Well, this shouldn’t come as a surprise:
The half-century alliance between South Korea and the United States has encountered bumps in the road and the trouble will continue, depending on choices that South Koreans decide to make, a U.S. expert said Thursday.
In a lecture in Seoul, Don Oberdorfer, adjunct professor of international relations at Johns Hopkins University in the U.S., expressed concerns that relations between the two allies are in trouble now both at the popular and leadership levels.
“Recently, the divergences on the societal and political level have become more serious than in the past. I believe they threaten the alliance in a more fundamental way and to a greater degree than was the case before,” the former Washington Post journalist said.
Read the rest on your own.
26 Comments
Part of the reduction in Korea is less people but being just as ready for possible wartime deployments as before. Less infantry means those slots are gone, but the overall support role for facilitating incoming deployments remains. Contrary to what you may believe, that is doctrine.
The point I?m getting at is that while it may be counterintuitive for you to think that a one-third troop reduction doesn?t mean a one-third civilian/contractor reduction, the logistics of it means it?s so. I?ve personally seen offices where half the military left, but was replaced by contractors. Military billets gone, the same job getting done, or even more. It?s happening in the other areas I mentioned as well. There are also other things I am not going to discuss on a blog.
That you don?t appear to be seeing or aware of that?? well, again, you?re missing the big picture, and it doesn?t appear you have access to some information (e.g., even the fact that there is no U.S. civilian hiring freeze at all, etc.).
I never implied anything about closed camps having open anything; that?s a red herring argument.
Hopefully as more prominent individuals make such observations, the politicians and generals will see the light and pull us out of Korea entirely before we waste billions of dollars lining Korean pockets in this massive base realignment and closure plan which shall prove to be temporary at best.
While Oberdorfer?s ??Two Koreas? was an excellent work (aside from the notes section, which is kind of a nightmare to follow) and was very objective (compare Oberdorfer?s section on Kim Dae-jung being kidnapped and Kwangju to Bruce Cumings on the same topic ? makes Cumings look like the biased, subjective hack that he really is), he is a little off base on this. I?m disappointed (and I know how much he cares about that!) since it appears to be his politics trumping the facts ? he is no Bush supporter.
Oberdorfer says that the U.S. went unilateral after 9/11. In Afghanistan, no. In Iraq, yes. In Korea? Our North Korea policy didn?t really change after 9/11, since as critics note, it didn?t really exist except as one of guarded neglect. He is right about the u-turn in South Korean politics/popular opinion after the Kim Dae-jung administration purchased a summit (and Nobel Peace Prize) for something to the tune of half a billion dollars.
And did the U.S. take a more ??nationalistic? path after 9/11 than it did in 1994 when we were perhaps days from attacking North Korea over the nuclear issue? Not at all. While the Clinton administration chose to ignore intel about the North violating the 1994 Agreed Framework (the Pakistan fiasco), U.S. commitment to non-proliferation never changed. The only real change in U.S. policy towards North Korea of note is the Bush administration insistence on keeping the Six-Party process intact, but even before that the U.S. normally insisted on at least South Korean inclusion.
On the future need of USFK, Oberdorfer is wrong. The North Korean threat was of course the reason for the U.S. to come (back) to Korea, and while a remote possibility still exists to protect against, no one on either side really expects the North to attack. No, the new reason to keep USFK is to prevent a regional arms race and all the problems that entails. The scenario goes like this;
1.) Korea unites, yeah! But then they are poor. National defense becomes an unwanted financial burden, and the North?s conventional arsenal is practically useless. What to do, hmmm….
2.) Japan continues to take a greater hand in the region and the world (peace keepers, etc.), making both China and (unified) Korea nervous
3.) China continues its massive force modernization, also making Japan and Korea uncomfortable. For Korea, China?s talk of Koguryo as its former territory is seen as more of a threat than the Japanese claim to Tokdo
4.) As the arms race between Japan and China begins to escalate, the attractiveness of the nuclear option becomes much greater for both Japan and Korea, both of which have the technical ability to easily go that way
5.) Either Japan or Korea ? doesn?t really matter which one ? eventually goes nuclear, prompting the other to follow suit
6.) The regional arms race continues, leaving stability in the dust
This is a potential proliferation/war nightmare, and is reason enough for the U.S. to stay in both Japan and Korea, although no one in any of the governments (that I?m aware of) is willing to say so at this point in time.
Richardson,
I agree with you. This is what I think will happen when USFK withdraws with an “empty promise” to come back when South Korea is in trouble.
1) South Korea implodes. Street fights break out daily between the pro-Democracy and the pro-North factions as happened in VietNam after the US withdrawal.
2) Commies(pro-North) wins as Kimbob predicted in one of his posts. Pro-Democracy has no backers while pro-North faction gets material supports from NK and more importantly from China. In the end, Koreas unites under KJI.
3) KJI is basically a Chinese dog. Korea becomes the “enforcer” or “trouble-maker” against Japan and the US. Korea continues to develop missle technology with nuke heads that can reach America. Basically, the united Korea does what NK is doing right now.
4) WWIII? Or, Domino(Japan and Taiwan just giving up to join the greater Chinese empire, which will be renamed the Greater Asian Empire of the fiction,1984)? Too difficult to foresee.
Anyway, it is not good for the US. As I wrote many times, “Penny-wise and pound-foolish”.
Korea has 1% Commie and 1% pro-America factions in population. 98% of Koreans think “I don’t want to die. I must join the winning team for survival of me, my family and my parents”.
Korean society teaches this Asian survival skill from the early childhood. Find the “power” and kiss ass. If you go to a Korean company meeting, only one speaking is the president. No one dares to speak up. Even when the president opens up the floor for suggestions, no one speaks for 5 mins. Then, the number 2 man in the company speaks, basically applauding the president’s decision. And, he kisses ass to the max.
This is Korean Logic. And, Korean way to survive.
Korea can go either way at any moment depending on who is the president. Before Kim DaeJoong, Korea’s presidents were overwhelmingly pro-American. Kim and now president Rho are pro-North. Therefore, Korea appears to be somewhat in the pro-Commie mode right now.
After the next election, when pro-American president comes into power, I am sure of this, you will see 98% of Koreans becoming pro-American again. It may become too pro-American for my liking, even to the extent of losing objectivity.
But, the USFK pulls out, Korean people will surely all turn into pro-North Commies. Koreans are different from Taiwanese who are truly anti-Communists from the beginning. And, from the Japanese who have some historical backbone.
Koreans are more like the VietNamese or one of SouthAmerican or CentralAmerican countries. The country can change overnight. Korean people are into survival. They are not into dying for a cause.
I don’t think USFK will ever leave, or at least for many decades. While no leadership is stating the reason I give for staying, many are aware.
It?s much better to have a few thousand stationed in Korea and have Korea hate America, than to leave Korea and perhaps open the way for a WW V (I consider the ??Cold War? to have been WW III ? the winner gets the terrorists, which is WW IV) where hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans would die.
Once it is more evident to Koreans that Japan is again rising, and that China is not a friend, they will also want the U.S. to stay, much the way the majority does now.
USKF may reduce its numbers, but it won?t leave.
Richardson, but how long can they really stay in Korea if there is no public support? It just seems to me that the alliance can be stronger if US leaves Korea. That would shift the burden of improving Korean public view of America, back to ROK. And it’s not like US aircraft carriers and fighters are fixed turrets. Heck, couldn’t US do what it does with Chinese missile exercises? Just have the 7th fleet go back and forth.
I think it’s better for the United States to put itself in a position where the ally begs for help instead of sorta wavering this way and that.
Although I wonder, how much it actually costs United States to shift all that military resources from there. And also by how much military response time gets prolonged. But I can’t picture US lobbing cruise missiles in there so why bother burning the tax bucks all at the same time just poking at the beehive?
At the very least, a serious threat to pullout my create “I love you” demonstrations that would at least count for something.
I donno. A training accident caused all this mess. All I know is that there will be more accidents in the future, and sooner or later people get fatigued.
Wonder what Raytheon, Boeing, and other weapons peddlers think of losing South Korea as a preferred customer if the US withdraws.
This was a festering problem long before the accident in June 2002??
Remember the outcry when we (U.S.) announced we were pulling troops back from the DMZ? Both South AND North Korea didn’t like that. The South felt abandoned, the North threatened (as if we were planning to pull those troops back before attacking).
Most Koreans want the U.S. in Korea, ??until the situation is stable.? The thing is, if we make noise about leaving, they feel the situation isn?t stable and don?t want that change. Which is fine.
If the U.S. staying in Korea pisses off that portion of the public that is pan-mi, good. Let
??em stay all worked up and stressed out over it. In the long run it?s better for the entire region and the U.S. if USFK stays in both Korea and Japan. As long as the ROK government continues to realize that, screw the pan-mi crowd.
Every time it comes down to brass tack ? even Carter?s own staff had to practically beat him over the head to get him to realize it ? when the idea of pull-out is critically looked at, it is rejected. By both sides. I am sure the ROK military will convince even their executive branch, even if a more pathetic one comes to power.
Wonder what Raytheon, Boeing, and other weapons peddlers think of losing South Korea as a preferred customer if the US withdraws.
Aw c’mon, can you think of even one time in the past half century when the United States ran even a momentary trade surplus with the ROK?
This whole “alliance-solely-for-the-benefit-of-making-money-off-korea-in-arms-sales” line is getting pretty old now doncha think?
Who really stands to lose the most from an alliance breakup: Boeing or Samsung?
There’s writing on the wall here folks, and the Korean press hasn’t picked up on it yet.
This is not just a USFK leave or not leave question. It’s obvious the USFK has plans to leave eventually, slowly. They’ve already reduced forces to under 30,000 from nearly 38,000 on the day the two girls were killed.
Two years from now that number will be 25,000. Five years from now, signs are that it will be even less.
But please keep in mind, this is not the whole story.
When USFK removes one third [or more] of its military forces, it is also removing a proportionate number of civilian support jobs, both US and Korean, and a large number of contractors, family members, and others.
The initial impact of this is tens of millions of dollars no longer flowing into the local economy, and that’s the part of this story the local press has shown most with stories about job losses in Chunchon, Uijongbu, and Itaewon as troop numbers decline and some outlying posts turn off the lights.
The Korean press has only told part of the story.
USFK is leaving. It is the will of the Korean people.
But while it is leaving, it is cultivating Japan to take on its role of regional watchdog.
USFK isn’t leaving a security gap; that would only mean they would have to come right back again. They aren’t going far; just to Guam, Hawaii, etc. They are very mobile and can return quickly if necessary, but even more to the point, they are leaving behind something no one in the Hanchongryon or Roh administration even suspected when reductions were first announced: a mature Japan as regional overseer.
When that story finally gets fully developed in the local news, the Yankee Go Home protests will subside slightly. But it will be too late.
The damage has been done.
There are no plans for USFK to leave, slowly or otherwise. A planned reduction in troops, with an upgrade of equipment, yes, but a pull-out no. You see the same base consolidation in the U.S. with BRAC. This isn’t like reading tea leaves; there is no reason to read more into it, especially when it goes against logic. Also, less troops do not in any way mean less civilian or contractors on the ground, in many cases quite the contrary. It’s a nice trick to pull troops and use contractors in their place when possible; looks better on the books.
As far as public opinion, whenever USFK made noise about moving some troops out, polls swung sharply the other way. Besides that, ROK leadership will face the reality of the need for a continued U.S. presence when it gets right down to it, and I doubt the next administration could be as anti-U.S. as the current one.
There is no reason for USFK to leave Korea, despite the vindictive opinion of those fed up with anti-Americanism. It might feel good to rant about it, but it has little place in the facts of the matter as they relate to the security situation in East Asia.
Military arms sales are not a significant reason for the alliance, but Uncle Sam is the world’s biggest arms exporter, and US companies profit from our global military presence.
Given that this is a Korean blog, most of the discussion has centered on Korean views of the alliance. I’d like to know what America gets for the $20 billion it spends maintaining troops in Korea. Why do we need to keep 37,000 troops in Korea?
I?d like to know what America gets for the $20 billion it spends maintaining troops in Korea. Why do we need to keep 37,000 troops in Korea?
1. We get to play the part of the world’s last superpower very convincingly.
2. We don’t.
Also, less troops do not in any way mean less civilian or contractors on the ground, in many cases quite the contrary. It?s a nice trick to pull troops and use contractors in their place when possible; looks better on the books.
Huh? You’re joking, right.
So in May when we closed the doors, lowered the flag, and turned off the lights at places like Camp LaGuardia, Camp Page, and others, nearly 3,000 troops all left Korea taking their equipment with them, and we turned over important miitary missions to the ROK, but somehow the civilian workforce is still sitting there? Doing what?
Even when the troops don’t leave Korea, but merely relocate to consolidate with existing units, how many secretaries does one office need? How many janitors at one gym? How many Burger King burger flippers, video rental clerks, and drivers do you need when the troops are reduced?
USFK has had a hiring freeze for both US and Korean civilian employees for over a year now as they reduce their numbers through attritiion [and refusal to grant extensions to temp employees]. The KEU was even in the streets threatening a full strike about plans to reduce KGS numbers. What part of that indicates a “trick” to simply replace troops with civilians in order to look good on the books?
Some places close, some places open. Been to Pyeongtaek lately? I was there this summer scouting sites.
The trend for years has been to move support jobs (comm, services, maintenance, etc.) away from military billets and to civilian/contractor positions. That?s DoD wide. While I was in Europe, over a decade ago, I saw this happen with most of Army fixed communications (I was AF). Ever worked in the Pentagon? DIAC? HQ INSCOM? More and more civilian/contractor billets every day. More suits than uniforms.
Go do a search a usajobs.com for South Korea ? there are 62 DoD job announcements right now, many for mi-pal-gun, and many of those for multiple positions per announcement. Go to contractor sites and do a job search for Korea ? they can?t find enough contractors do fill them.
It?s perhaps a bigger picture view that what you?re taking.
Unless you’re speaking of something different, Korean civilians are being reduced (by at least 1,000) because the ROK government decided to unilaterally reduce the amount it is contributing to the upkeep of USFK, which includes those workers salaries. The ROK govt decided not to pay since they (wrongly) figured their contribution in Iraq defrayed that. It is an entirely different subject from USFK troop reduction.
The trend for years has been to move support jobs (comm, services, maintenance, etc.) away from military billets and to civilian/contractor positions.
Moving back to the topic at hand….
Exactly how many civilian helicopter mechanics do you need in Korea when your squadron moves its helicopters to Colorado and Alaska?
How many civilian gate security guards and landscaping crews do you need when you close 40 installations over a five year period?
How many civilian barbershops, school crossing guards, mail clerks, secretaries, wire splicers, or building custodians do you need when your force goes from 38,000 to 25,000 and you consolidate onto less than two dozen installations?
Yes, Pyongtake is building up. Duh, it’s getting ready for the oft-predicted never-implmented Yongsan Relocation to happen. Units that don’t leave Korea are moving there. And yes, that may require the hiring of some civilian bodies since not every civilian is able or wiling to pick up stakjes and follow the camp. No doubt. But what do you suppose happened to the 213 civilians who use to work at Camp Page? Still there you think? Just waiting and wondering where the troops went?
There’s no specially designed “replace-greensuiters-with-civilians” plan happening in Korea. That’s a macro DOD thing that has been going on for years. It has no special relevance here that it doesn’t also have in North Carolina. You can’t use that as an escape.
Korea is simply losing troops, and with it losing the civilian support staff that has absolutely no reason to be here without the troops. That story hasn’t featured in the local news.
Or are you really trying to suggest that all those closed camps still have open gyms, fully functional offices with secretaries and properly installed and maintained automatoin equipment, and of course the grass is being clipped nice and short every Friday?
It hits the local economy hard when troops leave, but it may just hurt even harder when civilians leave; at least on a per capita basis.
When troops leave, we’re mostly talking about enlisted folks who sleep in the barracks on base and may play downtown on the weekends once or twice a month. When civilian support staff leave you’re talking about tens of millions in lost revenue for local landlords. Plus all the money spent on the economy by families living off post.
Just the civilian staff in Yongsan accounts for 50 million dollars US tax dollars per year in local rental costs. Every civilian above GS-9 lives off post and Uncle Sam pays through the nose for their apartments.
With troops reductions, and simultaneous civilian support staff reductions, landlords are going to suck wind for a while trying to fill their places.
It’s visible all around us here. Why aren’t you seeing that?
Richardson, I apologize for not catching this earlier, but I admit I read your previous post in great haste.
So, let me see if I have this straight. Please feel free to comment and correct me if I?m wrong.
Based on a single visit to Pyongtaek that you made last summer, during which you contend you counted more civilian suits than military uniforms, you are convinced, and would also have the rest of us believe, that there is an unannounced plan [a conspiracy, perhaps] to take the military war-fighter, conflict deterring positions in USFK [that have been scheduled for removal from the peninsula] and turn them over to the civilian/contractor counterparts. And that in the end, despite reducing USFK troop strength by a one third [nearly 13,000 military personnel] and closing upwards of 40 installations over the course of five years, at the end of that time USFK end strength will be about the same because USFK will simultaneously be increasing its need for civilians of all kinds. The purpose of this plan you declare to be to ?make the books look good.??
So, while USFK may be sending tank drivers, helicopter pilots, infantry and artillery men back to locations all over the globe, they are secretly hiring civilian contractors to either conduct or support these missions, which plan may result in USFK having even greater numbers in a few years than it has now.
And you formed these conclusions based on a single ?scouting?? visit to a single military site on a single day last summer. You were led to your conclusions by noting the number of civilian suits in the crowds you saw that day, and you attribute the greater number of civilian workers not to any number of factors such as military field exercises which would have drained off many of the uniformed troops during that time, or to a civilian training meeting that may have been happening that day, or to different work schedules which would have caused more civilians to be on the streets at the same time as you, or to simple observation bias [we see what we?re looking for] or to any number of other factors, but rather you attribute this noted difference to a rapid and heretofore unannounced buildup in civilian workforce strength on the Korean peninsula.
Really. I think you should report this to your Congressman right now. Who knows what other shenanigans USFK might be up to.
Then, when I questioned your conclusions your fallback position is that military slots all over the world are being replaced by civilians, yet you point this out without being able to name a single slot in Korea that has recently been ?civilianized?? where its CONUS counterpart has not.
You know what? I think we have hashed out this thread as far as we can go. It?s clear your numbers are flawless based on your in depth research and keen observations. There is little left now to discuss. Good day.
No need to apologize threedogdad, you just listen (i.e., read). A lot better.
Let me be very clear; stop the red herrings. If you don?t understand something ? and there is ample evidence for that ? ask, but don?t fabricate some fact/position and take me completely out of context to try to debate against that imaginary fact/position. Clear?
Where did I say I made a ??single? visit to Pyoengteak?
Answer: I didn?t say that.
I said, ??I was there this summer scouting sites.?
It was the summer. You know, the hot part of the year. The entire area. Hence ??scouting.? The fact that you somehow read a ??single? trip into that, after reading again ??carefully,? is?? telling.
You then based the rest of your ill-reasoned post on that mistake. That?s not a good thing.
Then again, you also stated that there is a U.S. and local job freeze due to draw-down, but were wrong on both counts (U.S. civilians and contractors are being hired, and the local freeze is due to an entirely different reason), and that information could have been found by reading a newspaper.
If you don?t get the basic logistics, fine, I?ll try to bring it down a few notches.
USFK is there as the ??tripwire,? which in this case means a combat role itself and to facilitate the massive influx of more troops in the event of war. So the infantry, armor, air, etc. have their own combat missions separate from the influx support role of USFK. Two overall separate missions (combat and support for incoming elements). Got it?
This is as simple as it can be put and still be coherent:
1.) Both those missions share some support resources. Therefore, if one of those missions is drastically reduced (e.g. combat troops/armor), the support cannot be proportionally reduced since it would detract from the other mission whose requirements have not changed.
2.) If all the combat troops/armor/air was removed, the other mission would still be there. So if all the support was removed with all the combat troops, the other mission could not be accomplished.
3.) Putting it together; it means there is a point after which proportional reductions in support are impossible to implement without degrading the influx mission.
Remember, no need to apologize, just pay attention and don?t take people out of the obvious context as you have been doing with me. It seems you may not be aware of a lot going on there, so please stow the smart-ass attitude. Thanks ahead of time.
Well, it?s late where I?m at so I?m signing off.
Sonagi,
USFK pulling out of South Korea would probably been a boon for the US military arms producers, as well as the French, Brits, Israelis, and Russians.
South Korea would not just sit and wait for the North to march South. They would increase their defense budgets big time and buy tons of stuff.
Right now, they can keep their defense budgets low because the US is supplying what extra they need for a deterent to the North.
As for the great arms exporting mantra. So what?
I think Rwanda pointed out that human social nature doesn’t need F-16s and smart bombs or even M-16s to produce large scale slaughter.
So, if you want to build a convincing argument that without the US arms industry producing what it has, the world would have been a much safer, peaceful place, go ahead.
It sure as heck isn’t a given…….
Oh, FYI, LTG Campbell signed the hiring freeze on 27 April this year. Yes, there is still hiring on-going for some positions, but the order has not been rescinded yet. If Marmot has a way to post such things, I can send him a copy.
Here’s the critical language. Please let me know if this lacks enough clarity for you.
“Effective upon receipt, Eight US Army will impose a hiring freeze on all KN appropriuated and non-appropriated fund positions, and all US appropriated fund positions to minimize impact of RIF due to funding shortfalls. UNC, CFC, and USFK headquarters will also implement this hiring freeze.”
Exceptions to the policy are authorized, hence the whopping 62 jobs you noted on the website, but hiring approval must be granted by the commander.
Any more questions?
So, lemme do the math here.
We reduce greensuiters by 13,000, but USFK is currently hiring 62 civilians, and you noted that they are having a difficult time filling these slots [though I don't recall you mentioning how you knew that], and somehow these numbers will even out in the end and the books will look good?
I think I got it now.
Perhaps, it’s best if you and I just agree to disagree. We’re both speaking past each other it seems and others will not wish to read this much longer, if they’ve made it this far.
I’ve read your blog, you do good work, and you’ll get no disrespect from me on that. If you detect a smart-ass attitude in my scribblings, well, that has been there since the 60s, and it isn’t likely to disappear anytime soon. Twenty years of living and working in Korea have also helped cement it permanently into place.
Anyway, you have signed off for the night, and I need to leave as well. I’ll be out for the next couple of days and look forward to future discussion, warts and all.
Have a great weekend. The last word is yours, my friend…
See you on the next thread. Who knows, we may end up agreeing on the next one.
If there is a hiring freeze for U.S. appropriated funds positions, it is most likely for new positions rather than barring replacement of personnel in current positions, since hiring is obviously being done at 8th Army with appropriated funds. Contractors can fall outside that range since they are not considered to be ??hired? by the command. I noted 62 announcements, not jobs, since an announcement can advertise multiple positions. That in no way represents all jobs, just those open/unfilled/turnover, and in a relatively slow time of the year for hiring.
And yes, there are difficulties in filling many of those slots with the pull towards Iraq. No, I am not going to go into details of how I know that on a blog, but it?s not hard to see.
The DoD is using civilians and contractors worldwide to fill support positions and even traditional military ones (interrogation, security, etc.). It?s a DoD trend, and Korea is no different.
I agree that there is not much use in discussing it much further.
Threedogdad,
1)USFK is leaving: I agree with your observation. DOD has been reducing troop strength. In exchange, Korea was promised a lot of “high-tech” mambojumbo. Basically, the US is slowly leaving Korea.
2)It is the will of the Korean people: No, I disagree. For someone who have lived in Korea for a long time, you still cannot “read” people. As I am predicting, Koreans do change overnight. Just wait and see.
3)It is cultivating Japan to take on its role of regional watchdog: Yes, I agree. Whenever Koi goes to Yasukuni, he is actually working for the US. And, Japan will buy mucho weapons. Ten times that of Korea? Great news for defense companies. And, if Japan and China go to war, the US can pay back the national debt. $2000 per month Social Security payment for all Americans!
4) USFK isn?t leaving a security gap; that would only mean they would have to come right back again: This is where you lose me. Are you kidding? Really? If the US is to come right back, why would it leave in the first place? Just to see what happens? Is it a test of some kind?
Korea is non-issue for Americans. You, in Korea, think that NK is a big thing. But, if you ask a pedastrian in NewYork, two out three still cannot locate NK on the map. They think it is an African country.
Bush only included NK in the Axis of Evil because Iraq, Iran and Libya(somewhat of threat at the time)were Islam countries. He did not want to appear anti-MiddleEstern.
The US is re-aligning her posture at this point. Pulling troops out of Europe and Asia. And, from Korea. The pentagon is doing it. It has nothing to do with what Koreans do or say.
The US is concentrating in MiddleEast. Why? Oil. Oil is the civilization. Oil is the ultimate resource, maybe more important than food. Is America evil in this pursuit? No, just practical. I support President Bush’s effort one hundred percent. Go USA!
The US is concentrating in MiddleEast. Why? Oil.
Oh boy, there’s an original thought. Never heard that allegation before.
That horse is dead, baduk. You can stop beating it now.