“We have moved troops off of the DMZ, where frankly, they were performing nothing except, a kind of useless — and indeed I would say counterproductive — tripwire function,” Wolfowitz said.
What I want to know, however, is how AFP came up with this:
South Korea is seeking assurances that the 4,000 troops will return once their Iraq mission is concluded and has vigorously opposed any reduction in US troops, finding comfort that the presence of US troops in the region virtually guarantees immediate US military involvement if North Korea were to invade the South.
Uhhh…
(Hat tip to the Flying Yangban)
8 Comments
They’re not coming back. Either Dear Leader gets wacked by the Chinese, or South Korea have to learn to deal with him. He’s not going anywhere.
I’m not a regular reader. Are you saying that AFP is lying or that the ROK is hypocritical.
Fuck em and let them deal with their own shit. - anonymous commenator
Hm, what a refined political analysis. I’m astouned!
The Korean government and people became lousy hosts. If I invite you to my home, and I insult you all night, I’m crazy to expect you to stay. Withdrawal was inevitable.
My problem with the AFP report was that the gov’t is not “seeking assurances that the 4,000 troops will return once their Iraq mission is concluded,” nor has it “vigorously opposed any reduction in US troops.” Granted, some political parties (and news agencies) are concerned, as is, I’m sure, a large chunk of the older population. But President Roh and the Uri Party don’t seem to care very much. Basically, all they’re saying is “Don’t worry. Nothing here to concern us.” I happened to agree with them on this. If there’s anything I don’t like, it’s the criticism coming from some segments (both left and right) criticising the U.S. for making a “unilateral decision” in deciding to pull out the brigades. Yeah, between allies, you’d hope for more discussion before something like this happens, but South Korea hasn’t acted like much of an ally for the last two presidential administrations, and those who find the way in which the U.S. informed Seoul of its decision crude should not have found it unexpected.
The Korea Lies in their editorial today said this:
“Nor does the latest U.S. decision have much to do with the anti-American ??р?more correctly, less pro-American - atmosphere here or the left-of-center Roh Moo-hyun administration.”
I almost fell off the chair laughing when I read that one! The translation is: “Well, nothing we have done could have ever had a consequence.”
Yea, right.
I do not see any US troops leaving Japan
Ahh, that’s the answer I was looking for. And yes, it was the “unilateral decision” nonsense that was confusing me. Once again, I assume this is part of the “You didn’t allow us to boss you around on the matter!” complaint.
I happen to agree with the logical conclusion of your own point of view, but not your stated view (which means I don’t care to consult the Koreans at all).
We should, however, get political points out of this and do it in pieces. Pull out a squad here, a squad there over months. Make them unsure whether or not we’re really going to stay at all. Unfortunately, the US doesn’t play those games. Be nice if we did. Make ‘em sweat.
You’re pal kimchi is right, though. We’re not going to pull out of Japan because, on whole if not in part, the Japanese don’t suck ass (this being the technical, geopolitical term for Korean societal attitudes). Let’s be fair, the Koreans don’t need us as a tripwire because we’re going to be involved no matter what. We’re just a way for the SoKor’s to ease their army budget on the US taxpayer’s back.
We should start clarifying things by asking the South Koreans to pay for our troop presence. They won’t pay, but it will clarify our position as their benefactor, wouldn’t it?
All the more reasons for SK nukes. And no to the expensive US contracted anti missile defense systems that does not even work. Nuff with the moral righteousness of American generosity.