MUST READ!!!!!
Somebody just sent me a link to this transcript of a 2004 House Armed Forces Committee hearing discussing the strategic implications of U.S. troops withdrawals from Korea—among those on hand are the Heritage Foundation’s Peter Brookes and the Brookings Institution’s Michael O’Hanlon. It’s long, and no, I haven’t read it in its entirety, but the bits I have read provide a fascinating look at at how at least some lawmakers and scholars view the U.S. troop presence in Korea.
So read it. Pronto.
12 Comments
It is such a shame for Koreans not to know the facts about Korean defense. As these men have pointed out, Korean air force cannot take out NK artillery fast enough to stop NK from destroying Seoul.
Yet, these so-called “Korean patriots” at Kwangju are joining NK in telling the US forces to leave Korea.
What are they thinking? They are going to trust NK not to shoot artilleries to SK. Even one NK politician said, “we are going to debastate SK if SKs elect the Hannara candidate for presidency”.
Korea cannot defend itself against NK suprise attack. Let me write this again. Korea cannot defend itself against NK suprise attack. Seoul will be totally destroyed. And, the best SK can do waive a white flag after most buildings are destroyed.
The best SK can do is to beg for the US forces to stay.
“Now, I know that this committee has done very good work over the years to underscore the importance of maintaining deterrence, because, even if I am right that South Korea could fend off an attack largely on its own, we don’t want to run the risk of finding out what would happen. We want to make sure there never is a conflict, given the terrible casualties that would ensue. For that reason, I think we have to think in terms of deterrence as well.”
i agree with baduk, but at the same time ROK doesnt need to beg for anything, it is in the US’ best interest to stay in SK as well.
“We want to make sure there never is a conflict, given the terrible casualties that would ensue. ”
–There is no way to ensure that NK does not attack.
“For that reason, I think we have to think in terms of deterrence as well.”
–There is no way to deter. SKs have been sending millions to NK. Did it deter? No. Isn’t it time to try different approach? Actually being a hard-liner against NK and building a huge military may deter NK from making a stupid move. Rho administration is cutting Korean army from 47 divisions to 22 divisions.
” it is in the US’ best interest to stay in SK as well. ”
–Most Americans disagree as you may read in this blog. Having a pro-US government in Korea will make the US forces to stay in Korea.
If Jolla Commies continue, you may see the US leaving Korea in five years, if not sooner.
A lot good stuff to consider in that transcript. I think also disagree with Brookes though that the security agreement is the tripwire. It is on paper and will probably be effective but the term is used in regards to American public support. Large numbers of dead American soldiers is what will ensure overwhelming public support for large scale intervention. While I’m queazy with that notion it is still a tripwire regardless of how Brookes wants to view the situation. With that said, $11 Billion in technological investments is nothing to poopoo. I wish the South Korean government would reciprocate. For example, defense against Nork naval special ops would require AEGIS level communication/surveillance capability. There’s no time to wait for US AEGIS ships to arrive so why on earth isn’t ROK doing more to get the KDX-III on line. The need one for each coast and the need it yesterday. For the AWACS acquisition (or the Israeli version) thats great but it should’ve been done yesterday. I’m all for the US staying put in Korea but still ROK has got to get serious about its military, especially its own Naval and Air capabilities.
Mutual defense agreement written in 1953? That is just a piece of paper.
If you think Bush has no other choice but to defend Korea because the US has signed a piece of paper 50 years ago, you are so naive.
The US can say, “due to prevalent pro-North atmosphere in Korea, the US will not commit troops in Korea”. Pro-North attitude (even it is only held by a minority) will be a good excuse for the US not to commit troops.
Or, the US may say,” SK has sufficient ability to defend itself against NK attack. We will help them by supplying arms, weapons and food so that SK can successful defend against this attack.”(translation: No troop commitment)
Mutual defense treaty does not mean automatic troop commitment. Not at all. The US can wiggle itself out of it.
Korea must increase its defense capability. Buy more weapons. Increase troop strength. Do more military exercises.
None of this is possible with the present pro-North administration. This administration got to go.
I’m seriously concerned about any reduction in American troops deployed in South Korea.
Deployment of 70% of the North Korean forces within 100km of the DMZ makes their intent crystal clear. Besides the North Korean nukes, there are SCUD missiles to consider too. Ugh.
South Korea needs a leader with some gumption, not a gutless loser like Roh, because if the Koreas are ever to unify, it will most certainly be by force — an “all out war” in fact due to President Clinton’s failure to act while we still had an opportunity to do so w/o having to go nuclear.
–Remort
I sent that link, after having read it through, twice, very carefully and with great interest. I admit I had to sit back several times during the reading of it and try to digest what was being said. I have to agree with Baduk,
“The US can say, “due to prevalent pro-North atmosphere in Korea, the US will not commit troops in Korea”. Pro-North attitude (even it is only held by a minority) will be a good excuse for the US not to commit troops.”
Seems that this was a definite undertone of the meeting…
However, I am going to make sure that at least some of my students DO see it, it is going to be my lesson material for next week’s writing class….
Read more about it here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peace_Accords
http://www.vietnamwar.com/timeline69-75.htm
December 13, 1974 - North Vietnam violates the Paris peace treaty and tests President Ford’s resolve by attacking Phuoc Long Province in South Vietnam. President Ford responds with diplomatic protests but no military force in compliance with the Congressional ban on all U.S. military activity in Southeast Asia.
January 14, 1975 - Testifying before Congress, Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger states that the U.S. is not living up to its earlier promise to South Vietnam’s President Thieu of “severe retaliatory action” in the event North Vietnam violated the Paris peace treaty.
April 21, 1975 - A bitter, tearful President Thieu resigns during a 90 minute rambling TV speech to the people of South Vietnam. Thieu reads from the letter sent by Nixon in 1972 pledging “severe retaliatory action” if South Vietnam was threatened. Thieu condemns the Paris Peace Accords, Henry Kissinger and the U.S. “The United States has not respected its promises. It is inhumane. It is untrustworthy. It is irresponsible.” He is then ushered into exile in Taiwan, aided by the CIA.
I am not saying the US is evil.
I just like to point out that some Koreans do place more trust on the 1953 mutual defense treaty than the piece of paper is worth.
Buy weapons, increase troop strength and get ready. After the US pulls out, it could be bloody.
If you know the whole story about Korean defense, you will come to know how dangerous the present situation is.
Commies are having their celebration in Kwangju and Rho will cut Korean troop strength from 47 divisions to 22 divisions.
The US is slowly pulling troops out of Korea. DOD is hinting that the US role in the event of future Korean conflict will be limited to air/sea support. No land troop involvement.
And, as Korean military takes control of war situation, how they are going to communicate with the US air force? If Korean general tells them to bomb DMZ area, the US airforce will follow Korean general’s order? Snowball in hell.
SK is being sold down the river by Rho government.
baduk,
unfortunately, the theory of the 1970s is outdated. the common belief today among socialist and communist is that the goals of socialism can only be achieved through capitalism.
for example, just compare China and US. US is traditionally a capitalist nation while China was traditionally a communist nation.
Yet, the US has been able to attain the goals of being a Worker’s Paradise such as affordable healthcare, quality education for all, social security upon retirement etc. etc. better than China could. Of course, the US only started implementing these ‘worker’s paradise’ goodies in the 1930s to thwart the growing pro-communist movement that was happening then.
the data from real world has shown that to be a good communist you must first be a good capitalist.
“Korea cannot defend itself against NK suprise attack. Let me write this again. Korea cannot defend itself against NK suprise attack.”
The question is why South Korea cannot defend itself, and what it must do to change the situation. Buy more weapons? Increase the military? Then do it.
Let me assure you that if there is war, and American soldiers return back to their homeland in body bags, the American people will push for withdrawal of troops from Korea. It is better for America to support using air force, where American pilots are 10000 feet above ground dropping bombs with little chance of being shot down, or on ships stationed miles away from harms way and launching tomahawks into North Korea, with sailors in their cabins watching the latest World Cup game knowing they will never be hit.
I echo the same opinion as the guy in the Heritage foundation. I have said that US forces in Korea is irrelevant to the defense because of their small number, and US can do more offering intelligense or training to Korean military. The only difference is that when I call for withdrawal of American troops, people call me “anti-American”.
One Trackback
The American Footprint in South Korea…
From testimony (via Marmot’s Hole) by Michael O’Hanlon and Peter Brookes at the “Global Defense Posture” hearing at the US House Armed Services Committee:
Brookes: I think a lot of the younger generation have concerns about th…