A Korean defense analyst is already expressing hope that Rummy’s resignation could lead to greater U.S. “flexibility” in Korea-U.S. military negotiations, especially those pertaining to the transfer of wartime operational command:
“I’m sure the replacement of the U.S. defense chief will certainly have influence on pending issues between the two nations, including the negotiations on the roadmap for command rearrangements, given the U.S. military strategy on South Korea was largely wielded by Rumsfeld’s personal decision,” Kim Changsu, director of U.S. studies at the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses (KIDA), told The Korea Times.
“The U.S. proposal for 2009 is, I believe, like a reaction to the Seoul government’s increasing call for independent defense posture,” said the researcher. “But the transfer in 2009 is, in fact, an impossible option given the Korean military’s capability. I think U.S. officials will review South Korea’s position in a more careful manner during future security talks.”
Allow me to translate that. “Hopefully, the new schmuck will play along even while Cheong Wa Dae plays nationalist political games with our security. Well, I feel better now.”
And for the record, Rummy’s people were reviewing South Korea’s position in a “careful manner.” They understood the issue was being driven by a) domestic politics and b) the hope that the transfer would improve intra-Korean relations, and they reacted accordingly.
Kim also said he believed additional U.S. troop withdrawals were unlikely since the U.S. would focus on “building balanced relations with its military allies around the world.”
A Defense Ministry also told the Korea Times that he hoped Rummy’s departure would have a positive influence on negotiations on the command transfer.
Meanwhile, the Korea Herald notes that U.S. plans to reduce and realign its forces on the peninsula could see changes under the new Pentagon chief, who is said to stress the importance of ground forces.
I can only hope this “importance” doesn’t lead to the Yongsan deal getting scrapped. And for what it’s worth, while I appreciate the importance of ground-pounders, especially at a time when you’ve got two wars going on, it seems to me that there are more than enough ground troops on the Korean Peninsula—South Korea has 650,000 of ‘em, not to mention twice the population, 30 times the economic strength of its North Korean competitor and, as Cheong Wa Dae never ceases to remind us, the desire to assume an independent defense posture.
11 Comments
Attempts to win or gracefully exit Iraq, not to mention the departure of Rummy, may actually mean MORE troops will be needed for the time being. I’d be all for SPEEDING UP the transition in the (DP)ROK.
I have always found it amazing how Korean will play nationalistic games with the USA and then not expect conesequences. USFK is on the way out of Korea no matter how strong Korean wishcraft is.
Ref: “groundpounders” on the Korean peninsula:
If my understanding is correct, there’s very little resident-in ROK US infantry left in 2nd “Infantry” Division (only 1 battalion of mechanized (Bradley fighting vehicle)? I admit I’ve lost the big picture of what’s going on with the other 2nd ID infantry battalions (2?) that rotated into Iraq a while back).
The heavy US “punch” consists basically of the 2 (?) remaining battalions of M1 tanks, the battalions (2?) of MLRS (multiple rocket launchers with ATACMS (single large rocket) for “counterbattery”, the standard 155 mm conventional gun tube artillery battalions, the attack helicopter (Apache) battalions, and the Patiot anti-aircraft/anti-missile air defense battalions.
And the command structure to integrate them and the ROK forces into the magical, mythical “hundreds of thousands” of other US troops that are supposed to arrive in the totally unthinkable event of another 1950 style invasion; presumably they’d arrive on spaceships from Mars.
Sarcasm aside, the current US ground force is suitable mainly for the “mobile” role of repelling a 1950-style invasion by the North (but not for “invading the North, or “occupying” the North after an internal North political collapse).
And — I gather from reading this blog that the consensus of the people and government of the ROk is that the very thought of a 1950-style invasion is politically completely out of the question. Leaving aside their sentimental longing for reunification, I agree — China and Russia won’t assist the North (as they did in the bad old days) with the massive logistics needed for such an invasion.
So what are we still doing there? Who are we to tell the Koreans that we know better? Turn it over and bring the ground forces home.
A further comment: trying to leave aside my own personal opinions in order to speak objectively, what happens with the “transfer” will probably depend upon what pre-conceived views of the Korean situation Gates brings to his new job. Presumably –whatever they may be — they will be the ones he developed during his CIA days and his prior service in cold-war era Republican administrations.
Also dependent upon what his USFK and Pacific Command 4 stars advise him privately about their views of the Korean situation. As a pure guess, I would say they’ll probably reflect the view of their Korean military counterparts, who in turn are presumably realistic about their situation in that they won’t want to take on additional military burdens that they sense their current political leadership isn’t willing to fund (regardless of public rhetoric).
So — probably — good old Uncle Sam will end up kicking the can down the road a few more years; relieved, ROK politicians will then be emboldened to go back to US-bashing whenever they feel it’s convenient to do so (meaning most of the time).
Same thing will continue presumably under a potential Dem administration starting in 08, as Dems will be IMO likely to continue with the “safe” commitment to Korea, as an easy way to demonstrate they can be “tough” on defense.
Now a potential McCain administration starting in 08! That would be different, as McCain is smart enough to spot (as Rumfeld was and did) the “triangulation” attempts of ROK pols –and tough enough (as Rumsfeld was) to hold their feet to the fire. It’s enough to make one feel a sense of joyous anticipation.
The only hope for the US-ROK alliance in a McCain administration? Baduk for President of ROK! How about it Baduk?
You’d have to agree to give up your strident rhetoric (also presumably your US citizenship) and show more sympathy and understanding for your domestic ROK political opponents (ie, no more threatening to kill them by bashing their heads in with nightsticks). Remember, it’s US-style politics we want ROK to strive for (ie, where losing an election doesn’t mean losing your life, liberty, property — or some combination thereof).
Ok, on reflection I reckon that last phrase has infuriated some readers (”..we want ROK to have US-style politics”). I’ll modify it here and now to “UK-style”, or “Canada-style”. Or even “New Zealand-style” (as in “stand down all ‘offensive’ units of Royal NZ Air force, now that there is no longer any threat”). Works for me!
There seems to be some confusion between a ‘battalion’ and a ‘brigade’.
Kimchipig is right. The US focus on withdrawing troops followed on the heels of the Koreans nationalistic and anti-American protests over the 2 girls accidentally killed back in 2002. The Koreans proceeded to burn American flags, protest outside the military gates and have massive candlelight vigils to ‘remember” the 2 girls. All this despite official US apologies from President Bush and massive monetary compesation to the girl’s families. Nothing was ever said about the 100 Koreans who are killed in traffic accidents on a daily basis in Korea (including children) by Korean drivers. The anti-US forces had their ammo and they made good use of it. When Rummy, General Campbell and friends took offense and began to discuss pulling out US troops, suddenly the vigils and flag burnings stopped and the Korean govt became indignat over the early troop withdrawl.
Be careful for what you wish for, you just might get it. Looks like that 2 years of military obligation for all Korean males might get bumped up to 4 years. Oh, and Korean taxes may have to be raised to replace all that American hardware. Let’s see you burn some American flags now bucketheads. 한국사람은 상식이 있지 않는다.
“I can only hope this “importance” doesn’t lead to the Yongsan deal getting scrapped.”
What Yongsan deal is that? The one that says the HQ will be moved to Pyongtaek by the end of 2008 but still doesn’t have a dime to the budget, let alone any infrastructure under construction in order to facilitate the move? Won’t happen, never had any chance of happening. ROKs won’t foot the bill even though they’re the ones pushing the issue. Notice the 2nd ID move is happening, pushed by the US and paid for by the US…
I don’t think Rumsfeld ever felt that 2009 was either any appropriate time for an exchange of wartime control nor a feasible timeframe for transfer. However, he knew that in order to force the yahoos at MND to ever be prepared for operational command authority he had to give them a tough deadline. Otherwise ,they would be content to continue their reliance on US help as in the last 50 years. Too bad Rumsfeld’s strategic astuteness and prowess of political manipulation was outweighed in the end by his tactical tomfoolery in Iraq. Ultimately, he needed to go. Who’s this Gates dude? just another bureaucrat.
Well, S.K. is ordering up some AWACS and about 20 F-15s or a similar jet, so they don’t seem to be assuming that they can rely on U.S. air support forever.
Seems also like someone up above said, a “new approach” in Iraq could mean needing a lot more troops before a drawdown, so I think USFK will probably continue to shrink.
As to USFK ground forces, battalions and brigades, globalsecurity.org is probably the best unofficial source. I haven’t rechecked it in a long time, just went there to look again, here are the links:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/...../8army.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/.....my/2id.htm
My prediction: Rummy’s demise will have absolutely no impact on a steadily accelerating US withdrawal of all ground forces from Korea and the repositioning of any other assets nominally tasked with cooperation with the ROKA in defense of Korea offshore as well.
Some perspective on Rumsfeld’s departure from lower level leaders of US troops in Iraq.
As reported by Times of London, hardly a media outlet that could be characterized as an “apologist” for the US administraton:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/a.....attr=World
One Trackback
[...] South Korean side has been downright giddy since Rumsfeld’s departure, and for good reason. As I said when he left, whatever Rummy’s other failings, at least he [...]