Unfortunately, the Democrats may take the US and fortunately, the Conservatives may take the Blue House, meaning the alliance will probably limp along for a good while yet.

BTW, I am certain Rumsfeld had this whole scenario envisioned when he agreed to plans to move 2ID south and started holding talks to move USFK to Pyeongtaek. Is it any wonder that to this day no money has been set aside to move USFK although it is supposed to be complete by 2007? Write it down in your journals now: If McCain or Giuliani become president of the US and another progressive takes over the Blue House, South Korea will no longer be a military ally of the US.

Whether good or not, Americans need to overtly support South Koreans’ sense of national sovereignty (note the word “sense”). All things remaining equal, I think an exit from Korea is a bad move in the long run but things don’t remain equal and the cultural trend in South Korea is towards more anti-Americanism where simple American presence is viewed as hostile and invasive. Eventually, that perception will create an instability that will need to be mollified by an exit. Stability in a NE Asian region with a “progressive” South Korea will be achieved by increasing our ties to Japan and maintaining a form of detente with the nationalistic peninsula, whether it’s divided or not.

Iceberg, there’s a commercial for KTF (I think) that has the Clash’s “Revolution Rock” playing on it, makes me laugh–talk about clueless advertisers.

Roh, however, said the country’s military is competent enough to exercise wartime control even if the U.S. returns it immediately. “To make the military one of the most advanced in the world requires the target year of 2012, but it makes little difference if it happens earlier,” he said.

Fine, let’s give him what he wants. Full wartime control, now. That should be interesting.