Have no fear—Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon says there would “never” be USFK withdrawals as a result of the transfer of wartime operation command:
“There will never be any extra pullout of USFK (due to the wartime transfer),” Ban told a forum hosted by an association of television journalists.
I’m simply going to paraphrase what I read on some of the Korean bulletin boards:
Who the hell died and made Ban U.S. defense secretary?
Now, you’ll recall the shitstorm former 8th Army commander Lt. Gen. Charles Campbell started when he suggested that Korean troops could join U.S. troops in peacekeeping missions in Northeast Asia. Well, the same principle applies here—Ban has no business making that kind of statement regarding another country’s troops. Yes, I understand some operate under the mistaken assumption that U.S. military power is some sort of international public good, but as foreign minister, Ban should know better.
Anyway, regardless of the military wisdom of transferring wartime command, at least Korea will have its pride restored:
He added that the transfer talks reflect the “pride” of Koreans that we can now defend ourselves.
Our Operational Command, Our Cool (Where the hell did this slogan originate?)
BTW, the actual Defense Ministry revealed its 5-year roadmap for the transfer of wartime operational command. Take a look at it… if you dare.
17 Comments
Why, oh why, after the last couple of decades of right wing-led propaganda portraying the US military as the closest thing to Jesus walking the Earth again, (Leaving democracy in his wake, so stop complaining about the growing civil war in Iraq) would anyone start thinking like that?
This was the effect aimed for, why complain?
That’s kinda funny, William, as I was under the impression that the right-wing progaganda made it pretty damn clear that U.S. troops operated under unilateral U.S. control for unilateral U.S. interests defined by the U.S… unilaterally.
In fact, I always thought the misconception was due to eight-years of propoganda about pursuing U.S. interests through multilateral institutions like the UN, NATO, etc.
BTW, just to make sure that our definitions of “public good” are the same…
Shooting from the hips sinks ships…
You’ll have to excuse lil’ willy g. He’s just regurgitating what he done learnt in Kanadian Kindergarten, while trying desperately to ignore the fact that if ‘Jesus walking the Earth’ ever left Korea, he’d be stuck with a resume touting 5 years of playing scrabble with children as his primary job experience.
Hey, Blueballs. If you could stop for a second, you may have noted that I didnt actually disagree with Robert. Nore did I say anything about the US military’s presence in Korea. I pointed out a reason for the thinking. Yes, it was said in a sarcastic way, and I can see why that may have confused you, and I guess I’ll just have to say sorry that. But if you feel a need to throw some more personal attacks my way, feel free to play a rousing game of “go fuck yourself”
Robert, you’re right about that as well. And I see how you’re approaching the idea. However, the military and the people in it, have been greatly mythologised as being benificial to all humanity by it’s supporters, as part of making the unilateral action a digestable thing. Basically, the Neo-Cons running the US for the last few decades have portrayed the US as global cop. That folks get crazy ideas that the US is going to be there when they’re wanted is the natural result of this.
If you find the global cop idea distasteful, bring up with your president.
“Our Operational Command, Our Cool (Where the hell did this slogan originate?)”
From the stalwart defender of da Corean Peepuluz, Nulji. Our Pride, Our Cool, Our Shortsightedness, Our Military Is Unprepared For This, Our Irrational Ultranationalism, etc.
The more Ban speaks, the more evident it is he is singularly unqualified to head any world body having more than South and North Korea as members.
The United Nations, whilst denouncing the United States, is almost wholly dependent upon the US Air Force for airlift capability and logistics support. Perhaps Ban is getting ahead of himself and trying on his UN General Secretary hat.
“Neo-cons running the U.S. the last few decades”? William G., how old are you, anyway? If you think the neo-conservative movement has been anything but out in the cold all this time you’re delusional.
Hmmm, i’d say that the neo-conservative movement has been
highly influential in America since the rise of Newt
Gingrich in what was it, 1994? And has been basically
running the USA government since 2001 — Cheney, Rumsfeld,
Wolfowitz, Perle et al… although notably falling in
influence / popularity starting in 2005, due to the various
fiascoes they’ve generated. Future uncertain.
Or are we using different definitions of “Neo-cons” here…?
The neo-cons may have gained influence in the ’90s but they were not in government until Bush came in. And Cheney and Rumsfeld are not neo-cons. I highly doubt that they would support any kind of war other than one that they believe to be in America’s best interests.
The so-called neo-con bogeymen don’t have nearly as much power in government as so many claim. If anything, the idea of being a global cop comes from the left side of the fence (back in the days when I was a socialist, this was definitely a strong idea, that the powers that be should step in and help people the world over). The conservative side generally is only interested in action that is in US interests (or their own interests, not always exactly the same), not in being the ‘good guy’.
> The neo-cons may have gained influence in the ’90s
> but they were not in government until Bush came in.
Starting to dominate the House of Representatives in
the 1990s, with plenty of influence over budgeting and
policy; i would call that “in government” myself…
> And Cheney and Rumsfeld are not neo-cons.
Hmmmm, i think of them as leaders of the practical implementation of it.
> I highly doubt that they would support any kind of war other
> than one that they believe to be in America’s best interests.
I highly doubt whether ANY politician would — it all depends on how each one of them defines “America’s best interests”, doesn’t it?
> If anything, the idea of being a global cop comes from
> the left side of the fence
Originally, yes. This is why neo-cons are so radically different from traditional conservatives…
> The conservative side generally is only interested in action
> that is in US interests (or their own interests, not always
> exactly the same), not in being the ‘good guy’.
Things have changed. Our neo-conservatives are certainly not interested in being any sort of ‘good guys’, but they do think it’s a swell idea to export American-style friendliness to big corporations (called “democracy” in speeches to the public) at the point of the gun, with no-bid contracts for ALL the cronies.
The right-thinking Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Eisenhower would’ve puked all over these neo-imperialist jerks.
Lest i be doubted, Wikipedia’s page on “Neoconservatism”
provides a good overview, history, arguments, etc –
just look it up. They claim neo-cons were already strong
in the Reagan Admin, which seems right.
> And Cheney and Rumsfeld are not neo-cons.
Wikipedia sez: “As of 2005, the most prominent supporters of the neoconservative stance inside the Administration are Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.” (after naming GW Bush hisself).
The big bad neo-cons. Yes, another bogeyman. Why not just indict conservatives, instead of picking some group from among conservatives, plenty of whom would not call themselves neo-cons. What is it that the US has done that is particularly neo-conish? I think that Iraq was done because Bush et al believed it to be in the nation’s interests, with the idea of exporting democracy to really be only one of several reasons for it (sure, they’ve played it up, but the real agenda is always wider than that stated, whether by Repubs or Democrats).
And the idea that neo-cons export ‘democracy’ for the purpose of helping big business just doesn’t work. Halliburtion got many contracts in Iraq, but it has not done well (they’ve lost money) and the fact is, they are one of the few corporations large and experienced enough to do this type of work (according to the Economist mag). Again, there are many reasons for actually attacking a country and being of benefit to US companies is only one of several, and it’s certainly not one of the most important ones (though helping American companies is in the best interests of the US anyway, as most conservatives would think so).
To turn the neo-cons into some big bad evil scapegoat is like blaming communists for all the ‘bad’ actions of the Democrats. The fact is, conservatives of all stripes have supported Bush’s actions.
Making the world safe for
US multinationalsdemocracy provided moral underpinning for US covert and overt military support to rebels seeking the overthrow of the elected Sandinista government in Nicaragua and right-wing paramilitary groups fighting leftist guerrillas elsewhere in the region back in the 80s. How is it in the best interests of the American people to defend the oligopolies of large landowners and US corporations? It’s not gonna break the budget of Americans to spend a few more pennies per pound on tropical fruit and sugar, and if Venezuela doesn’t want foreign investment, then Wal-Mart can source its clothing from Thailand, Pakistan, or two dozen other developing countries competing to offer the cheapest labor and least restrictive environmental regulations.Sonagi, that’s more anti-corporate crap. That’s the leftist line about how multinationals exploit and screw people the world over. The fact is, nowadays, multinationals generally help the countries they are in, by offering higher wages (though still low by western standards) than the norm in the country, they are often, or usually better than local firms at taking care of the environment and they promote local businesses by sourcing materials from them,among providing other benefits. This is not to say that they haven’t screwed people in the past (and some probably continue to do so today). But multinationals are almost all publicly listed companies now and are generally much better run than most local companies, which are often plagued with corruption, inefficiency and are usually poor at taking care of the environment.
This idea that the US government only acts in the interests of big business is little more than a distortion. The government has many reasons for their actions in foreign affairs, only one of which is to support American corporations. In the past, the US government may have acted mainly in the interests of a corporate ‘friend’ (I read awhile back how they supported a large banana firm in a central American country-cant remember the names of company or country), but they do not and cannot act this way anymore. And I highly doubt that US support for the contras was mainly about helping multinationals. It had as much to do with geopolitical concerns, such as the rise of socialism and attempting to hold influence in the region. Your anti-corporate slant that the US acts mainly or only in the interests of multinationals just doesn’t hold water. There are far too many competing agendas in the government for that to happen.
Many conservatives believe that US support for US companies is part of US interests, and this belief is not limited to neo-cons. A wide range of conservatives supported Bush (I certainly don’t like everything he did-especially his out of control spending) and it has little to do with this idea of neo-cons.
>I highly doubt that they would support any kind of war other >than one that they believe to be in America’s best interests
Of course Rummy and the boys thought the war in Iraq was in their interest. Unfortunately, they completely disregarded what their enemy(s) might do and ended up in the costly quagmire they are now in.
Every generation needs its Vietnam.
One Trackback
On A Field Of Roh’s Choosing…
If I had known the results would be so clear, I would I yelled louder: “Far be it that I would advocate foregoing the benefits of a national dialogue on national defense, but such a media circus would in the short-term benefit the Roh administration….