Comments on: Changes a’brewin’ in Pacific Command — MUST READ!!!

By: hardyandtiny

hardyandtiny — Fri, 17 Jun 2005 07:14:02 +0000

“I think the Japanese are out to make friends with the one country that will back their security.”

That’s nature.Every country that ever existed does that.

By: hardyandtiny

hardyandtiny — Fri, 17 Jun 2005 07:09:11 +0000

?€œWasn?€™t (a type of) global force restructuing also a thing of the whole decade of the 1990s? They have been reviewing bases around the world for shut down for a long time.?€œ

US military overseas base consolidations and personnel reductions happen for various reasons. However, the increase and decrease of military personnel and bases in a specific area does not coincide with the ability to create the same force within that area.

“The plan hasn?€™t always been consistent?€?
Bottom line, all of this has been in the works one way or another for many years ?€” years beyond Roh?€??€?

They are major international relationships, of course they are not consistent. They are meant to be flexible and hopefully absorb change. All of what has been planned for many years?

By: changehappens

changehappens — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 21:16:14 +0000

The US isn’t myopic about developments in Asia. Asia has the US’s complete attention now due to the arrival of nukes in China’s client state of NORK and of course the rise of China. Asia today is like it was for the US in WWII. Its a region that only mobile forces are of value, if a country wants to prevail in times of conflict. GI’s glued to South Korean soil is a liability especially when the NORK’s have nuclear weapons. What American President wants to face a land war in Korea where 25,000 US troops could be turned to burnt bacon in the course of an afternoon? There is a necessity for the US to move mobile firepower, mainly Airforce and Navy, to the Pacific and remove its vulnerable fixed installations. This article isn’t farfetched at all, if you look at from a nuclear armed NORK point of view. To me its clear that US land based forces will be withdrawn.

By: grannmann

grannmann — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:08:07 +0000

Sounds like a great plan. The US and Japan are working together because they are allies. Allies have shared interests and therefore shared responsibilities. The US and Korea are trading partners who see things too differently to be considered allies. Clearly, the US has regional and global responibilites to consider. S. Korea wants to use US troops as a hedge-bet against the north, while retaining the right to undercut the US position when politically convenient. Roh was elected by the S. Korean people. When he’s gone, they will probably elect a new leader with a similar outlook. So better for the US to make the obvious switch in allignment and alliances now, and stop wasting time complaining about it.

By: Wedge

Wedge — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 01:09:45 +0000

“Is it just me, or does it seem the Japanese aren?€™t out to make friends in the region? (Not that I blame them)”

I think the Japanese are out to make friends with the one country that will back their security.

Also, just because the Dr. No administration sucks doesn’t mean the next one won’t be as bad. Time to move our forces to Guam.

By: usinkorea

usinkorea — Wed, 15 Jun 2005 22:09:52 +0000

Wasn’t (a type of) global force restructuing also a thing of the whole decade of the 1990s? They have been reviewing bases around the world for shut down for a long time. The plan hasn’t always been consistent — meaning - in the early 1990s, it looked like USFK was on the way out, as part of the global reconfiguration, but then the 1994 crisis and pressure from Korea came, and the plan was basically mothballed, and then 9/11 came, and the plan has taken renewed interests. Bottom line, all of this has been in the works one way or another for many years — years beyond Roh…

By: Blog Archive Asia Pacific Realignment

Blog Archive Asia Pacific Realignment — Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:59:36 +0000

[...] Tuesday, June 14th, 2005 at 7:59 pm by Jason I sure hope that this is accurate. [...]

By: Kushibo

Kushibo — Wed, 15 Jun 2005 16:48:41 +0000

Seoul, or at least the Roh administration seems bent on having the US military here on the peninsula as some sort of deterrent against the North and perhaps a way to help train their armed forces but nothing more.It is very, very unwise of Bush (or any US president) to base their long-term plans on what the highly unpopular Roh administration (which won’t even be here in three years) wants, says, or does. There are plenty who support what the US wants because they know that ultimately it’s in their best interests.There are groups in the South that are vocal about their displeasure with what they deem as unfair treatment offered to the US military and there are those that would like to be able to redevelop at least some of the land the US military currently occupies.The unfair treatment has largely been addressed, and the move to Pyongtaek is already well underway. I think those bones of contention have been broken. Let the healing begin!A complete withdraw of all USFK would be detrimental to all parties but the realignment discussed here seems to be quite plausible.The re-alignment is happening (fewer but more strategically deployed troops moved to fewer but more efficient bases with a smaller footprint), but I question whether having USFK commanded from outside Korea is a good idea.I agree with Kushibo, there does seem to be a certain sense of you have been making this problem for some time message addressed to the Korean leadership in the announcement that may or may not happen. The bottom line is that the US does need flexible use of those troops and if they are not allowed to have what they need as things are, they will find another way to get what they need-even if that means significant troop restructuring.I just hope Bush addressed that in their summit. It’s something that a lot of people understand, but does his administration get it? If they don’t, I think it’s better to wait it out for the next one (but keep dropping those hints).

By: James

James — Wed, 15 Jun 2005 16:34:19 +0000

I think the situation reflects the diverging and increasingly opposing interests at stake. Seoul, or at least the Roh administration seems bent on having the US military here on the peninsula as some sort of deterrent against the North and perhaps a way to help train their armed forces but nothing more. There are groups in the South that are vocal about their displeasure with what they deem as unfair treatment offered to the US military and there are those that would like to be able to redevelop at least some of the land the US military currently occupies. A complete withdraw of all USFK would be detrimental to all parties but the realignment discussed here seems to be quite plausible. I agree with Kushibo, there does seem to be a certain sense of you have been making this problem for some time message addressed to the Korean leadership in the announcement that may or may not happen. The bottom line is that the US does need flexible use of those troops and if they are not allowed to have what they need as things are, they will find another way to get what they need-even if that means significant troop restructuring.

By: Kushibo

Kushibo — Wed, 15 Jun 2005 15:31:14 +0000

The article includes language that may have been similar in whatever reports were seen: “That may be cut further since Seoul has denied the U.S. the ?€œstrategic flexibility?€? to dispatch U.S. forces from South Korea to contingencies elsewhere. [emphasis mine]

You are right that various options are being considered, and I think the language used here is a message to several different groups that if Roh is not careful, the worst case scenario may be the one Rummy goes with. It is a message to give up opposition to USFK having strategic flexibility (something I hope Bush brought up with Roh in Washington). I think it may also be a message for ROK military leadership (who probably don’t like much of anything Roh is doing) to speak up on in favor of fixing the Korean side of what’s wrong with the alliance.