral agreements with the US for so long that it will take some time for them to learn how to work together.

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:24:31 +0000

Interesting point UsinKorea.

I hope Bush shows fortitude and bears down on Powell and Rumsfeld to make this move happen. But I suppose you could be right. What is it someone said about the Europeans — they’re like a nervous girlfriend who insists on moving in with you but then demands her own space? Same thing with the Koreans.

For my part I say load up the trucks and APCs, write off and sign over the fixed property to the ROK supply sergeants, and with a smile and a wave to the firebomb-throwing insult hurling students, get the division moving to the nearest port facility. Make sure President Roh has a Red phone and a copy of the “call for fire” format for air support and naval gunfire if he chooses to use it. If not, no doubt his predecessor can instruct him in the art of using the traditional Asian “silver bullets”. After all, the dear leader is still gonna want em to keep making Hyundais and Samsungs….

By: Infidel

Infidel — Mon, 20 Oct 2003 17:26:12 +0000

I share your hope, that American troop levels will be reduced. However, as President Bush meets other Asian leaders this week at the APEC summit, I hope Washington can draw this, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Japan into some coherent strategy in east Asia. I’m not concerned so much about the South Korean economy (although it does pay the tuition bills), because one way or another South Koreans will understand where their contribution to the world economy lies. I wish it could be smoother, but if a troop redeployment is how Seoul discovers the true nature of the domestic economy, so be it!

By: angus

angus — Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:22:45 +0000

as my korean girlfriend predicts, now watch the fur fly. its her belief that the previous demonstrations against the american forces will pale in comparison to the ones to be launched when the 2id tries to pull back. according to ms. moon conservatives will riot to try to keep the americans in place for protection and “progressives” will riot to keep them in place because they fear this is a prelude to an american attack on their “brothers”. either way the time for the koreans to put up or shut up is coming soon.

By: usinkorea

usinkorea — Mon, 20 Oct 2003 09:22:17 +0000

I will be surprised if the “big level talks” lead to the kind of reductions metioned. I think it has more potential to happen at the nuts and bolts level during the relocation phase which will mostly likely be a fiasco.

First, the Korean government showed its butt earlier this year when it feined “surprise” at the base consolidation and relocation plans. This stuff has been negociated and talked about for years, and even troop reductions go back to the early 1990s.

Anyway, if USFK is serious about moving troops South, this is where the BS will hit the fan…

Even if local communities are willing to have base expansions (which is going to be a 50/50 proposition at best), the civic groups will bus in enough people to delay and delay and harrass and make costs go up and up…

The Korean government shows every sign it will aid these groups - for a different reason — because it believes if it drags its feet and says it doesn’t like the plan in the first place, and it lets the civic groups work and adds a little “anti-USFK unilarteral relocation” rhetoric itself from time to time, USFK will do as it has done for a long time and simply “endure” with the status quo.

I think all of this is pretty much a given.

The thing I’m going to be looking for is how serious the US government is about making changes.

If they really want relocation and reductions, the delays, relocation focused anti-Americanism, and escalating costs will be good reasons to point to and say, “Well, if you aren’t willing to abide by the agreement and get this done, we’ll relocate them to Arizon instead of Pyongtaek.”

I think it will either be that or most of the troops will stay at the DMZ and troop reductions will be minimal.

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 20 Oct 2003 07:38:55 +0000

Works for me! Let’s get as many of our guys out of there as possible. The last person out, please give Chia Dictator a tap on the shoulder to let him know that it’s time for him to swallow up the South once and for all.

By: Justin Yoshida

Justin Yoshida — Mon, 20 Oct 2003 05:27:22 +0000

I sez HELL YES. I get sick every time I hear my Korean friends complain about the US presence in Korea as if it’s a goddamn occupation or something. Just a notch lower is the attitude that it’s a necessary evil. Well, I guess we’re gonna find out just how necessary it was…