Check out David Scofield’s latest piece in the Asia Times — it’s a good one. Here’s the conclusion:
As long as the US military remains, so too will the nationalistic antagonism generated by the troop presence. The very visible presence of the world’s most powerful military has been used for decades by political groups of all stripes to deflect criticism from domestic leadership and domestic problems.
Many observers, both Korean and Western, say the US now has an obligation, in support of South Korea’s national development, to withdraw its military assets from the country.
Removing troops might seem unwise given the North Korea nuclear threat, but the changed socio-political environment on the peninsula has made it impossible for the US forces effectively to project foreign-policy objectives. South Korea’s new policies of relative assertiveness and distancing itself from the United States are increasingly at odds with Washington’s strategies.
Indeed, recent surveys indicate that most South Koreans believe the US is a far greater threat to their security than the North.
Recently announced US base closures and the southward movement of some troops is an important first step, but in an effort to promote national development and encourage the “equal” relationship the South Korean government and people have been loudly demanding, it’s time for the US Forces in Korea to go.
Couldn’t agree more. Anyway, be sure to read the piece in its entirety.
34 Comments
I don’t know what “d” said above (prior to “get out of Korea”) but I say Amen to the main post.
If it was bad language in Korean, I suggest you provide a cleaned up version Marmot to support your main point.
Let the Koreans sort things out between themselves. While we’re there, they get to blame us for all their problems (as I have so thoroughly learned from months of monitoring this and other invaluable Korean English language blogs).
Why we persist in giving ourselves this headache, when we have so many other problems, is an impenetrable mystery to me. NorK is no conceivable economic or political threat to us once we’ve withdrawn. There are few things certain in this world, but one certainty is that the NorK system just isn’t going to be exported anywhere outside the peninsula.
(Whether it was going to be in 1950 is debatable, but Truman made the best judgement he could at the time, and I accept that. Now — times have definitely changed).
Looks like you deleted whatever it was “d” posted in the first comment, so I suppose my guess was right.
Your blog and call, “M” but I’d clean it up and leave it there. Good to educate your readership about the amount of vitriol you must receive.
Can you tell whether or not such a posting comes from NorK? Just curious.
I believe that it was Tocqville who said that in a democracy, if something is seen as unnecessary, it is felt as intolerable. The South Koreans have, by and large, come to see the U.S. forces here as unnecessary.
The irony is that they may soon begin to feel the need to have friends:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/ne.....of_history
“China, Korea Wrangle Over Ancient Kingdom”
This, of course, is the already posted issue concerning Goguryeo. My wife and one of her close friends have come to agree that Korea needs the U.S. as an ally, but they say that many other Koreans haven’t realized this yet.
Not that they’d want us to stay . . .
Jeffery Hodges
I still don’t know how much Korea REALLY wants USFK out. From my experience teaching adults, they like to pretend they want USFK out and like to continue the discourse of how bad the US-SK alliance is for their society, but the few times it looks like they might actually achieve their goal, they back up and say, “Not now!”
But, I’m glad to see people whose opinion has some reach in the US coming around to what many of us who have lived intimately inside Korean society have known for some years —
that our soldiers are becoming pretty much nothing more than a mercenary force that doesn’t make a profit. Like this guy wrote, our percieved interests are so askew with an unbridgable gap (unless SK changes, because the US isn’t going to) the idea that we are “working together in an alliance” is just terribly wrong.
It is time to get out. I just hope more of the influencial commentators will agree and get the message out, because as I noted above, I don’t believe the Koreans will ever decide to give us the marching orders. It will be up to the American people to convince our government the risks are too great, the hate too high, and the benefits almost non-existent at this point.
Nobody needs us in Asia anymore.
It is time to pack up and go home.
Just read it in full. The problem with the commentary is that the only people who will take the time to read it are those familiar with the situation. I would also point out that the current prosecution of the water dumping case is not strictly related to the tank accident. I remember seeing articles about the Korean courts making plans to hold a trial or trying to serve papers to Macfarland every 5 or 6 months or so since the case happened in 2000.
The problem with trying to reach an American audience, besides that the US media doesn’t seem to care much at all, is that you get bogged down in the details instead of demonstrating the true extent of the problem. For example, the tank accident leading to the prosecution of Macfarland. Without a doubt, I’m sure it added to the zeal of the prosecution, but I believe you can only give the clear picture of Korea if you throw in several court cases involving crimes going back a decade or more — and then throw in the cases like the air pollution and the many others like it. It isn’t about crime, or pollution, or air noise, or US bases, or any of that in isolation. It is about keeping an acceptable amount of pressure on USFK — never too hot (like in late 2002 and the subsequent turtling as the US press finally got a clue) but absolutely never too cold.
And I’ll add again, why are they not trying the two soldiers from the tank accident? Why are they not ignoring the USFK justice and holding a trial for those two in abstencia? Korean society including law scholars and such did not believe justice was served and Korea had a right to throw the tank guys in jail. Why aren’t we seeing the Seoul prosecutor going after them? Why? Too big an issue at the wrong time. Give it a couple of years…..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3446657.stm
In the Bush administration’s monolithic insistence that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, little chinks of daylight have recently been appearing.
When questioned about Iraq’s WMD, President Bush on Friday declared that he “wants the facts”.
He says he wants to “be able to compare what the Iraq Survey Group has found with what we thought prior to going into Iraq”.
His comments open up an avenue of possibility: that what the Iraq Survey Group - America’s own WMD hunters, now scouring Iraq - finds, and what the administration thought was there are two different things.
And Mr Bush’s National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice said on Thursday, “we’re going to need to go back and compare what we thought we would find with what we found”.
Linguistic retreat
Slowly, slowly, the administration is reworking its language, readying for the moment when it must acknowledge that Iraq, in fact, had no weapons of mass destruction, and one of the chief rationales that took the US and Britain to war was flawed.
This linguistic retreat from certainty has been going on for a while.
Last year’s State of the Union address, pre-war, stressed that Iraq possessed actual stockpiles of WMD.
This year’s - post-war - referred to “weapons of mass destruction programme-related activities”.
But the pace of the retreat has been forced by a number of factors this week.
Senator John McCain is just one of those demanding a probe
First, David Kay, the former head of the Iraq Survey Group, said he thought it was “highly unlikely” that stockpiles of WMD would be found in Iraq.
On the intelligence that portrayed Iraq as chemically and biologically armed and dangerous, Mr Kay said that, worldwide, intelligence agencies were “almost all wrong”.
Second, John McCain, the silver haired, sometimes maverick, Republican senator from Arizona, has broken ranks with his party, and called for an independent inquiry into intelligence, how it’s gathered, and how it’s being used.
And not just on Iraq, either, but on other potential areas of crisis - Libya, Iran and North Korea.
His call echoes one from Mr Kay, and a chorus of demands from House Democrats.
“I am absolutely convinced that one is necessary,” Mr McCain told the Associated Press, “because this is a very serious issue and we need to not only know what happened, but know what steps are necessary to prevent the United States from ever being misinformed again.”
Risky business
But allowing such an inquiry to go ahead would put President Bush in a risky place.
It might turn up unpalatable revelations about the state of America’s intelligence agencies right in the middle of an election campaign, right in the middle of a war on terrorism.
It might also exacerbate festering resentments between the CIA and Bush administration - notably over who in the White House was responsible for outing the CIA officer, Valerie Plame.
But not allowing such an independent inquiry has its thorny bits too.
By deflecting calls for a real examination of America’s intelligence failures, the president looks like he has something to hide.
The questions about those elusive Iraqi weapons will bubble on into the election campaign.
And if the Democrats are deft, they can use those questions to probe and twist on what is supposed to be President Bush’s strongest suit - national security.
For now, the Republican strategy is to urge everybody to wait for the Iraq Survey Group to finish its work and report before we draw conclusions on Iraqi WMD.
And, ultimately, to blame the intelligence services for providing wrong information.
The Bush administration does indeed “want the facts” on what happened to those weapons of mass destruction.
But not just yet, thanks.
Getting out of Korea sounds sensible to me. I think it would complicate matters a lot more in Japan though. It will be tougher to keep our presence there after a full Korean withdrawal. I’m not sure that the east Asian nations are anxious for the colassal power shifts that would occur in such a case. The situation in Taiwan would certainly grow tenser. Everybody would be uneasy with the Japanese forced to expand their military to provide their own defense.
U.S. withdrawal from Korea looks better because we can provide naval and crucial air support from our bases in Japan within minutes in the event of war. U.S. air superiority alone might be enough. So it depends really on whether Japan will continue to tolerate the U.S. presence when they’ve become the only country in Asia to host a foreign military. Of course there’s chafing already, especially in Okinawa but so far it’s nothing like what we hear from Korea. In addition, while peer pressure for independence will grow, Japan may feel less secure if Korea increasingly went in its own direction, bolstering its military. This would act as a couter balance, ensuring the need for a continued U.S. presence in Japan.
But then again, maybe it’s time that the U.S. looked to the future and realized that in the long term, it’s probably inevitable that we should pull back to our side of the pacific. We’ve always got Hawaii, Guam, Saipan, etc.
Why does the U.S. have to be here? If US aren’t welcomed in South Korea, it’s time to leave. I don’t think the troops would mind. The DMZ isn’t exactly the best vacation spot to spend the prime of one’s life. If we leave, and the North starts marching down, let it be. We don’t need to “support” from Japan, Okinawa, Hawaii, or anywhere. We can’t be saving ass every time. Survival of the Fittest. Doesn’t seem like Koreans apprecriate what we did the last time around…
‘the irony is that they soon may feel the need to have friends.’
jeff hodges in reference to china’s attempt to claim korean history.
mr hodges, are you interested in the truth or are you simply trying to use this issue to manipulate the koreans into doing what you want them to do?
i hope you’re more interested in the truth, and the truth is that koguryo is part of korea’s heritage not china’s. nowhere in the decades i have been reading about korea have i come upon the sham that koguryo was chinese.
i found some paper written by a chinese guy somewhere on the internet not too long ago that dealt with this subject. he stated that most serious scholars in china don’t believe koguryo was part of china’s history.
it’s interesting that china has only started to make this claim since 1992.
so mr hodges, may i ask you again?
are you interested in the truth or simply using this issue to manipulate the koreans into doing what you want them to do?
Shin Jong il,
I cannot speak for Mr. Hedges but if we are talking among ourselves how is that manipulating Koreans? If Mr. Hedges mentions that water is wet or that things tend to roll downhill rather than uphill are Koreans being manipulated? If you Koreans do not wish us to be present then why should we stay? If you do wish us to stay then why make us feel unwelcome?
To shin jong il
You misinterpret Mr. Hodges point (or I am assuming you are- Mr. Hodges can correct me). His issue is not that the US should use this to “get Korea to do what the US wants”
His point is that a rather big powerful nation with expansionist tendencies (Tibet anyone?) has suddenly declared a “historical” claim on the area.
Who has history on their side (or the “truth” as you put it) is not the issue. How Korea will react to the Chinese claim should they choose to push it is…..
So, the point was, is South Korea up to taking on China alone? And if not, who would they like to have in their corner?
As the Marmot has said before- having a defense pact with the World’s only superpower ain’t always a bad thing.
Stop looking through your “Korea is a helpless victim being manipulated by others” prism before boldly challenging other posters on what they didn’t say.
As a Korean American, I feel a bit conflicted about this issue- it’s a sensitive and important issue for both countries. Koreans being people who had a homogeneuos country for thousands of years do not necessarily feel accustomed to a foreign army stationed there, but I think a lot of anti-Americanism has been led on by Korean politicians who cannot seem to focus upon the thousands of people who have no jobs, no adequate income, no welfare program, and the dangerous growth of Seoul and abandonment of small towns and the countrysides.
Many Koreans cite USA as a place they’d like to move and start a new life, and many of them move to America using illegal visas, their families and relatives living in America, etc. Yet they say America is a bigger threat than North Korea. Frankly, I think North Korea poses no bigger threat than Iraq with Saddam Hussein, especially if Kim Jong Il would not like to lose his power. A war in the Korean peninsula would be the biggest threat to him, especially if American army/South Korean Army would be able to win the campaign.
Russia is vying to join NATO, and the reason would be for a closer relationship with America. Like it or not, America is the most influential country in the world, with most of the world’s wealth circulating around it. Having a stationed army in Korea boosts its relationship with America, because a threat to ROK would be a threat to thousands of American soldiers stationed there. Although I’d like to say ROK has the same kind of influence to the world that Japan has, it is not true, and Korea can grow a bit more internally. What Korea needs is more lefties, and by lefties I mean people who care more about the well-being of the general public, not leaning in favor of North Korea or communism. ROK has too much shit to care for before caring about the stationed army in its country. If ROK can prove that it has a stable infrastructure and a well-established army, then would America need such number of force present?
Some points I wish I could spend more time and go into detail, or some others to come up with more organized arguments, but am unable to do so.
John in Tokyo gets it right: force projection.
Our forces don’t need to be on the peninsula, strategically or tactically speaking.
I also agree that the situation in Japan is something to consider. In a sense, to bundle our forces in Japan would be to shift the resentment problem from one spot to another.
As military tech continues to improve, I think we’ll be able to move almost completely out of the region.
Kevin
I think we should keep the forces there, at least for the time being. Why?
Well, most young Koreans havr not yet felt the damage that was done by the North Koreans during the Korean war. They’ve always grown up to the saying “We are one race.” Therefore, they are not as used to reality as their parents, who grew up drinking tree bark stew. After all, they gew up in fairly affluent conditions. Thus, they just need time to mature and acknowledge the security and the beneficial alliance that the USFK guarantees. However, on the other hand, the USFK troops should stop committing crimes on foreign soil. They not only rape women, but they also dump chemicals into Korean rivers and sometimes kill citizens. So the USFK should stop committing crimes, as Koreans are paying them to defend the country and to meet their needs. Therefore, I think it’s right for Koreans to protest a U.S. presence in the region because they pay the troops to stay, but the U.S. troops have done much damge to them. So STOP saying that we should pull troops out of Asia becuase there’s obviously something you don’t know or misunderstand about the U.S. presence in Asia.
It’s fair to point out the crimes committed by US soldiers based in foreign lands, but this needs to be balanced with a hard look at the often-unjustified hostility of the locals.
As things currently stand in Korea, we’re not really wanted here– at least that’s the emotional reality. What the South Koreans’ actual desires are is a different story, and it’s true that opinions are mixed.
My own Korean relatives think the troops should stay. My personal feeling is they should go. Koreans fall on all points of the spectrum when you talk to them privately, but they’re apt to adopt an anti-American stance if you approach them in a group/public situation.
So what, in the end, should be the deciding factor? How to determine whether we should pull out? I say: ignore the rage. That’s not a deep indicator of anything. Instead, do what any sane country does, and look to your country’s self-interests. Are they being served any longer by continuing on the same path? What tactical advantage is there to having a tripwire force (a doctrine I consider insane)?
I don’t think the Korean youth are going to grow up and suddenly appreciate the US-SK alliance. In fact, quite a few old folks are anti-American as well, so age doesn’t bring wisdom– not as long as people insist on dealing with this through the lens of emotionalism.
I’m not convinced that US troop presence is providing South Korea with extra security. Whether we’re on their soil or not, South Koreans know that the US will be there to fight with them, should war break out. Because we’re capable of very rapid force projection now, why continue to waste time and money in a place where few want us to be any longer, and our contribution to “security” is doubtful? North Korea probably knows that a US pullout doesn’t mean the US will abandon the South. South Korea’s security will therefore remain at about the same level it was before.
In the meantime, the benefits of a pullout to the Korean people are psychological: I agree that it is demoralizing to have a large detachment of foreign troops sitting right in your national capital. Some Koreans may whine and complain about the costs of relocation and pullout, but ultimately the US has to think about its own concerns, too: if our presence in Korea is a money pit and erodes diplomatic capital, then we should bug out.
When we go, a lot of Korean folks, young and old, will be glad to see us go. And maybe that’s OK. Further, maybe Koreans will feel they’re free to “do their thang,” and the sense of empowerment will translate into economics– confidence reflected in a stronger stock market, for example.
The deeper question, too, is persuading South Korea to take responsibility for its own problems. If it truly wants to continue its rapprochement with the North, then it should be prepared to shoulder the huge burden that that entails. And it shouldn’t expect us to agree with that project; that’s asking way too much.
My opinion, for what it’s worth.
Kevin
I guess, I sort of agree with you, but the U.S. forces are going to have to stay for the time being. But I know it, the young people of Korea will come to realize, while not immediately, that the U.S. forces are needed. Not only that, most of the hostility from the locals is justified; this is not only because the Americans committing crimes, but because they are tried by the U.S. court martial, and they often give unfair rulings in favor of the guilty troops.
But you know, Korean troops don’t commit the crimes on foreign soil. You have to take that into account, Zhang Fei. Don’t get upset by this latest comment. I’m just pointing it out for you.
I’d imagine that there are quite a few Vietnamese that might question the PR skills of the Korean military. I’d also imagine that Korean troops stationed in the Middle East and Central Asia aren’t completely without sin, either. It should also be pointed out that the SOFA treaties which Korea signs with foreign states in which they plan to deploy troops make the one between the U.S. and the ROK look rather generous. I’m also unconvinced that American military courts routinely make “unfair” rulings to American soldiers accused of crimes — punishments given by those courts are often heavier than those given by the Korean court system, and to the extent that American military courts do not boast the 90%+ conviction rates (if this is an exageration, it isn’t much of one) of their civilian Korean counterparts, I’m not sure whether that’s an indictment of the military courts or of a civilian court system that operates, for all intents and purposes, on the presumption that if you are standing trial, you must be guilty.
Paul said that it would be cheaper for the USFK to get of Korea. But that doesn’t make sense, as the South Korean government is paying the USFK for all their expenses. The USFK only spends the money, and rarely pays for their own expenses.
This isn’t even remotely accurate:
http://times.hankooki.com/lpag.....511980.htm
The U.S. Forces in Korea (USFK) spent about $3 billion last year _ $1.7 billion in wages and another $ 1 billion for operational costs, according to “Information on Korea,??р꽓??р꽓 a pocket-sized publication by the U.S. military for its new arrivals to South Korea.
It represented 0.9 percent of the total national defense budget of the U.S. and 24 percent of that of South Korea.
Although the South Korean government shared about $500 million of annual expenses, the U.S. spent more than $750 million for South Korean employees and local commodities, the book said.
It might be argued, as I believe Joseph Nye did, that it’s cheaper for the U.S. to keep those troops in Korea than for it to base them Stateside. But that’s largely due to factors other than the ROK’s contribution to the costs of maintaining USFK.
Not to mention, North Korea is leaking spies in to the south to arouse Anti-American feelings. So, the anti-American sentiment can be a result of North Korean interference.
I here this a lot, especially from right-wing Koreans and their American sympathizers. I’m not going to deny that North Korea leaks spies and agitators into South Korea, but I think there are more important factors behind anti-Americanism in South Korea. To the extent that North Korea does influence anti-Americanism in the South, I think the rhetoric that it uses — playing on, as it does, nationalist and latent xenophobic tendencies found in certain segments of the Korean population — is a much bigger factor than is the direct infiltration of spies and agents. But that’s just my impression, and an uninformed one at that.
BTW, Mr. Edwards, sorry if we seem to be jumping on you here. Don’t take it personally — it’s what tends to happen in my comments section. Thanks for adding your thoughts to this dialogue, and I hope to continue reading more of them in the future.
John Edwards: However, on the other hand, the USFK troops should stop committing crimes on foreign soil. They not only rape women, but they also dump chemicals into Korean rivers and sometimes kill citizens. So the USFK should stop committing crimes, as Koreans are paying them to defend the country and to meet their needs.
Koreans like John Edwards don’t seem to realize that soldiers are humans, not angels. Korean troops commit crimes too, but unlike crimes committed by US troops, these are not blown out of proportion. Koreans carry out rapes, pollute the environment, commit murders but they don’t get the kind of resentment directed at US troops.
And let’s face it, South Korea does not pay the full cost of the US presence. Total payments (for Korean support personnel at the bases) in 1999 were $333m. US forces (including equipment) cost $200,000 a year to maintain, meaning that the cost of the 37,000 man garrison is about $7.4b a year. The Korean assumption that they are paying the full cost is ludicrous. If Koreans like John Edwards want more influence over the USFK, they can urge their government to pony up that $7.4b plus a profit margin so that Americans truly be called foreign mercenaries. They should also sign an agreement to compensate the families of US troops who die in combat, and for any equipment destroyed in potential combat with North Korea or China.
But I don’t see any such movement on the part of John Edwards or his Korean compatriots. Until I see Koreans begin to pay the full cost of USFK’s upkeep, I can’t accept John Edwards’s contention that Koreans are paying the US for their protection. USFK is not only not making a profit - it’s not even covering its costs. If Korea can find a mercenary force that can do a better job, it should certainly replace USFK with that mercenary force*.
* I understand that USFK paid compensation for the accidental killing of the two girls. Since when do mercenaries pay compensation or put their members on trial? Mercenaries see rape, murder and pillage as a fringe benefit.
Koreans are obviously so caught up in their dream world of the last 50 years that they have no idea what great power politics are all about. A USFK withdrawal would have the benefit of reminding them. I suspect Korea would be of greater benefit to the US as a (rebellious) Chinese province than as a drain on US military resources.
Thanks Zhang. Everybody who hasn’t lived in Korea should cut and paste John Edward’s comments to keep handy whenever they want to know why the USFK position is hopeless. It is the exact same crap you hear again and again that they tell themselves and anybody willing to listen. But, if you start looking for the facts, as I did when I got my internet connection six months after arriving in Korea in the mid-1990s, you begin to see what a huge bleepig cynical, hateful fiction SK has built for itself. I won’t add more on him, because Zhang summed up the truth well. The one that really gets me, besides the “crime” angle which has more to do with SK racisim than actual crime statistics on the part of USFK (I guess if a Russian rapes a Korean woman, Korea will move to invalidate all Russian visas and deport them from the country, right Edwards?), is the “profit” angle. Even Koreans who have no feelings on USFK believe this is true, but it is so easy to find out the truth, (that the USFK spends hundreds of millions to billions of dollars a year), it just makes Koreans using the argument look pathetically ignorant and bias.
On other comments, I disagree with one about the obvious fact that the US will fight for Korea even if in Japan. I don’t think so. Maybe but also maybe not. SK should be concerned. I can’t see the US gov. explaining to Americans why they are sending foot soldiers BACK into Korea to die if we pull them out. Use of air power is an easier option, but that would give NK incentive to strike at our bases in Japan and the Japanese people themselves. So the US would have to take some account of what the Japanese want as well as what the American people want, and in a Chicago based poll some time before the tank accident, close to 50% of the people said they would not support a second war effort in South Korea EVEN IF the North invaded and the UN authorised it!!! The tripwire is real. Dead American bodies = US fights. No GI bodies to kill in SK = maybe the Americans will want to fight.
And I often wonder about how Japan will react if USFK leaves. Many experts seem to take it for granted that Japanese nationalism will stoke up high and cry for the US to leave Japan as well. I have little experience with how Japan today thinks, but I would imagine our leaving Japan could very well solidify our position in Japan…
Does Japan want to increase its defense spending dramatically to replace US troops? We have more troops there than in Korea….Do the Japanese want - then - to deal with all the other nations in Asia that will go absolutely batshit if Japan builds up a completely Japanese defense force with the same fighting power of what the US offers them now? I doubt it. Korean newspapers sometimes write about the rise of Japanese nationalism, but isn’t there still a strong strain of pacifism too??? Anyway, trade is what Japan is about mostly, it seems to me, and the goodwill of its neighbors is important. It seems to me life is much easier for Japan with US troops, and I haven’t seen enough to make me believe Japan’s society is as emotional on key issues and willing to cut its nose off to spite its face. Look at the reaction when the US submarine in Hawaii popped up under that ship and killed those high school students and others? Yes, there was anger, but nothing on a Korea scale. The families even apologized when they came to the ceremony in Hawaii, because in their grief they didn’t want to offend their hosts.
I am all for closing the bases because in the long run it will save US money. I see bases in the US being closed. I see jobs in the US being lost. I am all for closing the Japanese and Korean bases and keeping the US bases open.
I served in Korea, and think the ROK is worth fighting for — if they actually want us. It appears that the “Dreamland of the SKoreans” (props to Fouad Ajami) has blinded them to anything but their pathetic claims of victimhood.
SO, I have no problem with pulling out the USFK in toto, and perhaps doing an investigatory expedition to test the veracity of NKor claims to nuclear weapons programs and death camps.
MG
I wonder if Chinese historic revisionism is laying the groundwork for annexing the NKor territory? It would give them control over a rather difficult situation in NE Asia, but add 25 million mouths to feed.
MG,
In one of my own blog posts, I link to an article that wonders exactly the same thing.
Chinese hegemonic ambitions (or let’s call this by its proper name, imperialism) are never far from any given discussion about Asian politics.
Kevin
Thanks to those above who replied to and rebutted John Edwards’ posts. By his language he seemed to imply that US military commanders condone the committing of crimes by U.S. forces underneath them. Having retired from the US Army as an officer, this assertion is so outrageous that I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
Actually I do know what to do — get our ground forces out as soon as possible. God grant it will happen in the next Administration, be it Dem or Repub.
It seems to me that the politicians of Korea have a variation on what our US media described as the Clinton policy of “triangulation” (I think it was his former advisor Dick Morris who coined that term).
Emboldened by the free flow of criticism they see in the U.S. media, they propagate anti-Americanism as an electoral ploy to distract from their domestic problems. They remain confident that they can denounce the U.S in Korean to arouse their own voters, while they say soothing things in English during visits to the U.S., assuring us of their undying fidelity as allies.
South Korean democracy has now reached the “age of majority” (i.e. it’s “over 21″). It’s time for them to assume the full burden of their own ground defense. And we are not the Roman empire, fated to keep defensive legions on the Han River forever.
If South Korea still wants to be allies, we can support from a distance with naval and air support (our strength — and we’re going to be paying for these forces anyway). Better for South Korea, and better/cheaper for us.
If South Korea still wants foreign troops to help, why not invite in mainland China to station troops? Now that the PRC is the ROK’s biggest trading partner!
ROC could assume the UN flag mission and referee, as North and South Korea begin the generations-long process of reunification.
My goodness, what a great idea. How much better to have sympathetic and empathetic fellow Asians to assist in this process — rather than the despised American cowboys, who only want to fire off their six-shooters, drink, and chase women.
‘…distant ally…’
mr hodges
distant ally? well, the president of this ‘distant ally’ states that the military option is still on the table with regards to north korea. in other words, this ‘distant ally’ feels it has the right to bring about a war for it’s ally, South Korea. that don’t sound like a good ally to me.
china’s attempt to claim koguryo is likely a reaction to the big mouth koreans going up to manchuria waving flags and declaring chinese territory as there own. it’s not likely that china has aspirations to claim any part of north korea as that will bring on a nuclear war.
lastly, let me state clearly:
korea will be a power in it’s own right and will be able to defend itself with or without it’s ‘distant ally’.
korea is not a victim of anything or anyone.
Shin Jong Il holds:
“China’s attempt to claim Koguryo is likely a reaction to the big mouth Koreans going up to Manchuria waving flags and declaring Chinese territory as their own. It’s not likely that China has aspirations to claim any part of North Korea as that will bring on a nuclear war.”
Maybe not, and let’s hope not. But historical revisionism can take on a life of its own. I wouldn’t take China’s claims very lightly, and a lot of Koreans seem to feel the same way.
Let’s keep in mind that China came to the aid on North Korea in the Korean War. If North Korea collapses, might not China see it in its own national interest to prevent Korean unification? Might they not again come to the aid of their ‘ally’? And such ‘aid’ might grow longterm and come to be grounded in the ‘history’ of Goguryeo as China’s vassal state. China could make its incorporation of the North a fact on the ground by settling millions of Han Chinese there — much as they’ve done in Tibet and the Xinjiang. The logic of China’s Goguryeo argument easily leads this way if the circumstances permit.
Do I think this scenario is likely? Not especially. But it’s a possible future and ought to be foreclosed by insistence that Goguryeo did not belong to China (accompanied by a solid historical argument, of course). And it means that China would need to know that an occupation of China’s ancient Goguryeo ‘province’ would be totally unacceptable (and effectively opposed).
As for your view on Korea’s self-sufficiency:
“Korea will be a power in its own right and will be able to defend itself with or without its ‘distant ally’.”
Eventually, perhaps it could, but the costs of unification will be high (see Germany), and the reality is that a unified Korea will be a relatively minor power wedged between a superpower (China) and a possibly resurgent Japan. With enough military spending Korea could probably defend itself if necessary, I agree — and an expensive arsenal of nuclear weapons would likely serve as an effective deterrant. But the military budget will likely be quite large and would continue to grow in response to an arms race among these three local, mutually distrustful powers.
There are advantages to having a distant ally — including shared defense and lower military costs. If Koreans don’t like the alliance with the U.S. (and there’s always a downside to having an ally), then a different distant ally could be sought. I think that Korea will need one because I expect China to throw its weight around as it grows in economic and military power and because Northeast Asia is a very unstable geopolitical area.
Jeffery Hodges
“Koreans like John Edwards don’t seem to realize that soldiers are humans, not angels. Korean troops commit crimes too, but unlike crimes committed by US troops, these are not blown out of proportion. Koreans carry out rapes, pollute the environment, commit murders but they don’t get the kind of resentment directed at US troops.” said Zhang Fei.
But you know, Korean troops don’t commit the crimes on foreign soil. You have to take that into account, Zhang Fei. Don’t get upset by this latest comment. I’m just pointing it out for you.
Paul said that it would be cheaper for the USFK to get of Korea. But that doesn’t make sense, as the South Korean government is paying the USFK for all their expenses. The USFK only spends the money, and rarely pays for their own expenses.
By the way everyone, most of the youth of Korea, those ranging in age from 5~15, are in favor of a U.S. presence. We can just wait and allow the young people to grow up and take over the majority of public votes. so stop thinking that all of the Koreans want the U.S. forces out. The older people certainly don’t, the young are simply biased, and the kids are more logical than their older brothers and sisters. Not to mention, North Korea is leaking spies in to the south to arouse Anti-American feelings. So, the anti-American sentiment can be a result of North Korean interference.
P.S. Zhang Fei, I’m not a Korean, so stop thinking that I am.
Korea has the economic and military power to defend itself against the starving North Koreans. The South has twice the population of the North and it’s GNP is about 40 times larger. North Korea has outdated military equipment and no fuel or spare parts for its 1960-70’s era planes and tanks. Which is why they want nuclear weapons so badly.
We should leave a token force in Korea (at most) and leave. Our only interest in Korea is regional stability and, as others have discussed, we can provide that our bases in Japan.
Though I still like the idea of the South Koreans holding a referendum to decide whether they want us to stay or not. In any case, it’s be interesting to see what the NGOs do when they don’t have our troops to kick around anymore.
Our interests and that of South Korea continue to diverge. We want to keep N. Korea from getting WMD that might end up in the hands of Al Queda. South Korea wants to keep Seoul from getting flattened, at any cost, even if it means Kim Jong Il selling WMD all over the world for hard currency.
Thank you Marmot for the facts and citation correcting the totally erroneous impression made by John Edwards about the bill for stationing US forces in South Korea.
You’re correct, but the main point of my argument is non-economic. We need our troops available for use elsewhere. I agree that the North no longer has the strength to attack on the ground and conquer South Korea as they tried to to do in June through August of 1950. So our ground forces are not needed there and can be re-deployed for use in the Middle East, or placed in strategic reserve stateside.
Yes the interests of the U.S. and South Korea are rapidly divulging. If South Korea is going to tolerate the North Korean development of nuclear weapons as a matter of Korean pride, then the U.S and South Korea can no longer be allies.
If South Korea is going to tolerate the worldwide proliferation of nuclear weapons and/or components by North Korea, then the U.S and South Korea can no longer be friends.
If the North Koreans demand economic support to stop development and proliferation of nuclear weapons — their South Korean brothers can provide it, from the money South Korea saves not having to subsidize continued U.S. force ground deployment.
Plus Japan is ready to pay billions in WWII reparations to the North once a final agreement is concluded — yes?
Bring our ground forces out now.
Mr. Hodges:
thank you for the above post. i thought it was great. i hope to read more from you.
shin
I think the US should leave Japan and Korea and let them spend their own money on their defense.
Add to the mix things like this and I see no reason to stay
http://www.hani.co.kr/section-.....25001.html
Hey, give the Hani credit — at least it mentioned that Korean air bases are just as loud:
They say people living near a U.S. airbase in Chuncheon City, Gangwon Province, and Korean air force facilities in Hoengseong-gun and Chungju City, also in Gangwon Province, suffer similar noise levels. The damage from the noise is clear, so when residents are unable to sue the state or unable to follow through with their lawsuits after they go to trial, it is entirely because of their difficult economic circumstances as the weak in our society.
I direct you to a comment I made on an earlier post on P’yongt’aek:
Like I said, it’s not as if the residents have nothing to complain about, but come on, sound pollution? Yeah, it sucks, but it’s just as serious an issue near major Korean air force installations — I used to go to T’angeumdae in Ch’ungju to watch the KF-16s land, and I’ll tell you, those things were loud. Heck, we have Korean F-5s taking off and landing all the time at nearby Kwangju AFB, and not only are they loud as hell, but the base is smack dab in the middle of some prime Jeolla-do farmland. I shudder to imagine the noise levels at the massive Korean base in Seosan, Ch’ungnam Province — they’ve probably got F-16s running training missions there non-stop.
Air bases, by their very nature, are large and loud. Unfortunately, the military application of controlled flight has proven itself quite useful since the First World War, and given Korea’s geography, there aren’t a whole lot of empty places where you can stick airfields, and that’s a problem shared by both the US and ROK air forces. It puts the locals living in the vacinity in a tough spot, unless they happened to get off watching military aircraft (which few do, I gather), but the reality is that, at least for the ROKAF, there’s a need for air bases in Korea, so some unlucky communities are going to have to get stuck with them.
Shin Jong Il, you are welcome. I hope to post here when I have time. It has been interesting.
Jeffery Hodges
Found this link in the Wash Times and haven’t seen comments here in Korea yet. Perhaps it is old news, but it doesn’t appear to be a casual change by any means.
“… Among the command elements that will most likely be dismantled in South Korea are the U.N. Command (UNC), U.S. Forces Korea (USFK), the Combined Forces Command (CFC), and the Eighth U.S. Army. In Japan, United States Forces Japan (USFJ) will disappear, but a new operational corps headquarters led by a lieutenant general will be set up.
In addition, the position of the four-star general who commands the UNC, USFK and CFC will be abolished. At the same time, plans call for establishing a new billet for an Army four-star general at the headquarters of the U.S. Army Pacific at Fort Shafter in Hawaii. He will take control of Army forces in the Pacific region now under the command of a three-star general… ”
Gen La Porte would be the last US 4 Star posted in Korea.
http://www.washtimes.com/world.....-9821r.htm