The Blue House has decided to send 3000 troops - both combat and noncombat - to Iraq. The plan stills needs to be voted on by the cabinet (a given) and OK’d by the National Assembly (probably a given), but this looks like a go. The ROK would like to have a region all their own in which to conduct independent operations - it’s looking like that region will be somewhere in northern Iraq, with names like Cayara and Tal Afar being bandied about (the Ministry of Defense, however, is apparently leaning toward Kirkuk). At a press conference held this morning at the Blue House, National Security Adviser Ra Jong-il wouldn’t go into the specifics as far as the ratios of combat to noncombat personnel are concerned, nor would he say which troops would make up the combatant component of the force. However, according to the Korea Times:
[Defense Minister] Cho added the safety of the soldiers would be given top priority in deciding the details. He said ministry officials expect highly trained forces from the Special Forces Command or the Marine Corps to comprise a defense team of 1,400 soldiers.
UPDATE: Well, we have a piece in the English edition of the Chosun Ilbo that discusses the probable makeup of the planned troop dispatch. Half, or perhaps more that half, of the troops may be Special Forces personnel:
As for the 1,450 combat troops, plans are being considered that focus on Special Forces personnel, but also include personnel from the Marines, Army Rangers, and general infantry. It appears, however, that a fair number of the civil affairs personnel assigned to help civilians will actually be Special Forces personnel who have received civil affairs training, meaning that of the 3,230 men to be dispatched, more than half will be Special Forces. If Marines are deployed, it will be the second time since Vietnam that they have been sent abroad. The war against the Taliban in Afghanistan was the first.
Also of interest is the planned command structure:
The divisional command will take the form of a combined forces staff, including the Army, Navy, and Air Force. It will be the first time since the Vietnam War that such a command has been assembled. The headquarters will consist of about 600 to 700 men, including communications, transport and munitions personnel, and military police.
Personally, I don’t know what the ROK Navy is going to be doing Kirkuk, but hey, I’m just a dumb civilian.
Oh, and it looks like the military is going to be babysitting a shit load of civilians, too - discussions will be held with a number of government ministries, after which a civilian “humanitarian support team” will be gathered together and sent to wherever the guys with guns get sent.
9 Comments
Although I get worked up on about the nature of the SK-US alliance, I am able to step back from it. I hope the SK government will listen to its military, and I hope they don’t send any troops to Iraq unless they do give it the manpower and firepower to protect itself at minimum. The more I’ve listened to the Roh administration talk about how to minimize public anger over a troop dispatch, the more I’ve worried about the soldiers and their families that will eventually be sent. I’d rather they not send anybody than to send people in a situation where their deaths are more likely.
Marines = Navy, remember?
And these guys are not sailors, really…
I knew there was something I was forgetting - thanks dda.
It’s understandable that we Americans would like to have help in Iraq from a country that we’ve supported for nearly 60 years, but how much do we really need the Koreans? Militarily, I’d guess not much. This show of force from Korea surely has more to do with our desire to make the occupation in Iraq look less American and more international, right?
Sending the Korean troops has been defended — even by Noh — as good for Korea’s relations with America. Personally, though, I wonder if this will really be good for Korean-American relations. It’s not just that Korean soldiers might be killed on the battlefield or that Korean civilians in Iraq might be targeted, though these things will likely happen and raise Korean anger and protests.
The more serious issue is that this will likely lead to terrorist attacks in Korea itself. You’ve probably seen these reports already, but if not, take a look:
Yahoo! News: Singapore, Tuesday December 16, 2:49 PM, “Al-Qaeda scouted US terror targets in South Korea — intelligence reports” (http://sg.news.yahoo.com/031216/1/3goy2.html)
Los Angeles Times, December 16, 2003, “South Korea Says It May Be Terrorist Target,” by Barbara Demick (registration required) ()http://www.latimes.com/news/na.....-headlines
Of course, one might argue that the radical Islamists among the foreign workers here in Korea are possibly already planning terrorist attacks against American targets — and perhaps have been casing this country since the late 90s, according to the L.A. Times report — but Korean involvement in Iraq is likely to galvanize the militant Islamists.
Any thoughts?
Jeffery Hodges
Well I guess 3000 is better than none. And what’s with all of this “non-combat troops” nonsense these days, not just in Korea, but generally. Touch of an oxymoron there, no?
Anytime the whole Korea situation comes up in conversation here in our little corner of the US, folks I know keep asking “why are we still in Korea?” This inevitably leads to discussions of what is the role of American power. Is it “to be friends of Liberty everywhere, but guardians only of our own” or are we going to really commit to the Roman formula of “to protect the weak, and make humble the proud”?
In any event, that’s 3000 fewer American troops tied up in Iraq. And the totally un-scientific mood of the “American Street” (that’s aware of the situation) seems to be very glad. The reaction I’ve gotten from people when faced with “how would you feel if Korea refused to send troops to Iraq” has universally been “well then fuck them and bring our boys home”.
Which I don’t think anyone really wants, so this is a very good thing.
Mr. Hodges - Let’s face it, the world is a target. What did Indonesia, Morocco, and Kenya do to deserve Al Qaeda bombings? If a nation bases its actions on whether it thinks it’ll become a terrorist target then it is the worst of appeasers, and will help ensure terrorist acts take place long into the future.
Besides, you have to understand how the press works in Korea - certain gov’t officilas leak stuff all the time to puch an agenda. In the cases you mentioned it could be much ado about nothing - “leaked” by someone opposed to the dispatch of troops to Iraq.
Anyway, I’m glad to see Korea is doing something, however small the contribution. Of course, it took Saddam’s capture to get them to act, whereas Japan decided to send troops before the event.
The problem that I see is this. The argument in Korea for sending troops to Iraq has been that this will be good for Korean-American relations. This is a weak argument to be used for justification, especially since anti-Americanism could arise if a lot of Korean soldiers die.
If Korea is going to send troops, I’d rather see them giving other reasons that won’t evaporate if soldiers start dying. Koreans who want to send troops need to make the argument, publically, as to why this is in Korea’s interests. Will it increase Korean security? How? In the short run? In the long run? Will Korea’s contribution make a meaningful difference?
I realize that the jihadis have their sights set on the whole world, but that only shows their lack of realism, and it doesn’t mean that every country can best contribute to the war on militant Islamism (to distinguish it from Islam) by sending troops.
Those countries that do send troops will be appreciated, but they need to predicate their choice on something stronger than good relations with America. I haven’t heard Koreans making that argument yet (unless they’re putting forth other reasons in the Korean language press).
Jeffery Hodges
I should point out that while the Korean press does tend to put out some rather weak arguments for participating in Iraq (which in turn become fodder for those that opppose it), some people are coming up with more thought-out rationals. In fact, the Chosun piece which I linked to above (I translated that piece for the Chosun, BTW
) pointed out that by having troops in Kirkuk - one of Iraq’s major oil producing regions - Korean companies stand a very good chance making out like bandits in post-reconstruction Iraq. OK, it’s not the most selfless motive in the world, but it beats the “we have to do it for the alliance” arguments (which is not to say that Korea shouldn’t be concerned about its alliance with the US, because it should).
Also, leaders - including Roh and his Foreign Minister - have made it a point to say that Korea, as a member of the Free World, has a duty and an interest in helping Iraq become a stable, functioning democracy. Certainly, they point out, seeing Iraq go to shit is not in South Korea’s best interests. Whether or not those arguments fall on deaf ears is another question.
It should be mentioned, too, that the ROK military has its own reasons for wanting to go in, and Special Forces Command has spent the last couple of months pushing hard to send its boys in. Clearly, they’re concerned about the health of the US-ROK alliance, but there are other factors. They may see this as a good opportunity to give their men and women some experience in the field. And assuming that they perform well (and given the kinds of troops they’re looking to send, I see no reason why they wouldn’t), it’ll raise the respect level other regional actors have for the ROK military. And, of course, there are more mundane issues (none of which would be used publicly as rationale for the dispatch), like the fact that for the officers and non-officers volunteering for Iraq, this is the career opportunity of a lifetime, and one many professional military men in Korea are loath to pass up.
Okay, let’s consider these arguments, of which, I count six:
1. Korean companies stand a very good chance making out like bandits in post-reconstruction Iraq.
2. Korea, as a member of the Free World, has a duty and an interest in helping Iraq become a stable, functioning democracy.
3. ROK military . . . and Special Forces . . . [are] concerned about the health of the US-ROK alliance.
4. They may see this as a good opportunity to give their men and women some experience in the field.
5. And assuming that they perform well . . . , it’ll raise the respect level other regional actors have for the ROK military.
6. [For] the officers and non-officers volunteering for Iraq, this is the career opportunity of a lifetime, and one many professional military men in Korea are loath to pass up.
How do these measure up? The first would be pounced on by the left, though I don’t know how it would go over among the Korean public. The second is idealistic, and I’d go for that, but I wonder if Koreans will believe it (and I wonder if it’ll work anyway). The third is the one that I’ve already suggested is weak. The fifth is interesting — use Iraq to send a message to Kim Jong Il? — but the U.S. is already being criticized by Koreans for doing this very thing and thereby raising the anxiety level on the peninsula. The sixth would be seen as cynical in the extreme.
So, I’m still not sure these would add up to Korean support of troops in Iraq, especially if the killing starts. I guess that we’ll find out.
Jeffery Hodges
PING:
TITLE: Eyes on Korea: 2004-01-23
BLOG NAME: Winds of Change.NET
ON TAP TODAY: Stamp wars, Internet Wars, and History Wars; China relations; 3,000 ROK troops to Kirkuk; North Korea’s nukes; NK’s man-made famine; SK’s plan to assassinate Kim-Il-Sung; USFK to leave Seoul; Future US-ROK ties; SK politics; Traveler’s ey…