Comments on: Translation of “US to Give Up ‘Tripwire’ Role” http://www.rjkoehler.com/2003/11/22/translation-of-us-to-give-up-tripwire-role/ Korea... in Blog Format Fri, 5 Dec 2008 09:50:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Finlay http://www.rjkoehler.com/2003/11/22/translation-of-us-to-give-up-tripwire-role/#comment-703 Finlay Sun, 23 Nov 2003 07:48:28 +0000 http://rjkoehler.com/?p=309#comment-703 On the other hand maybe we should tell the Koreans that the Strykers have schoolgirl detection capability. (that's a joke ok) Anyway, this whole Russia/China thing has me a little confused. China is a definite strategic rival, but a few thousand troops in Korea really isn't enough to matter. Further, unless Russia completely collapses they represent no military threat to US interests anywhere. Where did the Koreans come up with that interpretation? PING: TITLE: Eyes on Korea: 12-09-2003 BLOG NAME: Winds of Change.NET JAN 9/03 TOPICS INCL: Masterful analysis of reunification, Future of U.S. Forces Korea; South Koreans killed in Iraq; China & Korea fight over ancient history; Josh Marshall on Korean diplomacy; Riots; Bruce Cumings attacks; Hunger strikes; North Korea... On the other hand maybe we should tell the Koreans that the Strykers have schoolgirl detection capability. (that’s a joke ok)
Anyway, this whole Russia/China thing has me a little confused. China is a definite strategic rival, but a few thousand troops in Korea really isn’t enough to matter. Further, unless Russia completely collapses they represent no military threat to US interests anywhere. Where did the Koreans come up with that interpretation?

PING:
TITLE: Eyes on Korea: 12-09-2003
BLOG NAME: Winds of Change.NET
JAN 9/03 TOPICS INCL: Masterful analysis of reunification, Future of U.S. Forces Korea; South Koreans killed in Iraq; China & Korea fight over ancient history; Josh Marshall on Korean diplomacy; Riots; Bruce Cumings attacks; Hunger strikes; North Korea…

]]> By: The Marmot http://www.rjkoehler.com/2003/11/22/translation-of-us-to-give-up-tripwire-role/#comment-702 The Marmot Sun, 23 Nov 2003 04:00:19 +0000 http://rjkoehler.com/?p=309#comment-702 Finlay: As far as the Bush statement is concerned, it probably sounded a much better in the original English, and ordinarily, I would have run a search on the AP article to get the actual quote, but I was a bit tired so I just translated it straight - sorry about that. Now, as far as the stryker brigade concept is concerned, speaking as a man who has NO military experience whatsover (and I'm glad to see comments from people who are much more knowledgable on these things), given the kind of threats in the region, I'm not sure how useful the Stryker brigades really are. Frankly, the whole Stryker thing seems like a political gift to the South Korean government, i.e. something the Blue House can take to the South Korean voters (anti-American protests aside, many South Koreans are extremely worried about security and the state of the alliance) and say "See, the Americans aren't leaving - they're pumping in all this new money and adding some new expensive toys - so there's no need to worry." I'm sure the Ministry of Defense knows that the Stykers aren't going to be facing down North Korean tank divisions, but from a political point of view, appearences count. I look at the potential threats in Northeast Asia, and all of them would seem to require a lot more firepower than a lightly-armed expeditionary force - China, Russia, Japan, Taiwan, and both Koreas play with some pretty impressive military machines. Such a force might prove useful in anti-terrorism campaigns in Southeast Asia, but then why would we want to base such a force in Korea? Mr. Finlay's suggestion of turning USFK into a fire brigade seems like a good one, assuming one wanted to continue a presence on the Korean peninsula. Personally, I'd rather see us leave all together and have the South Koreans build up the fire brigades - if they like some of our hardware, they know were they can buy it. Finlay: As far as the Bush statement is concerned, it probably sounded a much better in the original English, and ordinarily, I would have run a search on the AP article to get the actual quote, but I was a bit tired so I just translated it straight - sorry about that.

Now, as far as the stryker brigade concept is concerned, speaking as a man who has NO military experience whatsover (and I’m glad to see comments from people who are much more knowledgable on these things), given the kind of threats in the region, I’m not sure how useful the Stryker brigades really are. Frankly, the whole Stryker thing seems like a political gift to the South Korean government, i.e. something the Blue House can take to the South Korean voters (anti-American protests aside, many South Koreans are extremely worried about security and the state of the alliance) and say “See, the Americans aren’t leaving - they’re pumping in all this new money and adding some new expensive toys - so there’s no need to worry.” I’m sure the Ministry of Defense knows that the Stykers aren’t going to be facing down North Korean tank divisions, but from a political point of view, appearences count.

I look at the potential threats in Northeast Asia, and all of them would seem to require a lot more firepower than a lightly-armed expeditionary force - China, Russia, Japan, Taiwan, and both Koreas play with some pretty impressive military machines. Such a force might prove useful in anti-terrorism campaigns in Southeast Asia, but then why would we want to base such a force in Korea?

Mr. Finlay’s suggestion of turning USFK into a fire brigade seems like a good one, assuming one wanted to continue a presence on the Korean peninsula. Personally, I’d rather see us leave all together and have the South Koreans build up the fire brigades - if they like some of our hardware, they know were they can buy it.

]]> By: Finlay http://www.rjkoehler.com/2003/11/22/translation-of-us-to-give-up-tripwire-role/#comment-701 Finlay Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:19:36 +0000 http://rjkoehler.com/?p=309#comment-701 The article quotes president Bush as saying. "All this is the low-level clerks recklessly speaking their own minds. It has nothing to do with official decisions by the US government." Doesn't really sound like a Bush comment, sound more like the stuff that to propagandists at KCNA come up with. Maybe this is just a feature of all Korean, when translated into English it sounds a little ponderous. That's not really what I want to get into. The stryker brigade concept sucks. I was stationed at Fort Lewis when 3rd brigade had some teeth, two tank battalions a mech infantry battalion and a 155mm SP howitzer battalion. The styker concept is fine for peace keeping and bosnia type missions. However in Korea it really makes no sense. The terrain is too restrictive to really utilize fast wheeled vehicles effectively. Additionally, the Bradley is a much more capable weapon. The situation in Iraq has shown that the Bradley is pretty good even against RPGs, in order for the Stryker to be deployable, it only has ballistic protection from rounds up to 14.5mm. Not a good trade off. Why not make the US force less reliant on infantry (the ROK has plenty) and use it as a fire brigade consisting of lots of attack helicopters, MLRS battaries, and a few armor battalions. In other words a powerful force that wouldn't have to slug it out with Nork infantry (let the ROK army do that). The article quotes president Bush as saying. “All this is the low-level clerks recklessly speaking their own minds. It has nothing to do with official decisions by the US government.”
Doesn’t really sound like a Bush comment, sound more like the stuff that to propagandists at KCNA come up with. Maybe this is just a feature of all Korean, when translated into English it sounds a little ponderous.

That’s not really what I want to get into. The stryker brigade concept sucks. I was stationed at Fort Lewis when 3rd brigade had some teeth, two tank battalions a mech infantry battalion and a 155mm SP howitzer battalion. The styker concept is fine for peace keeping and bosnia type missions. However in Korea it really makes no sense. The terrain is too restrictive to really utilize fast wheeled vehicles effectively. Additionally, the Bradley is a much more capable weapon.
The situation in Iraq has shown that the Bradley is pretty good even against RPGs, in order for the Stryker to be deployable, it only has ballistic protection from rounds up to 14.5mm. Not a good trade off.
Why not make the US force less reliant on infantry (the ROK has plenty) and use it as a fire brigade consisting of lots of attack helicopters, MLRS battaries, and a few armor battalions. In other words a powerful force that wouldn’t have to slug it out with Nork infantry (let the ROK army do that).

]]> By: Tony http://www.rjkoehler.com/2003/11/22/translation-of-us-to-give-up-tripwire-role/#comment-700 Tony Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:01:16 +0000 http://rjkoehler.com/?p=309#comment-700 (Sorry, screwed up the HTML) I'm becoming more convinced that the better option would have been the M8 Buford / MTLV (M114A4) combo, myself. I've never served in the military, so, granted, there may be considerations I'm unaware of. In any event, moving the 2nd to south of Seoul, in my mind, is still a Good Thing. And who knows? Maybe the draftees in whatever unit replaces the 2nd on the line will return to civilian society with greater appreciation for what they have. (Sorry, screwed up the HTML)

I’m becoming more convinced that the better option would have been the M8 Buford / MTLV (M114A4) combo, myself.

I’ve never served in the military, so, granted, there may be considerations I’m unaware of. In any event, moving the 2nd to south of Seoul, in my mind, is still a Good Thing. And who knows? Maybe the draftees in whatever unit replaces the 2nd on the line will return to civilian society with greater appreciation for what they have.

]]> By: Tony http://www.rjkoehler.com/2003/11/22/translation-of-us-to-give-up-tripwire-role/#comment-699 Tony Sat, 22 Nov 2003 17:44:20 +0000 http://rjkoehler.com/?p=309#comment-699 I'm becoming more convinced that the better option would have been the M8 Buford / MTLV (M114A4) combo, myself. I've never served in the military, so, granted, there may be considerations I'm unaware of. In any event, moving the 2nd to south of Seoul, in my mind, is still a Good Thing. And who knows? Maybe the draftees in whatever unit replaces the 2nd on the line will return to civilian society with greater appreciation for what they have. I’m becoming more convinced that the better option would have been the M8 Buford / MTLV (M114A4) combo, myself.

I’ve never served in the military, so, granted, there may be considerations I’m unaware of. In any event, moving the 2nd to south of Seoul, in my mind, is still a Good Thing. And who knows? Maybe the draftees in whatever unit replaces the 2nd on the line will return to civilian society with greater appreciation for what they have.

]]> By: Wedge http://www.rjkoehler.com/2003/11/22/translation-of-us-to-give-up-tripwire-role/#comment-698 Wedge Sat, 22 Nov 2003 12:56:15 +0000 http://rjkoehler.com/?p=309#comment-698 I'm with Tony on this. The M1 Abrams/M2 Bradley combo has been proven in two wars to be unstoppable. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The Stryker, although more mobile, has way less armor. It's makes a lot more sense to keep the heavy equipment close to the action. The Stryker would probably only be useful in low threat environments like Africa, Latin America, or SE Asia, so the DOD should think about putting some on Guam, not Korea. Anyway, the above is great news. The end of the tripwire role for our troops cannot come soon enough. Also, I don't think Russia is quaking in its boots over the new deployment, but China can't be too happy. And how is this bad, OhMyNews? I’m with Tony on this. The M1 Abrams/M2 Bradley combo has been proven in two wars to be unstoppable. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. The Stryker, although more mobile, has way less armor. It’s makes a lot more sense to keep the heavy equipment close to the action. The Stryker would probably only be useful in low threat environments like Africa, Latin America, or SE Asia, so the DOD should think about putting some on Guam, not Korea.

Anyway, the above is great news. The end of the tripwire role for our troops cannot come soon enough. Also, I don’t think Russia is quaking in its boots over the new deployment, but China can’t be too happy. And how is this bad, OhMyNews?

]]> By: Tony http://www.rjkoehler.com/2003/11/22/translation-of-us-to-give-up-tripwire-role/#comment-697 Tony Sat, 22 Nov 2003 09:55:16 +0000 http://rjkoehler.com/?p=309#comment-697 Good piece. I'm glad the 2nd Infantry is being moved down from more or less fixed fortifications, as one of the Army's strengths is in combining firepower with maneuver. However, I think this falls in the category of "mixed blessing." The article suggests that the entire 2nd Infantry will be converted to the Strkyer. Currently, only the 3rd Brigade, in Fort Lewis, is so equipped. (Interestingly, the 3rd Brigade has been deployed to the Middle East.) I have reservations about the Stryker, as it sacrifices way too much for minimal deployability. Given that the primary threat is still North Korea, I really hope that the article was incorrect concerning Stryker conversion. Good piece. I’m glad the 2nd Infantry is being moved down from more or less fixed fortifications, as one of the Army’s strengths is in combining firepower with maneuver.

However, I think this falls in the category of “mixed blessing.” The article suggests that the entire 2nd Infantry will be converted to the Strkyer. Currently, only the 3rd Brigade, in Fort Lewis, is so equipped. (Interestingly, the 3rd Brigade has been deployed to the Middle East.) I have reservations about the Stryker, as it sacrifices way too much for minimal deployability. Given that the primary threat is still North Korea, I really hope that the article was incorrect concerning Stryker conversion.

]]>