There is speculation that Korea will not pull out its Zaytun unit from Irbil by December as expected but might extend the deployment albeit with fewer(around 400) troops.
Why the about face? The recent summit between Bush and Roh, according to the Korean media;
In his talks with Bush on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, Roh said he will look for ways to help the United States as a coalition partner in Iraq, Roh’s aides said.
Roh made the remarks in response to Bush’s praise for the Korean troops’ humanitarian and reconstruction operations in the Middle Eastern country.
“I will seek ways to contribute (to the stability in Iraq) through consultations with the National Assembly as the troops’ mission expires at the end of the year under a parliamentary motion,” Roh said.
In a press conference after the summit, Baek Jong-cheon, chief presidential secretary for security affairs, confirmed that the U.S. government asked South Korea to extend the mission of its Zaytun Division in the war-torn country.
First, news reports of Bush and Roh getting into a spat regarding N. Korea, now Roh is thinking of extending the troop deployment in response to Bush’s praise? Odd. Roh could be trying to make up to Bush for the spat or he could be extending the deployment in hopes of getting further concessions from the Bush administration. Or Roh could have been trying to “accomodate” Bush, make him feel at ease, before throwing the verbal monkey wrench in Sydney. Whatever the reason, I don’t think a detachment of 400 troops who are currently in a very peaceful part of Iraq would matter that much in terms of strengthening the alliance.
Politics aside, the real reason, may be, what else? Money.
Kim also said potential economic benefits from an extended deployment are a factor that can have an influence on the decision whether or not to extend the troops’ deployment.
“South Korean firms are expected to join bids to earn oil concessions in the Iraqi region. That’s another factor in our decision to delay the troop pullout,” he said. “In any case, however, the top priority will be of national interest.”
Potential economic benefits are looming as the Korea National Oil Corp. signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Kurdistan regional government on oil development in January.
In July, 13 South Korean construction companies inked an MOU with the Kurdish government to build highways and hydroelectric dams worth $23.4 billion.
You don’t want your troops leaving Kurdistan, when its government is giving you all those lucrative contracts.
If the the current government decides to extend the deployment it will have to go through the leftists, including its own party members.
It is still unclear if Zaytun forces can serve in Iraq for another year because war-weary lawmakers from the pro-government political party and progressive civic groups have pledged to block an extended troop extension.
The opponents argue that projected economic gains are overblown and there is no reason to stay further in Iraq at a time when many other coalition forces are rushing to exit or draw down their military presence.
Let’s see how this thing plays out.
43 Comments
Well reasoned, very nice post. I think you may be right about the money, it makes a lot of sense. But I am suspicious, Roh ain’t the brightest bulb and the regular K folks would never appreciate the finer points of the deal. Which smart gerbil is cooking this deal who also has the ability to influence that Southern commie?
If there is some bean-counter in the basement of Foggy Bottom keeping up with favors and pay-backs, I certainly hope he doesn’t include this on the list of favors.
I would prefer a little more cooperation on North Korea to a nice but not very useful deployment to Iraq.
The Kurdish region where these guys are is safer than a lot of US cities!
Safer than many US cities, perhaps. But, what happens if even a single Korean troop in Kurdistan is killed and a reporter happens to draw the link between oil concessions and troop deployments?
#1.
Thank you, sumo294.
If I had to hazard a guess, NIS Chief Kim Man Bok.
My man must smell black gold somewhere in the swamp.
This is an interesting post, thank you.
‘now Roh is thinking of extending the troop deployment in response to Bush’s praise?’ mins
‘Roh could be trying to make up to Bush for the spat….’ mins
‘…confirmed that the U.S. government ASKED South Korea TO EXTEND the mission of its Zaytun Division in the war-torn country.’ article
maybe roh is simply responding to bush’s request. could that be it? and intersting you don’t look into why bush would want korea to extend such a useless contribution.
as for making money, so? what’s wrong with that? you mean, korea can’t make decisions based on possible economic benefit? why can other countries do this but not korea? the answer is, korea has every right to take into account whether it’s actions in iraq will reap rewards. nothing wrong with that.
變漿하는지….
If you are korean, getting billion of dollars in contracts, and perhaps additional billions in aid and other benefits, either agreements on North Korean policy, for very little sending a small number of troops, to a very peaceful area, and pay lip service to the US, its a great deal. When the truth comes about all of this the Korean nation will be very proud by getting so much for so very little.
Korea knows how to milk the fat us cow.
#7.
Maybe Bush didn’t ask for the extension and the Korean government in its spinning mode made it look like Bush did ask and Roh accepted. Remember, these are the same guys that made it look like that the two had a nice, warm, and friendly chat in Sydney.
There’s nothing wrong with making money, as long as you’re doing it legally and morally. If you have read my post carefully, I didn’t state that there’s something wrong with Korea making money in Kurdistan. Although from the looks of it, the leftists may make an issue out of it if it involves the Zaytun remaining in Irbil up to next year.
McNut:
If the Kurdish region is so safe, how come you’re not there serving your country?
Take your tail out from between your legs, boy.
YoungRocco2,
Why the hate, guy? Did McNut kick sand in your face one day or something?
He is not even Korea.
Geez.
Wow, Korea uses its military and foreign policy to advance its economic interests. Ohhh, bad, no one does that.
Errrrr… wait… Everybody damn well does that. What are some of you criticizing, again?
“Korean”
Geez, Andy
Hugh, I for one am criticizing the USA government (State and administration).
Andy:
No hate here. Just kind of perplexed–and amused–by all of the lazy boy generals scurrying around screeching orders on the Marmots Hole.
Donald Rumsfeld wouldn’t have needed to ask Roh for troops at all if more of these guys were actually serving in Iraq. Actions speak louder than trolls.
“Actions speak louder than trolls.”
We have a winner of the K-blogosphere Chutzpah Championship!
Rocco, Rocco, Rocco… how many times do we have to tell you?
This “argument” is bullshit. It’s not valid here, nor in any of the other numerous instances where you’ve employed it. Get some new material.
Wasn’t a gibe at you, Andy!
From Roh’s point of view, throwing the Zayitun extension into debate in the last 100 days of the election offers the chance to give the sinking left a bounce. Taunting Bush in Sydney didn’t seem to work because it was airbrushed out of Korean media coverage.
A very intriguing development. Thanks for the information.
Roh got a free pass in Sydney thanks to his translator. Lobbying for Kim Jong-il and suggesting a peace treaty before denuclearization - and both Western and Korean press miss it. Amazing.
Roh is an idiot, but what else is new? He sure made Bush look smart and restraint, something I thought was hard to do, but I guess not. Then again, even my kid brother who is 5 inches shorter than me can make me look like Shaq on the basketball court.
Korea’s policy with its Zaytun unit parallels a lot with what happened in Vietnam, the big difference being that at least Korean troops in Vietnam were combat troops. Anyways, the Koreans used their presence in Vietnam to secure a lot of construction deals in the country, which gave them the experience and know how to do construction deals in the Middle East, which in turn helped give birth to the huge international construction companies Korea has today. Also explains why my step father is fluent in Farsi as he was a contractor in post-Shah Iran for four years.
Farther into Korea’s deployment in Vietnam, they did their job of pacifying their assigned areas and basically just sat there. American generals would complain that the work of the two full Korean divisions in Vietnam could be done by two good U.S. brigades.
This tells you that Korea, as well as other nations, use their military in line with national security and economic objectives. Basic International Relations 101 stuff.
“…It is still unclear if Zaytun forces can serve in Iraq for another year because war-weary lawmakers from the pro-government political party and progressive civic groups have pledged to block an extended troop extension….”
Well, that’s an interesting use of the phrase “war-weary”, considering that so far Korean war casualties in Iraq = zero — at least, as far as I have been able to tell.
The normal context of the English language phrase “war-weary” (at least in my experience) is that is has been reserved for troops and/or civilian populations who have suffered disproportionate losses of killed, wounded, or missing. One image of “war-weariness” that might be summoned to mind as an example is of old photos of Korean civilian refugee columns, fleeing the fighting during the first phase of the Korean War.
Maybe the staff reporter Jung Sung-ki is using the phrase to refer to total ROK govt money expenditures on the Zaytun division, to date. I suppose that could be considered a “fair” use of the phrase; but, I would caution him (or his English translator, if the original article was written in Korean) against such a gratuitous devaluation of his English phraseology.
Someday the US may come to decide it is also “war-weary” of the endless expenditure of its own funds, year after year, in stationing a much more sizeable concentration of its own forces in the ROK.
YR are you gonna argue against my point that the Kurdish region is far safer than any other in Iraq?
If not, keep the idiotic comments at a minimum. You met your quota already.
Ut Videam and McNut:
If the Kurdish region is so safe, how come you’re not there? Simple question.
Here’s the main idea: The Korean men serving in Kurdistan are much braver than you, Ut Videam and Mcnut. They are serving Korea — and America — in Iraq, while both of you sit at home.
It’s hypocritical for you, Ut Videam, to call for Korea to send more troops to Iraq. Your country is having a hard time filling recruitment quotas. It’s your responsibility to get off your rear end and support your country. You can’t call for someone else to do something, that you don’t have the balls to do yourselves.
But I realize you guys are scared, so start with baby steps. Why don’t you guys write a letter to America’s troops thanking them for their sacrifices? You at least have the balls to do that, right?
Guys, get your tails out from between your legs.
I didn’t call for anything of the sort, YoungDipshit. Now you’re putting words into my mouth, which—being extremely poor etiquette—is par for the course from you. I simply pointed out that your argument was bullshit, which, again, is par for the course from you. In fact, you’re still peddling that bullshit argument, which demonstrates yet again that this moron is uneducable.
Oh, and one more thing: I make it a habit to thank the armed forces members I encounter for their service. Can you say the same?
Ut Videam:
Woowee! Looks like a struck a nerve.
You think more Koreans should enlist in Iraq? Then you should enlist in Iraq. You think Koreans should serve in more dangerous areas? Step away from your keyboard, enlist, and go slug it out with insurgents in Al Anbar province yourself. Practice what you preach, Ut Videam. Not too hard to understand.
You really want to thank your armed forces? Enlist.
You still haven’t answered my question. Why, given the problems your country is having in Iraq, are you not serving in the military?
Get your tail out from between your legs and serve.
YoungDipshit, let me spell it out for you in short sentences. No big words. Your reading comprehension is obviously poor.
I never said I think more Koreans should enlist in Iraq. I never said Koreans should serve in more dangerous areas.
Your argument is still bullshit.
You are retarded.
YoungRocco, everyone knows why that is a bullshit argument, but I will try to make a little example for you. Ready?
Imagine when you criticized Republicans, I came back with “If you’re not willing to stand for elected office yourself, then shut up! You still haven’t answered my question…tail between your legs…quack quack…etc etc.
”
We’re allowed to say anything and criticize anything, Republicans, Democrats, Koreans, Norsemen…and we don’t have to join groups to get your little permission to do so! Got it, byungshin? You’re a special boy! We knew you could.
And yes, YoungDipshit, you’ve struck two nerves, to wit:
1) I loathe stupidity.
2) A close friend of my family, a United States Marine, was in fact killed in action in al-Anbar Province. Your suggestion that I am not aware of, or do not appreciate, the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform is deeply offensive.
Shut the fuck up, you pathetic little troll.
Guys,
Always gets messy here when people use taunting, emotional language and it hardly facilitates an understanding of views, right? Not that understanding different views is always an objective here at the “hole.”
Now let’s think about this and use the cold hard calculus of national interest, Karl Von Clausewitz and Joseph Nye style, and from the point of view of the ROK.
ROK- Iraq troop deployment: Advantages
1) Strengthen relationship with the U.S., at least the Bush Administration. Makes the term “Coalition of the Willing” look a little more legit.
2) Increase leverage w/the U.S. in regards to negotiations with North Korea.
3) Possible commercial ties to Iraq and/or Kurdistan.
ROK- Iraq troop deployment: Disadvantages
1) Koreans in body bags.
2) Possible increased Al Qaeda focus on Korea. Remember the Spanish bombings?
3) Misplaced Korean bomb/weapons in Iraqi village and civilian casualties on Al Jazeera could amount to loss of good will among Muslim countries where Korea has important commercial ties.
4) Ruling party could really get hammered if things go bad.
Recommendation: The goal is to meet U.S. requests and strengthen the relationship while minimizing the downside risk. How do you do that? Well, even sending combat troops, you’ll probably have the U.S. give you a nice pat on the back but it won’t significantly change their hard ass position on North Korea. So you send an initially large amount of non-combat troops to outweigh your significant downside risks.
From the lens of national interest, if you are Korea, how would you do things differently?
#31 Wangkon, perfectly said.
“Perfect”? On the contrary #31, you’re being quite disingenous in your listing of “disadvantages”.
“1) Koreans in body bags.”
No Koreans in body bags yet, at least none as the result of combat operations. After what, 3 years or more of continuous presence?
“2) Possible increased Al Qaeda focus on Korea. Remember the Spanish bombings?”
Domestic terror bombings in Korea as the result of a Korean troop presence in Iraq are of course extremely unlikely. Because (unlike Spain) there is no significant foreign Muslim population in Korea as a source of “cell” recruits; nor is Korea near geographically to any of the traditional lands of Islam.
The Spanish troops in Iraq were located in an active combat zone and had suffered some amount of casualties as a result of their active combat operations to include patrols. After the Spanish socialist government was elected immediately following the bombings, the new Spanish Prime Minister (Zapatero?) was nevertheless careful to “redeploy” Spanish troop units into Afghanistan as a sign of Spanish commitment to NATO and to “compensate” for their withdrawl from Iraq.
I can’t remember if they were combat units or not, will have to check, but I don’t think this would matter to Al Queda members in Spain looking for a reason to continue their terror bombings (and there have been subsequent attempts, though they have been stopped — so far).
In view of recent events concerning Korea and Afghanistan, it seems quite unlikely that a total withdrawl by Korea from Iraq will be followed by an increased Korean presence in Afghanistan.
“3) Misplaced Korean bomb/weapons in Iraqi village and civilian casualties on Al Jazeera could amount to loss of good will among Muslim countries where Korea has important commercial ties.”
Korean troops are operating in the safest part of Iraq, Kurdistan, and are being screened by pro-American Kurdish militia. Can you name me one instance where Korean aircraft have dropped one bomb or fired one missile, even in defense of their own perimeter (much less into an “Iraqi” civilian community? Or fired one artillery or mortar round?
If you can I’d be interested in reading about it.
4) Ruling party could really get hammered if things go bad.
Well, having the Roh administration get “slammed” as a result of something happening to Korean troops in Iraq seems most unlikely, given the record so far. But Roh is to be congratulated on taking advantage of the Bush administration’s willingness to accept this Potemkin village commitment of troops to the Iraq theater by the ROK.
Just don’t try to “sell” it here as something that it’s not (of course I don’t expect what I say will affect you in the slightest).
Paul,
I think you missed my point (or maybe I wasn’t clear enough). The options that I have the the ROK theoretically mulling is before they sent any troops to Iraq. I was merely theorizing, based on a national interest model, the reasoning and rationale for why they would want to send troops and based on the advantages or disadvantages, why they would want to send combat or non-combat troops.
So… to distill it further…
The U.S. comes to ROK and asks them for troops to join the “Coalition of the Willing.”
ROK, like any nation state, mulls over advantages and disadvantages specific to it’s experience, internal politics, etc.
At the end of the day, ROK agrees to the U.S’s request but sends non-combat rather then combat troops in an area that doesn’t have a history of being all that dangerous.
My excercise in #31 above just illistrates a thougth process at a past moment in time and does not weigh in hindsight on actions already decided upon as Paul in #33 does.
So — if the US someday decides to make a similar “recalculation” to deploy only a relatively small amount of non-combat troops within the ROK —
you’ll cheerfully acknowledge that the US is only doing what it has decided is in its own best interest?
Or is that case somehow “different”?
There’s more than just the “rational” (and cold-blooded) calculation of economic factors that go into a decision to deploy troops into a combat zone (even “non-combat” troops for “reconstruction”, the current preferred choice of the political leadership of most of our “allies”).
Do you honestly suppose that if/when the Korean compound in Iraq comes under attack, a Korean squad leader rallies his men to the fight by shouting “To your places! in order to keep the Americans in Korea, and in defense of the economic interests and future contracts in Kurdistan for the ROK!”
There’s such a thing as “fighting spirit”, and it applies to the soldiers of all nations at all times. Offering up a contingent of soldiers as “hostages” from the ROK for US foreign policy objectives (albeit in the most benign possible sense, it being likely that the “hostages” will only lose at most a year of their lives while being well paid) is hardly calculated to make them feel better about their role as soldiers.
Of course that’s only my humble opinion, in that it’s not based on personal observation of the daily lives of ROK soldiers in Korea. Maybe I’m wrong, and their morale and esprit de corps are of the highest, based on their own personal belief in the importance of what they are doing as explained by their leaders. I wish somebody here would give us a translation of a personal account of their daily lives (if such a thing exists out there somewhere in the media/internet world).
Still, if these soldiers are the precious children of Korea of whom the nation cannot bear to lose even one, it might be “better” (by that I mean “more honest”) to just withdraw them all completely by the end of the year, and announce “mission accomplished” — and for President Roh to tell that fact to President Bush “straight out”, in a “clear” manner.
For the record, some points concerning the Spanish troop deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the implications of citing them as a precedent for ROK decision-making ref deployment to these two theaters:
1) “…On April 19, 2004 Zapatero announced the withdrawal of the 1300 Spanish troops in Iraq…John Kerry, then Democratic party candidate for the American Presidency, asked Zapatero not to retire the Spanish soldiers. Some months after retiring the troops, the Zapatero government agreed to increase the number of Spanish soldiers in Afghanistan…to show the Spanish Government’s willingness to spend resources on international missions approved by the UN.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.....z_Zapatero
“While in Iraq, Spain lost 11 military personnel: ten killed in insurgent attacks and one in an accident.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.....ithdrawals
2) “In September 2004, a Spanish battalion (about 800 men) arrived to provide the ISAF Quick Reaction Force [in Afghanistan]…”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.....e#Timeline
How about a Korean full-strength combat battalion to emulate the Spanish example and serve as a reaction force in Afghanistan? Oh wait, that would presumably go against the promise made to the Taliban recently by the Korean govt representative.
3) Not to mention that the act of deployment itself (and the conduct of routine operations) is inherently dangerous:
“…Of the Spanish deaths [related to operations in Afghanistan], 17 were killed on August 16, 2005 when the Eurocopter Cougar helicopter they were travelling in crashed, two were killed in attacks by insurgents, one died of a heart attack, and one died in a vehicle accident. Another 62 died in a Yak-42 plane crash in Turkey on their way back to Spain from Afghanistan.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.....an#Spanish
Wow. Ut Videam and Hugh…
Looks like two guys forgot to take their Immodium AD this morning.
Ut Videam:
Stop lying. You’ve complained and have supported complaints about Koreans not doing enough for the coalition of the willing in Iraq. Don’t disavow your words, now. Don’t be a quitter and grow some sac.
Hugh:
Yeah, you can criticize Korea for any reason you want, but…don’t you feel the slightest bit embarrassed calling for someone else to do something that you don’t have the balls to do yourself?
As for running for elected office–well, I wouldn’t expect you to run for office, Hugh. That would take ambition, motivation and courage, three things, which, I am sorry to say, you sorely lack.
Yeah, so don’t run for office, Hugh. Just stick to what you know: whining and moaning; you have a lot of practice in that.
Guys, you still haven’t answered my question: Why, given the problems your country has in Iraq, have you not enlisted?
Paul:
It does not make sense for Korea to send troops to serve in Iraq given that:
A: The American public itself doesn’t support the war.
B. The war was started against the approval of the U.N. security council.
C. The United States itself will likely pull out soon, which means that all of the so called “benefits” of participation in Iraq will be rendered meaningless.
Refresh my memory then, YoungDipshit. Post some quotes where I have “complained and have supported complaints about Koreans not doing enough for the coalition of the willing in Iraq” as you claim.
Or keep up your usual MO of spewing ridiculous bullshit with no regard for facts.
Ball’s in your court, chump.
“Your country is having a hard time filling recruitment quotas.”
I’ve heard the opposite, that they are exceeding quotas, especially in the Marines and special forces.
Someone’s logical fallacy generator is working overtime.
Ut Videam:
When I toy with you, the ball is ALWAYS in my court. I can make you blow your top whenever I want, dude.
Slim:
Logical fallacy, huh? Well, I guess it’s easy to be a philosopher king when… Oh wait, you’re neither a philosopher nor a king. Slim, my argument is not a fallacy at all because it gets to the very heart of why Korea should not support the war in Iraq: America’s citizens do not support the war. You have an idiot president, who started a war on trumped up charges and is now floundering around twiddling his thumbs until he can hand over his mess to someone else. The Iraq war is not a situation that more American nor Korean troops need to be in.
Snow:
No. Quotas are not being met, Snow. This is why American soldiers are constantly getting extended deployments and why the bar is always being lowered for who can enlist.
Guys, you don’t like to admit it, but only America is to blame for America’s defeat. Suck it up and move on. Don’t take your anger out on other countries.
One Trackback
[...] More over at the Marmot’s Hole. [...]