With a couple of bloggers (and one regular Korea Times columnist) pointing out signs that America will no longer write South Korea a blank security cheque, a high-ranking Defense Ministry official told Yonhap today that the “Future Alliance Vision” to be announced at the 38th annual Security Consultative Meeting this October will include a line clearly expressing that U.S. forces will be stationed on the Korean Peninsula for the long term, even after re-unification.
We’ll have to wait to see what that actually means, of course.
22 Comments
Well, I’m sceptical. I might believe it if an American official said it. I just hope it’s not in any official document, as I would prefer to see the troops out eventually-5 years sounds good to me.
Regardless of how sincere or well intentioned such statements, any proposal that U.S. troops remain on the Peninsula after reunification will be subject to ratification by the popular Korean opinion of the time. Barring some overwhelming external threat to Korea that generates widespread popular support for a continued U.S. troop presence after reunification, my bet is that we will all be headed for the nearest airport with our free take-home bottles of Soju and our “Visit Korea” brochures clenched firmly in our hands, gazing vacantly out bus windows as “rent to USFK” Real Estate Agents throw themselves from the Han river bridges.
perhaps a military personnel can answer this question but wouldn’t it be in the best interest of the us military to be present in the peninsula? logistically, is it sufficient to be just in japan and guam? i’m just going on speculation without knowing all the background information but to have influence politically, militarily, etc, i would think, despite the anti-american sentiments, it would be in the best interest of the us military to be stationed in korea for the long run.
perhaps it is inevitable that the us will leave but is there any possibility that this is all talk until the roh administration gets out of office and things will go back to normal, if and when gnp takes power? again, i don’t have any military background so these questions are coming from a naive but concerned person.
I think the US will keep a presence on the peninsula depending on the next Korean presidential election. No matter what happens though it is looking more and more obvious that drastic changes and down sizing are coming. This is all speculation on my part but I think it wouldn’t be unreasonable to see a logistical presence kept at Camp Humphreys and Stryker brigades rotated to the peninsula for training with the ROK Army. Plus the PATRIOT batteries would probably remain in place.
The Air Force presence is all dependent on the Korean government giving USFK a bombing range to train on. If no range is given the Air Force will probably be gone. Not giving the Air Force a bombing range to train on is like not allowing the Army to train soldiers to shoot their rifles. It is not a feasible policy.
I think October is going to be a key month to see what direction this is all going in.
They decided not to decide about a post-reunification U.S. presence.
I heard a rumor that Korea will most likely give the needed space to the Air Force. I heard from someone close to the sitaution say that it looks like it’s going to happen. And I heard that despite the reduction, the U.S. still wants Pyongtaek only there will be a lot less folks there.
But what do I know besides rumors? This could all be wrong so don’t listen to me.
Jodi is just a dirty patronizing gyopo trying to filter out something for the ‘whitie”.
They could always just use Dokdo again, like they did in the 40s.
My guess is that USFK will be dramtically reduced, one way or another. With the Army overstretched to the point that existing troops are serving multiple tours and recruitment is so desperate that they’re enlisting ex-cons, drug addicts, and skinheads, how else will they muster enough manpower to *cough* invade Iran *cough*.
If recruitment is so desperate how come the US military continues to make it’s recruiting mission every month despite a war going on and possible recruits knowing full well that combat awaits them. There was a period about a year ago when the media jumped all over the fact the US military missed their recruiting numbers but failed to mention that the army was expanding by 30,000 soldiers and failed to meet instantly increasing that amount. Once the recruiters increased the numbers in the army they have been able to sustain it. You just don’t hear about the military meeting the recruiting numbers in the news exept the Stars and Stripes who reports every month on it.
Meeting recruiting numbers destroys the arguement the left has used that the US military is sending soldiers to combat that only joined the Army for the GI bill and the public doesn’t support the war by not letting their sons and daughters enlist. Thus people on left feel they have to degrade the people who do enlist as “ex-cons, drug addicts, and skinheads”. Pretty sad when you can’t respect people who want to serve their country.
The US military has always had room for some people who have had trouble in their past but who have potential to improve their lives. That’s the American way, and I’m proud of our country’s characteristic of offering people multiple chances to “un-fuck themselves”, as the Machinist’s Mates explained to me so delicately in boot camp. America has multiple points of entry and re-entry. So it’s not a change in policy that some “ex-cons, drug addicts, and skinheads” get into the service (actually, skinheads aren’t welcome). People with a history of criminal convictions for certain crimes, and/or drug use in their past, might get an enlistment waiver.
There has been one significant manpower policy change driven by the Iraq war. The Department of Defense has raised its maximum enlistment age from 34 to 42. Not all services are taking new enlistees up to age 42, but the Army is (hooah!). Part of this, however, is driven by a recognition that healthy (i.e., not grossly obese) Americans in their early 40s in 2006 are generally physically as robust as Americans in their 30s were in the late 1970s, the era from which most Defense policies got formulated. We’re living longer than we used to. So maybe the old “rules” don’t fit the current demographic picture. A similar recognition is dawning on the Social Security Administration, which based its age 65 retirement eligibility on the idea that recipients would be dead in two or three years. Now people might draw a check for 20 years.
I’ve been trying to figure out what the commenter was really trying to say (the random and puzzling content obviates the existence of a hidden message, no?) and I think I’ve finally figured it out.
Ah, catharsis.
One more thing. I believe the preferred nomenclature is simply “whitey” not “the whitie.”
Actually, he was simply referring to something said in a previous comment thread…
Robert beat me to it, but that seems to be right. Not too kind however, using Jodi’s comment like that.
What’s funny is I’d read that thread yesterday, but I guess the lack of quotes around “dirty patronizing gyopo” steered my mind in another direction. I’m still confused though… that wasn’t a random personal attack? It was an attempt at sarcasm using a running joke?
I think someone needs to work on their communication skills…
Yeah I was a little confused by that one too…glad it’s been cleared up. :S
Something I’ve learned the hard way is that the Internet can sometimes be a difficult place to express sarcasm. Anyway, I think the “proper” protocol with those sort of things is to link the reference so as to minimize the potential confusion, especially for those who didn’t read the original comment.
There you go, cm.
Next time try harder.
“has raised its maximum enlistment age from 34 to 42″
Are you serious? Wow, it must be tough for a 42-year-old to keep up with those young punks. But I’m sure there are some guys who have the fitness, the smarts and the motivation to do it. All the power to them. Also, thanks GI Korea for putting the lie to the falsehood that “recruitment is so desperate that they’re enlisting ex-cons, drug addicts, and skinheads.” More leftist bs bites the dust.
I have met quite a few people over the age of 35 who have enlisted in the Army after 9/11 including one who worked for me who was 37 and worked in the world trade center. He made it out and his family fully supported him enlisting a year after the attack because he was just so pissed off about what happen and finally decided to do something about it. He was prior service for eight years prior before getting out and becoming a network engineer. He can’t run very fast and may not be the strongest person in the unit, but he has many skills and experience that are useful for the army.
The increase in the enlistment age is primarily targeting people like the one I just mentioned. Prior service people looking to serve their country again that have useful skills. People on the left look at the increase in the enlistment age as desperation, I see these older patriotic people enlisting and serving their country as inspiring. The left can take a lesson from these people instead of calling them “ex-cons, drug addicts, and skinheads.”
GI, good for you! I have a friend at Ballad Iraq who is supporting the Army as a contractor. He might as well be back in the Army (Retired First Sergeant). I have been toying with the idea to join the reserves. Don’t listen the panty-waist leftist hunyuks, informed Americans know the value of the mission. Thanks for protecting us!
One note about the Army staying for the long haul. B.B. Bell is known for shutting things down, it is his forte.