In the Christian Science Monitor, Haesook Chae and Steven Kim say that despite all the news reports about anti-Americanism in South Korea, a recent opinion poll suggests that the overwhelming majority of Koreans are strongly in favor of the alliance:
[A] recent face-to-face survey of more than 1,000 South Korean citizens (20 years or older) regarding inter-Korean and foreign relations reveals a much more complex and nuanced picture and may offer a few surprises to those who have written off the country as no longer a solid US ally.
Contrary to what we frequently hear from South Korean and US media, even from other Korea scholars and Asia watchers, the top concern among South Koreans is their own national security. The increased anxiety over the North Korean threat and wariness of China may partially explain why South Koreans are drawing closer to the US.
Read the article on your own — some very interesting numbers, to say the least, although I admit some of the results (more than half the respondents backed US military action to block North Korean nuclear proliferation? Really?) leave me scratching my head.
Of course, one might argue that it’s only natural that the survey numbers would support the alliance — who wouldn’t want Uncle Sam to subsidize your national defense to the tune of 32,000 troops, a nuclear umbrella and iron-clad security guarantees, all with very little in the way of expected reciprocity. Unless, of course, you consider 200 non-combat troops in Afghanistan and 3,000 non-combat troops in Iraq “reciprocity.”
Bluntly put, asking Koreans whether they support the alliance is like asking, “Do you like free money?”
What the survey doesn’t ask, naturally, is why Americans should support the alliance, especially as it’s currently structured.
(HT to Korea Economic Reader, which if you’re not reading, you should be)
74 Comments
bingo!
South Koreans should consider themselves blessed to have allies the caliber of the USA.
Pity the poor Norks having to put up with brutish dictators as allies like Comrade Robert Mugabe who admire their Juche idea. Came acrosss this spot-on article by RW Johnson in The National Post (Canada)this week. Please excuse the URL….not into html!
http://www.canada.com/national.....2c16736b3e
I think one should consider who conducted the poll and for what purposes. It seems when Korean academics in the USA conduct these polls, the data seems to support that Korea is pro american. When a Korean institution based in Korea conducted by pro gov forces can get the polls to say whatever they want them to say. What does Korea want right now from the USA, concessions to north korea, FTA approval, visa free entry for its nationals into the USA. Seems like an interesting time to find an anti american country a pro american one at heart. I wonder how many people who answered were from the Cholla region.
I guess they did not spend much time polling members of the media, gov, or the 386 generation.
I would like to see the actual questions asked and who they polled before believing the numbers because some of them did seem fishy.
‘Bluntly put, asking Koreans whether they support the alliance is like asking, “Do you like free money?”’ marmot
free money? doesn’t korea pay almost half of all costs incurred by having us troops there? if the us doesn’t derive any benefit from being in korea, why is it still there? just being nice to the yemaek?
‘Unless, of course, you consider 200 non-combat troops in Afghanistan and 3,000 non-combat troops in Iraq “reciprocity.’ marmot
you bet it’s reciprosity. are you complaining they’re not dying? the last time koreans died on behalf of the states, they didn’t even get so much as a thanks. 10,000 koreans lost their lives in vietnam and yet, very few americans are aware of this. that’s mind numbing when you consider the hundreds of documentaries on the vientman war you can find in this country. oh, and btw, robert, two koreans just lost their lives in afgahnistan on behalf of bush’s war on terror. isn’t that contribution enough?
listen folks, contain yourselves. don’t let your emotions get the best of you. korea elected roh to have a temper tantrum. this is just growing pains. don’t abandon the koreans just yet. give itbit more time. the koreans can be very good friends, even better than the japanese.
‘When a Korean institution based in Korea conducted by pro gov forces can get the polls to say whatever they want them to say….’ kwon
where’s your proof that the economic reader is doing this for political gain? WHERE? it’s easy for you to say, but, what you say, isn’t backed up by anything to substantiate your claims or implications. please provide proof.
“if the us doesn’t derive any benefit from being in korea, why is it still there?”
Good point. Regardless of who gets more or less out of the deal, the alliance wouldn’t remain were it not mutually beneficial.
“10,000 koreans lost their lives in vietnam and yet, very few americans are aware of this.”
You are absolutely right that most Americans - or anybody else - don’t know much (if anything) about the participation of Korean troops in Vietnam. They deserve greater recognition for their effort. However, isn’t the figure of 10 000 dead a little high? (I thought it was more like 5 000 or 6 000.)
“the koreans can be very good friends, even better than the japanese.”
Perhaps, but the mixed signals that are sent from the Korean side - all the way up to the Blue House - don’t always give that impression.
Dogs are doing more to help US soldiers in Iraq than Koreans are: “Soldiers find loyal comrades in war dogs.”
The Korean soldiers in Iraq are a burden because they are only there for show. Their deployment is a big farce.
Pow Pow (that avatar of factual accuracy) says:
The fact is that Korean KIA in Vienam totaled ~4,407
Harry G. Summers, The Vietnam War Almanac. Novato CA: Presidio Press, 1985.
Yes, which is much less than they’d have to pay if USFK left.
The Million Dollar Question.
No, I’m complaining they’re not fighting.
Not so much as a thanks, aside from the Gyeongbu Expressway, a modernized military and other nice toys bought with the US$1 billion in aid Park Chung Hee received in return for sending the troops… that’s in addition to a continued US troop presence. Not to mention Hyundai became what it is in large part thanks to construction contracts for the US Army in Vietnam.
You know, there’s a reason why they say that just like how the Korean War was good for Japan, the Vietnam War was good for Korea.
Actually, 5,000 were killed, but who’s counting? Hey, if you’d like to argue that Americans don’t appreciate Korea’s sacrifices in Vietnam, I’d be inclined to agree. But then, so what? The United States sacrificed much more during the Korean War, but certainly you wouldn’t suggest that Seoul permanently subordinate its foreign policy to Washington, now would you?
Mind-numbing? Really? 32,000 Americans died in Korea. Let me ask you this — how many Americans did you see in “Taekguki?” Of course, you did see Americans in “Welcome to Dongmakdol,” but that’s another story…
No, two Koreans just lost their lives in Afghanistan on behalf of them being stupid. Or on behalf of their religious commitment. Your call.
PS: Afghanistan isn’t “Bush’s War.”
If by “contribution,” you mean missionaries causing headaches by getting caught in Afghanistan, I’d say yes, that contribution is more than enough, thank you.
Nobody’s talking about “abandoning” Korea. Seoul isn’t Saigon 1975. All we’re talking about is taking a Cold War-era alliance and restructuring it to fit post-Cold War realities and interests. Yes, Koreans can be very good friends, but their utility as a friend is limited as long as they remain dependent on US power. The US needs strong allies, not dependencies.
I wonder if dogs killed in the Iraq war taste as good as blow-torched ones.
Inertia; the self-licking ice-cream cone syndrome in the military, military contractors and various other individual interest groups whose self-interest now is at variance with US national interests, etc.
This totally confirms what I have been saying to my friends recently. After working for The Korea Herald and Yonhap News I think I have a bit of an insider’s view of how the media works here. Granted, they are both English language news services I worked for, but the result is still the same.
First of all, you have to recognize the Confucian system as part of the problem. It is this system that prevents the rank and file reporter from asking good questions or questioning the answers they are given. If a source says “The majority of Koreans hate america,” that is what they will print. A follow up question like, “Says who?” is considered rude and would not be asked by any unselfrespecting Korean pseudo-journalist.
Journalism isn’t taught the same here as in the West. Attributing quotes to a person or even asking for quotes isn’t common in the Korean language press. As a former copy-editor and journalist, I had to beat it into the writers to get their facts straight or it would simply be deleted. Integrity is merely a catchphrase that carries little real weight here. Sensationalism is the real point of local journalism.
The media here does not represent the interests and views and opinions of the average Korean. There are mostly privately run publications with ties to the chaebol or political candidates. They all have an agenda: sell more papers.
The bottom line is always the literal “bottom line.” If they aren’t making money, they need to start making up more “news.”
Local news is about as fair and balanced as Fox News in the states.
Pawi, You deserve a refund on those IQ enhancement pills.
There’s little to learn by digging too deep into the schizophrenic poll results and dramatic public swings between denouncing Uncle Sam’s interventions one minute while tearing up massive American flags and then begging Uncle Sam to intervene on their behalf while waving that same flag the next.
Koreans know that they desperately need the security, protection, and economic benefits of the alliance, and yet they hate the devastating effect that dependence on whitey has on their Korean Pride™.
Most attempts at reconciling those two realities have failed miserably, so the default position is now a seemingly open and proud hypocrisy of biting the hand that feeds on a regular basis, while claiming they don’t need the handouts but raising hell every time a threat is made to cut them off.
It’s easy to reconcile this. What they want is our soldiers here, but subject completely to the whims of the Korean legal system. In other words, they want slaves.
@6
While shutting Pawi up, Robert already addressed THIS:
“the last time koreans died on behalf of the states, they didn’t even get so much as a thanks.”
Robert gave some good examples, but there is one more big one. A few years ago when I started a post-doc at the Korea Institute of Science and Technology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K.....Technology , a senior researcher gave me a history lesson about its history. He told me that it was built by the Army Corp of Engineers as partial payment for the Korean military presence in Vietnam. It even used some of the blueprints from a famous scientific lab in the US. The guy told me that at the time, Korea had nothing like this facility, and that it has played a key role in developing the technological base vital to the country’s economy. This was echoed in the wikipedia link (and no I didn’t write that article to support my argument).
Anyway, this is one more way that Pawi thinks that Korea didn’t get thanked for the 5,000 (says Robert) Koreans who died fighting in Vietnam.
And, this is one more time Pawi is reasoning with nationalistic emotion and not facts.
Robert beat me to the 2 dead hostages vs 2 dead soldiers joke.
That is an interesting factoid “cmm” about KIST. I had no idea of such.
Korea does not pay almost half of all costs incurred by the United States as a consequence of having US troops in Korea. Far from it.
Korea pays about 40% of what are euphemistically described as “direct stationing costs” of the forces physically present here in Korea — i.e., gas money. And 100% of that is recycled back to Korea as it is tied to paying for Korean civilian employees on the bases (don’t worry, no US dollars go to pay the embezzlers and smugglers who cannot be terminated or disciplined), and to construction of facilities.
But direct stationing costs don’t begin to approach the true cost of being here.
Korea gets about 1/10 of America’s total combat power dedicated to the defense of the peninsula, plus a blank-check promise to deliver 180% more if needed (690,000 combat soldiers according to OPLAN 5027, which can only happen by reinstitution of the draft).
That’s the Second Infantry Division (one of our ten Army divisions), the III Marine Expeditionary Force on Okinawa, 5th Air Force (Japan) and 7th Air Force (Osan).
That’s one out of ten divisions of our overstretched Army, one out of three Marine Expeditionary Forces (which includes a Marine division plus a brigade combat force, and an integral Marine air wing), two out of 22 numbered Air Forces. Plus the forward-deployed 7th Fleet Navy forces at Yokosuka and Sasebo, Japan (and Guam), which includes one of 11 Navy Carrier Strike Groups. All of this is here in Northeast Asia as a backstop to 2ID and 7AF here on the peninsula, and all because the United States promised to defend the Republic of Korea.
That’s at least 1/10 — probably more like 1/6 since it’s more than 2 of our 13 divisions of ground forces — of the current total combat force of the United States dedicated to the defense of Korea and basically immobilized here while it’s needed elsewhere.
Our budget for procurement and operation of those forces (excluding the cost of fighting in Iraq) is US$450 billion. So Korea is getting US$45-75 billion a year in direct subsidy from the US taxpayers who feed, clothe, and equip those forces. When asked to chip in a little more for gas, the Koreans get indignant and start to renege on their stingy original agreement.
Korea is worse than a freeloader. In the face of this generosity from the American taxpayer, Korea spits on the soldier and burns our flag, jails soldiers without fair trials, and slanders American motives — at best, the government and public stands idly by, mute, while run-amok Korean citizens do so. It’s their right to have those opinions. But not while my Dad shovels money their way. Either way, Korean opinion about the US military is unforgivable. Time for this freeloader to hit the bricks.
Robert, great reply that was quite a beat down of pawi.
Just to add more to Brendon’s comment the 2nd Infantry Division is a scaled down division with two brigades stationed state side but the additional man power that makes up running USFK just about equals the amount of soldiers the two brigades contain.
However, the army has more than just 10 divisions due to a few separate brigades and armored cavalry regiments. Thus it is probably more like 1/12th of the Army tied down in Korea but still significant. When you add in the Marines and other assets than you are looking at about 10% of the force tied down in Korea.
The 40% support of USFK funding is correct and most of it goes to building new facilities that Koreans are hired to do as well as paying civilian employees who are also Koreans. Thus the Korean contribution is going to funding Korean jobs. When the US asked for more the whining began. Compare this to the over 70% the Japanese government provides to USFJ.
Plus the Korean government is saving huge money from our intel, signal, and C2 capabilities that they would have to buy if the US pulled out of Korea. I could go on and on about the cost savings the ROK is getting from USFK.
Despite the public rhetoric at times against USFK by the Korean government they will do everything possible to keep USFK right where it is at. It is a huge bargain for them.
I agree with those who feel the Koreans get more out of the alliance than the United States does. And, contrary to what I’ve heard claimed by some over the years, the United States clearly pays the overwhelming bulk of the tab. (Plus, you can’t put a price on the world’s best insurance policy, can you?) I’m also as sick and tired of anti-Americanism - “schizophrenic” in blueballs words, as it tends to be - as the next person.
However, if this is such a shitty deal for the United States, why didn’t they pack up a long time ago? Somebody must think it’s worth all the grief that comes with it, especially when you consider the military resources might be better used elsewhere.
> why didn’t they pack up a long time ago?
Institutional inertia, vested commercial interests, residual feelings of blood-comradeship going back to 1950, and domestic Washington emotional politics that go back to the hysterical McCarthyist “who lost China? debates starting in 1949…
Why hasn’t America terminated the USFK alliance?
I have a couple theories…let’s dust off the old Int’l Relations 101 textbook…
-inertia and all the vested material interests in keeping them there (the domestic/bureaucratic politics school)
-a hedge against the PRC, and a hedge that grows more valuable with every passing day. No state seeking to maximize its power would voluntarily surrender a strategically important forward base–especially if it is on the continent (the realist school)
-the idealistic stuff about democracies standing together against tyranny, as well as concern over the precedent that it would set for America abandoning longstanding alliances that no longer capture our fancy (the constructivist folks)
Gee, if only we had a Georgetown grad around here who could elaborate on this…
“Why hasn’t America terminated the USFK alliance?…..
….concern over the precedent that it would set for America abandoning longstanding alliances…”
My personal opinion is that this justification has become a self-perpetuating “closed feedback” loop, eternally renewing itself — one that our “allies” have a vested interest in never allowing to expire.
“Oh well” says the urbane, well-educated, English-speaking Korean/German/Spaniard/Turk/_______(fill in in the blank with nation of choice) — taking a long puff on his Players. “If you Americans are going to just pull out and leave us in the lurch — like you did to the Vietnamese–we’ll just have to make the best deal with the devil that we can.
And we simply can’t do any more to assist you in Afghanistan/Iraq than we already are — our publics just won’t permit it. But maybe if your government were to come up with some more military/economic concesssions, coupled with a more “sincere” apology for your many slights against our proud country, that might help to improve the general climate of our domestic opinion?….”
His American counterpart journalist/foreign service officer/military attache shifts nervously in his chair, quickly drains his drink and hurries off the file his dispatch/report. Meanwhile, the “ally” smiles with self-satisfaction — the Americans fell for the same old line, just like always.
Pawikirogi was an idiot for opening up an argument with faulty statistical data (10k Korean casualties in Vietnam? Is that from a Korean textbook?) and deserved to be derided. I deal with his kind all the time on wikipedia and in my Asian history sites. When Koreans use faulty facts and reasoning, it does more harm then good.
I too agree that Korea’s anti-Americanism has gone too far. Expressions of which I’m growing rather tired of. Plus, the Koreans, at least during Roh’s weird tenure in office, have adopted a foreign policy that at times alienates Chinese, Americans and the Japanese. What kind of foreign policy is that? However, I must say that the Japanese also have a foreign policy that creates unease among it’s neighbors and so does the U.S. Many people in America and Japan may tire of all the talk to “face up to the historical past,” but Europe and the rest of Asia is far more understanding. Since 9/11, the U.S. has done a lot to alienate itself, the details of which has been well documented and don’t need to be expanded upon in this thread.
In Korea’s case, it also doesn’t help that the U.S., at least in Bush’s administration, has not listened to the ROK’s advice about North Korea and stuck with an ineffective negotiation policy (or lack of negotiation) which only heightened instability on the peninsula. It was only after Victor Cha (http://explore.georgetown.edu/blogs/?id=24857) pointed the obvious that U.S. policy started to change. Sure, the ROK’s advice, at face value, couldn’t be followed by the U.S., but at the same time, it was completely feasible to follow 20 to 30% of it, which the U.S. ultimately ended up doing. Allies deserve better then to have their advice rejected out of hand and be relegated to a non-party with the lowest voice on a situation that directly involves a peninsula that they share with their estranged brothers.
My parents, born in the 40’s and 50’s will forever love the U.S. and will take that love to their graves. They remember the sacks of wheat with English lettering that was all that separated them from starvation immediately after the Korean War. The older generation is loosing it’s power and relevance as it ages, thus Korea is starting to see the U.S. through the lens of people born in the 60’s and 70’s. And what do these people see? They see a U.S. who’s influence on South Korea has not always been benevolent. The U.S. supported violent dictators who were not shy in keeping their power through the use of military intervention. The U.S.’s sins during that time were not ones of commission, but they were ones of omission.
You mean like omitting to overthrow the elected leaders of Korea? I’m sure that would have gone down well with the principled critics of American policy on the Korean left.
Even the US’ alleged sins of commission are grossly overstated, e.g., the alleged support of Chun, whom the US worked hard to prevent from taking power (See Gleysteen and Wickham), and the one obvious gesture of support for whom actually was the saving of the life of DJ.
I believe that there are many false notions and facts taught in Korea, that are a disservice to the Korean population. Often, this misinformation is a subject of discussion on this blog. I believe that if the Korean people had the actual facts, that their reactions towards history and the USA might be different. #26 makes some valid points, but its not the whole story. Yes, its time for the relationship to change. Korea is all grown up now, its time to leave the house.
I believe the USA has not terminated the relationship because there seems to be a severe lack of understanding of Korean issues with the decision makers. Many Korean experts in the gov, tend to be Korean-American often with a bias towards Korea.
One wonders, why the American embassy, does not try to counter the Korean version of the facts. Why not engage with the Korean public ala Chris Hill.
When Korean media reports 40 percent of the costs are paid by Korean gov, why not counter it and give the actual numbers.
I believe the USA is far from perfect, but if its being slandered by the Korean media with less than true accusations, that it should defend its positions or of course the population of Korea will be more anti american.
However, if Korea runs into problems in its relationship with China, or Korea want something from the USA, look for more poll results like this one.
While I agree with you, Marmot, in your post and in your response in the comments, I don’t think that the main value of Korea as an ally in the war with the Islamic jihadists is in making any direct contribution to combat in the Middle East. Rather, the main contribution that South Korea could make in this battle is indirect: namely to work for the collapse of the North Korean regime. Between them, South Korea and China could collapse the regime within a year or two. Just opening the Chinese border and taking care of refugees would go a long ways to accomplishing that (especially if that program welcomed members of the regime). But the real value to America would be twofold: one, the elimination of the threat of the norks aiding the jihadis. Two, peace on the peninsula through the relatively peaceful elimination of the nork regime would also end the need for the US to fight on two fronts, which as is becoming clearer every day, is simply no longer physically possible, Rumsfeld’s fantasies notwithstanding.
I was not aware of, and a little shocked by, the extent of the escalation promise in the event of war with the North that commenter Brendon pointed out, but it seems clear to me that such a promise is very problematic. If a draft in the United States becomes necessary to support the alliance with South Korea, then there will be real political opposition in the US to continuing.
On the other hand, the forces working to sustain the nork regime work in every possible way against the interests of the United States.
Collapsing the nork regime without war? A dream, I know…but there are precedents. Sadly for the north Korean civilians and the American war effort against the jihadis, it will likely remain a fantasy. Continuing the status quo seems more reasonable to most parties.
“….the main contribution that South Korea could make in this battle [against Islamic fundamentalism] is indirect: namely to work for the collapse of the North Korean regime. Between them, South Korea and China could collapse the regime within a year or two….”
That would be true if there was any consensus in the ROK for such a goal, but one of the things this blog has taught me for the last few years is how far ROK citizens have come from this once pre-eminent ROK goal, in the last ten years or so (since the final “vitalization” of ROK elected governments not subject to military pre-emption). The very last thing the ROK wants is a sudden collapse of the North, the prospect terrifies them.
That’s as it should be — ROK citizens should decide their own vision for the national future. They have evolved into a national stance of basically appeasement towards the North (that last word is meant purely descriptively and not as a pejorative).
DPRK isn’t going to be able to launch a 1950 style attack again, they don’t have the strength. US troops on the ground are no longer needed to deter NorK adventurism, the ROK’s can handle anything themselves with a promise of US air support from offshore.
So the best contribution the ROK can make is to get on with taking care of their own business with their estranged brothers on the peninsula — in whatever manner Koreans of both sides decide is best for them. That way the US can get out ASAP and redeploy assets elsewhere in the world where they are sorely needed.
BTW, watching, I’m about 95% positive you can find the Marmot post (about the massive amount of reinforcements expected from the US in the event of a new Korean war) in last August’s postings (Aug 2006). I think it was a link to an ROK general’s comments along these lines, can’t remember if it was in English or Korean.
I don’t usually remember when I read something here but that one happened to stick. Looks like Marmot’s latest version of this blog has a monthly search feature for the archives so maybe you can go straight to it (I haven’t tried).
I guess the general was still going by the pre-1991 US miltary (ie Cold War) when we still had 18 Army Divisions and a much bigger end strength (though I don’t think we could have deployed half a million troops total worldwide –much less to Korea — without a full NG/Reserve mobilization even back then).
Maybe the general was a Korean Vietnam veteran and he was going by memories of 1968 when we had half a million troops in Vietnam alone (with the aid of the long-gone draft). If so, US military ought to lay on a specially-funded trip for him to the Pentagon. With a specially prepared US mobilization briefing, so he can get in touch with current reality.
# 30,
American troops in Korea serve more then one function. Their most primary and direct function is of course to deter North Korean aggression. However, I’d argue that U.S. troops in Korea serve several important secondary functions. One is to keep a U.S. military presence on the East Asian continent and serve to remind China that East Asian (including Taiwan) is still interesting to the U.S. Chances are if Korea ever reunified, then the Chinese would place a precondition of U.S. troop withdraw.
Second is to let Japan know that the U.S. is still interested in East Asia. I bet you my last dollar that the Japanese would rather see a war on the continent then on their own islands. If the U.S. withdraws from Korea, you’ll definately see a remilitarized Japan, and that won’t bode well for East Asian stability as a whole. Korea has always been a buffer for Japan. Eliminate the buffer and there is no way to predict how the Japanese would act/react in the long term.
One thing that baffles me about U.S. analysis of Korea is their apparent failure to realize that Korea is historically a fulcrum of power in East Asia. Korea’s alignment with one side or the other typically changes the geopolitical landscape of East Asia. In this sense Korea is a lot like Holland. Its alignment with either France or England had the habit of changing the geopolical makeup of Western Europe. Thus, when U.N. forces neared the Yalu and Tumen rivers in the fall of 1950 they were so “suprised” that the Chinese intervened. Well, if American policy makers knew more about East Asian history, then they wouldn’t have been so suprised. China fought over Korea during the Imjin War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imjin_War) and in 1894 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Sino-Japanese_War).
In my opinion, the biggest threat on the Korean Peninsula is NOT North Korea, a Potemkin village of a country with what is probably a Potemkin village nulcear program. The biggest threat on the peninsula is an alignment with China and a falling out of the U.S. political sphere. What do you have in that situation? A Korea and China, rich with immense military resources that is hostile to Japan, a key U.S. ally, and a U.S. with no direct military foothold on the continent.
This generally is true, but the reason for Korea’s significance is not that it is a fulcrum, but that it has been and is a vacuum - historically mostly because of its comparative material weakness and sometimes political fecklessness, today mostly because of its political fecklessness.
The only reason that the US took up and maintained a position on the peninsula - in violation of its long and wisely held aversion for Asian continental entanglements - was because of the postwar geopolitical threat of communism (misperceived as a unitary phenomenon). That threat is long gone and so is the only compelling rationale for continued US boots-on-the-ground presence or even a mutual (sic) defense commitment. It’s not necessary for the defense of Japan, nor does it contribute to stabilizing northeast Asia otherwise since, like the hair of the dog liquor that’s sold in Dusseldorf during carnival, it is itself one of the principal sources of the instability for which it is supposed to be the cure.
# 27,
Yes, the U.S. played a critical and decisive role is saving Kim Dae Jung’s life. However, it almost didn’t happen. KDJ had the disadvantage of being imprisoned during the transition of administrations, thus the Regan administration knew nothing about the situation.
The saving of KDJ was the result of American foreign policy professionals who respected human rights and understood the region as well as a president (Regan) who was smart enough to trust the advice of those most qualified, not cronies, like another CURRENT American president. In other words, the kind of foreign policy intelligence that America had in 1981, doesn’t exist in 2007.
# 33,
Korea is historically significant because it’s a vacuum? Huh? Okay, you lost me there.
Hey, Regan wasn’t president… he was the Prime Minister:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Regan
Eg., for both China and Japan in earlier times, Korea has been perceived (and has been) a more or less passive medium for invasion by the other.
That happens to be more true than using “fulcrum”.
> a U.S. with no direct military foothold on the continent.
As one American, I don’t think the US should have one. What for, anymore? Is our infantry division gonna invade China? Mac was right, the Islands are good enough for our military needs and interests.
# 35,
Nah… I meant that guy who was the star in “Bedtime with Bonzo.” The other guy, not the monkey.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wor.....265585.stm
# 36,
I’d say that’s mostly true after the Imjin War. After that war, factional politics intensified and the resource base never fully recovered. That’s why Korea was such a push over to the Jurchen Qing Dynasty and Japan in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Before the Imjin War, Korea had a pretty good track record of resisting invasions and everybody that invaded China proper, be it Khitan, Jurchen, Mongol or Japanese, had to neutralize Korea before they could proceed on to conquer China.
# 37,
Do you think we should have our divisions in Germany also? They are kinda relics of the Cold War, don’t you think? Perhaps we should just keep a base in England? Besides American tradition is much stronger in not being entangled in European affairs (so says James Madison). Ah, but globalism is a bitch, ain’t it?
Myself, I think if the US needs a Northeast Asia foothold that foothold might be obtained from a post-collapse, pre-unification North Korea (surprise!), or the Russian Far East. Putin’s latest nonsense notwithstanding, Russia ought to be an ally of the United States.
# 39,
That’s what Tom Clancy says in “The Bear and the Dragon.”
Russia and the U.S. have interests in Asia (as well as other parts of the world) that do coincide. However, Russia is brooding after losing much of their power and influence following the Cold War. The Bear is a little sensitive now. Putin is the result of all that. However, considering where Russia came from (i.e. Communist Dictators), the results could of been a lot worse.
Huh; what history have you been reading, the counterfactual sort? Korea folded pretty meekly e.g., before the Mongols and the Manchu, in the former case then becoming the ally (albeit a suborned one) that supplied all the ships, sailors and a sizeable number of troops for the attempted Mongol invasions of Japan. (Funny that Korea never seems to remember THAT when taking the Japanese to task for Imjin etc.
What most of these guys don’t understand, Pawkirogi, is that alliance with the U.S. government is a sellers’ market in Asia. In the past 50 years, only Korea, out of U.S. Asian allies, has put long-term boots on the ground in American theaters of war. In Vietnam and in Iraq 1 and 2, Korea sent troops. These guys cannot name another Asian country allied with the United States that has done that. Currently, Korea, out of the US’ asian allies, has a monopoly on sending troops to aid in war.
This situation will drastically change once/if Japan changes its constitution. If Japan starts sending troops to help the United States, Korea, keeping in mind what happened the last time Japan and Korea got close and left Korea out in the cold, will start beefing up its support of American adventurism with more money and soldiers.
But until that day happens, Korea will sit pretty with the alliance as it is currently formulated.
As far as the number of Americans who died in the Korean War…well, these brave men’s sacrifices will always be remembered and honored. They paid the ultimate price to give freedom and prosperity to a people they did not know. We should also keep in mind that there were a large number of Koreans who died during the Korean War for freedom and prosperity. The United States deserves a great deal of credit for the freedom’s Korea enjoys today, but do keep in mind that Koreans too, paid a heavy price. Some of the commenters on this board, tend to forget that.
In 2003, the US had ~75,000 troops BASED in Germany, consisting mainly of the 1st Inf and 1st Armored Divisions. That number now stands at less than 40,000; most of those spend most of their time in Iraq; and as part of the ongoing realignment of US forces most will later be based elsewhere.
Errr….
Nope. Try Turnbull’s “Genghis Khan & the Mongol Conquests” where Turnbull says, “… the Korean invasions were among some of the most difficult wars the Mongols were involved in…” Five invasions, four repulsed over the course of 50 years. It’s a record not match by any other victim of Mongol invasions. Interesting quote attributed to Kubilai Khan in Yasushi Inoue’s book “Wind and Waves”:
“Koryo is a nation a thousand leagues distant… Emperor T’ai-tsung of the T’ang Dynasty lead an army of conquest into your country in an attempt to subjugate it. but he failed. In the six centuries since then, Koryo could not be brought to submission however mighty the armies that were sent against it…”
So which history books, if any, are you reading?
The Manchu invasions were AFTER the Imjin Wars, the reasons for the collapse I address in post 38 above.
Keep believing that, and one day, it might be true.
Actually, I can — the Philippines. But that’s neither here nor there.
What’s much more relevant is that I can name a slew of other countries that have contributed more allied assistance in US wars since Vietnam. Like in actual combat troops. Now, I’ll admit that none of these countries are Asian, but that should beg the question of why Asia should be a “sellers’ market” for alliances when, clearly, an Asian ally doesn’t exactly give you great bang for the buck… unless, of course, we’re talking about prostitution exports.
More Korea-apologist fantasizing, in this case at the expense of e.g., Thailand, Philippines, Australia and New Zealand (oh, they’re not Asian, right?), who made substantial contributions to the allied effort in the Korean War; Thailand, Philippines, Australia and New Zealand and Taiwan in Vietnam, etc., etc.
Korea did not, I think, participate in the Gulf War.
It’s role in Iraq has been limited to installing toilets in Kurdistan and paving the way for Korean infrastructure projects while being guarded by US and Kurdish troops.
While the contributions of Korean soldiers in Vietnam was important and laudable, the entire Korean participation was funded by the US - contrasting, e.g., with Australia, New Zealand, Thai, Filipino, and Taiwan self financed commitments.
At the end of the day, how many reliable allies does the U.S. have? Remember when REAGAN (okay, I spelled it right this time!) bombed the shit out of Qaddafi in ‘86? The F-111s had to circle AROUND and avoid continental Europe (notable exception of England, where our F-111s took off from) because our “allies” didn’t have the balls to let us use their air space.
My point is this. America has a lot of skiddish allies who only do things if their own self interests are involved. Gosh darn it. Let’s face it, nations are selfish. There I said it.
That being said, England is America’s most reliable ally in the 20th and 21st centuries. But it always wasn’t like that and the alliance took time to evolve and grow closer due to the dual exercise of mutual interests. However, it must of frustrated Churchill endlessly when we isolationist ostriches with our heads in the sand in the late 30’s. Churchill, being the realist that he is, most have popped open his favorite scotch whiskey when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor…
Korea did participate in the Gulf War, in its own inimitable and feckless style. There was all kinds of debate over whether Korea would or should participate, and dithering over how to appear to help without actually helping. Well after the end of hostilities, five C-130s full of “non-combat” troops and medical teams numbering about 300 in all, arrived in Kuwait to stand around and do nothing. There was a hilarious Korean comic-book circulated around that time which featured big-nose US troopers exulting “Korea Numba One!” as one of the ROK planes touched down.
#42: “Currently, Korea, out of the US’ asian allies, has a monopoly on sending troops to aid in war.”
Where to begin with that ignorant statement? Thailand had a combat battalion in Vietnam for six years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#Thailand
Not counting the Middle East as Asia, we still have Pakistan sending 5,500 troops and Bangladesh 2,000 troops to Iraq 1.
You can argue the Japanese contingent in Iraq 2 was just as useful as the toilet-installing Zaytun unit cowering in a place as safe as Indiana.
Now if you want real allies, try the UK and Australia, especially the Aussies, who have participated with real combat troops in every major fight the U.S. has been in since WW I.
Try Turnbull’s “Genghis Khan & the Mongol Conquests” where Turnbull says, “… the Korean invasions were among some of the most difficult wars the Mongols were involved in…” Five invasions, four repulsed over the course of 50 years. It’s a record not match by any other victim of Mongol invasions.
Stephen “Picture Book” Turnbull, eh? Well…
There’s no gainsaying that Korean fought against the Mongols ferociously. But they never repulsed any of the invasions. They made deals after being heavily defeated and then failed to comply resulting in knock-on military campaigns by the Mongols and harsher terms of settlement, eventually entailing formal subjugation.
Fifty years of war and interference followed by 80 years of more or less direct rule doesn’t add up to “repulse” let alone a record of which to be proud.
It also shouldn’t be forgotten that the Mongols didn’t exactly field their first or even their second team against Korea, as they had larger fish to fry elsewhere.
I did not see #46-48 when writing #49 in case anyone gives a toss.
From one of the volumes of the official US Army History of the Korean War (chart readily available on-line at http://www.army.mil/cmh/books/korea/truce/appa.htm):
Appendix A-2
Country 30 June 1951 30 June 1952 31 July 1953
Total
28,061 35,769 39,145
British Commonwealth 15,723 21,429 24,085
United Kingdom
8,278 13,043 14,198
Australia
912 1,844 2,282
Canada
5,403 5,155 6,146
New Zealand
797 1,111 1,389
India a 333 276 70
Turkey 4,602 4,878 5,455
Belgium b 602 623 944
Colombia 1,050 1,007 1,068
Ethiopia 1,153 1,094 1,271
France 738 1,185 1,119
Greece 1,027 899 1,263
Netherlands 725 565 819
Philippines 1,143 1,494 1,496
Thailand 1,057 2,274 1,294
Italy a 0 64 72
Norway a 79 109 105
Sweden a 162 148 154
a Contribution consisted of noncombat medical units only.
b Includes Luxembourg detachment of approximately forty-four men.
True that. Australia is another reliable ally.
Regarding # 42, I’d have to also say that it was rather ignorant. Had he of said “Korea sent the most numbers of combat troops out of the US’ non South Vietnamese asian allies,” then it would of been a factual statement.
Sperwer, I was under the impression that the U.S. funded the Thai contingent as well (Queen’s Royal Cobras, if I remember correctly). “Fund” should be understood. The U.S. paid the U.S. equivalent of their salaries to the respective national governments, who paid the soldiers as they saw fit. My information was that only Australia and New Zealand paid their own way. (Aussie source, so may not be fair dinkum) The US also underwrote logistics and operational costs. What they got for their efforts from Korea was an army maaneuver corps (2 divisions and a ROK MC bde) that served as a semi-permanent presence in Central Vietnam from Nha Trang up through Tuy Hoa to Qui Nhon and points north. A highly competent and dynamic force that was as good at civic action (building schools and clinics and such), as they were at combat operations. They were well worth the money spent.
WangKon: (Stephen) Turnbull is a serious historian, so kudos for the quote.
Regarding “massive US reinforcement” of the ROK in wartime. As I understand it, it is along the lines of 127,000, per my memory of a USFK briefing. Assuming that the entire contingent shows up, US forces would represent 20% of the war effort, with Koreans shouldering 80% of the burden. Presently, Koreans are 96% of the force. Hardly insignificant, but that is as it should be. It is their country.
The “inertia” explanation rings true for both Korea and NATO, as it matches much else the federal government does. Moreso than in Europe, keeping a land-mass based element in Asia risks the eventual loss of that force, as happened with the 4th Marines in China and MacArthur’s Army in the Philippines. Basing our Asian-centric forces on the U.S. West Coast, perhaps with contingents in Japan, Guam, and Hawaii, is the better option. The U.S.’s greatest military strength has been her maritime power, now maritime and air. It is what allows to us to project and sustain land forces throughout the world. (Expeditionary Warfare is the current term) We need to stay true to that tradition and re-examine our present “anchors” in Europe and Asia. Are they abolutely vital to our national defense? If not, Congress needs to prod DOD into action. Or not, depending upon how deep that inertia factor is embedded in Congress.
Spewer,
It’s obvious you haven’t read Turnbull and he gives a pretty good summary of the Mongols battles in Korea. He also said that the Mongols used some of their best troops, but Korea’s terrain and their style of warfare (defenses based on fortification, island bases and guerilla warfare) lessened their advantage in light calvary. And yes Virginia, they did repulse some of those invasions. Case in point, during the second invasion, the Mongol commanding General Sartai was killed and the Mongols were in fact *gasp* repulsed. The other invasions, some of those “deals” you refer to were just face saving measures by both sides to end hostilities. Otherwise, it means that the Mongols were stupid enough to leave the peninsula without any guarantees that any of the concessions would be met, and usually they were not.
Yeah, Koryo in the end submitted, but who didn’t? The Mongols conquered everyone they came into contact with. At least Korea didn’t become like Turkey or India, where they were directly ruled by Mongolians. At least they got to retain their own kings and ministers. Even got to marry Mongolian princesses, something the Mongols wouldn’t even let the Chinese do. It is a record to be proud of. You just don’t know much about the history, that’s why you say that.
Lirelou:
Correct as to the name of the battalion of Thai troops committed to operations in VN proper ; there also were other “regular” Thai units operating in Laos in conjunction with the PARU. My info is that the Thais funded it all, but that may be a moot point given the volume of dollars that was pouring into Thailand for US bases, etc.
WangKon:
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one, for the time being - I don’t think the Mongol cessation of the second campaign after Sartai’s being killed by the monk 김윤후 = repulsion, just the lack of authority for any other Mongol to take command and finish the job. I haven’t read Turnbull’s book on the Mongols in Korea, but I have read a lot of his other stuff, which is pretty uneven. The monographs and some of the articles generally are good; the big books are good on atmospherics but bad on important detail and interpretation. I’m assuming that’s true of the book in question from your characterization of it. I suppose I’ll have to read it now, and see how it stacks up against the primary materials and the more scholarly accounts with which I’m familiar.
The Bohemians!
Well, I guess, if a little Mongol trim is all you got.
prove #58.
pretty please.
is it any wonder that Mongolian was used in Europe to describe children with Down’s syndrome?
what does it say about European people who married East Asian brides and spend a good deal of energy putting down East Asians?
‘Pawikirogi was an idiot for opening up an argument with faulty statistical data (10k Korean casualties in Vietnam? Is that from a Korean textbook?) and deserved to be derided. I deal with his kind all the time on wikipedia and in my Asian history sites.’ wangkon
i remember seeing your name quite a bit at the wikipaedia thread that dealt with koguryeo. that was a couple months ago.
didn’t wiki designate that thread as one of the most ridiculous? good to see you put your vast knowledge to good use.
10,000? yeah, i put that there on purpose. you know, it’s a bit like the japanese saying they only killed this many.
and i am sorry but i must break my vow:
‘I’ll have to read it now, and see how it stacks up against the primary materials and the more scholarly accounts with which I’m familiar.’ sperwer
WHAT ‘PRIMARY SOURCES’? WHAT MORE ‘SCHOLARLY SOURCES’? wangkon gives his, what are yours?
Wenceslaus of Bohemia defeated the Mongol vanguard at the Battle of Kłodzko in 1241 shortly after the Battle of Legnica (aka the Battle of Liegnitz or Battle of Wahlstatt) near the city of Legnica (Liegnitz) in Silesia on April 9, where the Mongols earlier had wiped out the Polish/German and allied (Knights Templar et al)forces under Henry II the Pious of Silesia with papaql support specifically to halt the Mongol advance into Europe. You can verify it yourself by doing a little homework, grasshopper.
Then there’s always the Battle of Ain Jalut — not a happy day in Mongol history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ain_Jalut
Pow Pow, how did you get into this course? You still haven’t managed to get passing grades in either Gogeuryo or Joseon; in fact, you still haven’t demonstrated that you’ve even done the assigned reading - not to mention, mastered the art of rational discussion. Come back, when you have.
# 57,
I find that Turnbull’s stuff is only as good as the sources he’s got access too. People complain that his Samurai Invasions is biased towards the Japanese viewpoint, but that’s only because he didn’t have access to Ming or Joseon Dynasty records (he did have access to Admiral Yi’s diary, which was translated in English anyways). You’d notice that his monographs are better because the audience is more academic. The Osprey books are for a more lay audience, so those works you’d expect to be watered down.
# 58,
Admitedly, I’m not an expert on Eastern European history. A cursory view of the battle in wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Legnica) states that it was a tactical Mongol victory that could not be followed up due to overextension and instability in the Mongol empire. It appears that the Battle of Bach Dang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bach_Dang_%281288%29) and the Battle of Ain Jalut are better examples of clear cut Mongol defeats. One thing I’d add is this, it appears that the Mongols tried harder with kingdoms that were peripheries of the most richest prize: Northern and Southern China (both were different kingdoms at that time). Hence you see multiple invasions of Korea and Vietnam and strong initial thrusts in Eastern Europe and North Africa, followed by retreats if those thrusts did not produce the desired effects.
# 61,
pawikirogi, here is some hyung’s advice for you. Stick with what you know to be factually correct. Make sure you have your ducks in a row before you talk. Don’t jump with both feet into something you don’t know. Simple advice that should be heeded, otherwise you make yourself, and whatever topic you wish to defend, look pretty stupid.
You’ll notice that the wikipedia Koguryo page no longer has the “in despute” label on it. The result of a lot of hard work by myself and others.
#62,
my sources say it was halted due to internal conflict back at headquarters, not because of Bohemian military genius.
me thinks you’re over grandizing a minor event in history by a minor king to confirm your position.
isnt this subtle racism?
As usual, you all fail to provide adequate sport.
Robert, pithy remarks are no substitute for well-reasoned argument. “Keep believing that, and one day it might be true.” Ha. Clever. Once you look at the facts, you’ll see that you are mistaken.
A few facts.
1. The Phillipines have withdrawn all of their troops from Iraq.
2. Thailand has withdrawn all of its troops from Iraq.
3. Which country out of all the U.S. Asian allies, still has boots on the ground in Iraq?
Answer: South Korea.
Now, the second question. Which country, out of all the U.S. Asian allies, sent the most troops into Iraq?
Answer: South Korea.
We’ll look at Iraq some more. Hmph well, how now. Now, out of all the United States allies, including Australia, it is Korea that has sent the second highest number of troops. Korea is only behind Britain in the number of troops it has sent to Iraq. Keep in mind that these troops were sent under a President who ran, as many here claim, on an “Anti-American” platform.
What does this all tell you? Well it means that other countries, verbal support notwithstanding, are very unwilling to back up their rhetoric with actions. Pro-American Australia has made nary a footprint on Iraqi soil. Nor have the Phillipines or Japan.
I rely on facts, Robert, not pithy remarks to back up my claims. Korea is the best ally of the United States in Asia, and right now, might be the best ally the United States has in the world next to great Britain. Aide to the United States is a seller’s market. Low support for Iraq bears this claim out.
Now let’s look at Vietnam. Now, the Phillipines sent about 1,500 troops, mostly medical, to Aid in the Vietnamese conflict. How many troops did Korea send?
Answer: 320,000.
In fact, the number of Korean troops in Vietnam was surpassed only by the number of American troops serving in Vietnam. Good heavens! Where were the Australians and Japanese when Charlie was taking American POWs?
The facts are clear. Korea is the United States’ best ally in Asia. Korea has been one of the United States’ best allies over the past 50 years. Until other countries step up to bear their share, Korea has little incentive to change the status quo.
‘I’ll have to read it now, and see how it stacks up against the primary materials and the more scholarly accounts with which I’m familiar.’ sperwer
WHAT ‘PRIMARY SOURCES’? WHAT MORE ‘SCHOLARLY SOURCES’? wangkon gives his, what are yours?
perhaps your sources are just articles written by non historians. you know, like the last one you provided about koguryeo. that was a joke.
WHAT ARE YOUR ‘PRIMARY SOURCES’? WHAT ARE YOUR SCHOLARLY SOURCES? why not just answer the question instaed of the insults?
Guys, I’ll make it very easy for you and just point out the two anchors of my argument.
1. Korea has the third highest number of troops in Iraq after Great Britain. Korea sent 3600 troops and currently has 1200.
A. Australia sent 2000 troops and currently has 638.
B. The Phillipines sent 51 troops and currently has 0
C. Japan sent 600 troops and currently has 0.
2. Korea was America’s best ally in Vietnam. Korea supported the United States with 320,000 troops over the course of the conflict.
A: Australia sent 7,672 troops.
B: Japan sent 0 troops.
C. New Zealand sent 552 troops.
Guys, the numbers tell a story you can’t deny. Korea is a serious ally of the United States.
Now let me save you some time by pre-emptively swatting away the flaccid counter-arguments that I know are coming:
1. If that area of Iraq is as safe as you claim, how come none of you are serving there? The U.S. needs troops does it not? Or does your support of the U.S. only go so far as whining and griping on a blog?
1b: I mean, if its really that safe, none of you should have a problem serving your country there, right? Right?
1c. Those Zaytun troops are doing more than any of you to fight terrorism.
2. Troops are troops. If sending medical troops is as easy as you claim, one wonders why the U.S. other allies haven’t sent more medical troops. Obviously the U.S. wants them there if the U.S. asked for them to be there.
3. “What about NATO support in Afghanistan?” you say? Ooo! You got me. Just kidding. Actually, the NATO numbers from Canada and Britain are pretty significant. Regrettably, Korea does not have a large presence in Afghanistan. But I’d still argue that the 320,000 troops Korea sent to Vietnam tip the scales toward Korea.
3B. Now’ll you’ll argue about British support during WWII. I’d say that doesn’t really count. Britain was fighting for its own life in WWII. Any troops it had during that conflict don’t really count toward helping the United States.
Guys, you all are toast. You guys need information. I’ve provided it. Korea is a strong ally of the United States.
Don’t worry about these guys, Pawkirogi. They’re very clever at tossing around the occasional cheeky remark, but are very unskilled in critical thinking or elementary research.
Wedge and Sperwer are probably some of the worst of the bunch. Be patient with them. They’ll learn. Someday.
#70 -
Ah, Rocco, you’re back to your old disingenuous tricks I see. Oh well, let’s take a look at them:
You call this “swatting away flaccid counter-arguments”? Anyone else would call it “logical fallacy.” This kind of argumentation hardly demonstrates the “critical thinking or elementary research” you so pride yourself upon.
And maybe if Uncle Sucker were offering another national expressway, advanced institute of science and technology, and massive construction contracts, Korea would have way more boots on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq. Korea’s involvement in Vietnam is not probative of Korea’s commitment to the alliance.
Information about how many troops dispatched to Vietnam through 1964 to 1973 — 43 to 34 years ago — does not indicate that Korea is a serious ally of the United States. It merely underscores how Korea was a serious ally but no longer is.
In 1964 Korea was invested enough in the relationship (and in receiving that US combat wage) to send young men to fight and die in the jungles of Vietnam. Now Korea sends its troops to hide out in peaceful Kurdistan behind other nations’ armed guards, making contact with the locals only in order to lecture about Korea’s toilet culture.
YoungRocco2:
Number of Korean combat missions in Iraq — None.
Number of Korean combat missions in Afghanistan — None.
Number of Korean combat fatalities in Iraq — None.
Number of Korean combat fatalities in Afghanistan — One, if you count standing around in the wrong place at the wrong time a “combat fatality.”
Number of toilets constructed in Kurdistan — Ask the Defense Ministry.
Sorry, YoungRocco2, these, too, are “facts,” and they speak for themselves. Heck, even the Mongolians have arguably done more with much less — they’ve at least fired their weapons in anger (when Mongolian snipers stopped a suicide bombing attack on a Polish base) and Mongolian troops are favored VIP bodyguards. The depth of your delusion is clearly evident when you say,”Pro-American Australia has made nary a footprint on Iraqi soil.” Nary a footprint, you say?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.....on_of_Iraq
http://australianpolitics.com/.....3-20.shtml
Yeah, the numbers weren’t large (although they did at one point reach 2,000, which is only 1,000 less than Korea’s and at much greater per-capita cost), but they performed combat missions, which is more — much more — than we can sa