Will someone just please shoot me now.
US Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, meeting with his Korean counterpart in Seoul, has agreed to maintain US troop levels in Korea at 28,500, apparently because of the critical importance of Korean bases to US national security, the the warm welcome received by US troops from the Koreans themselves, and the lack of need for those troops elsewhere.
42 Comments
It’s part of maintaining this charade…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....00063.html
Once again, American diplomats and politicians failing their people. I hope they will have wonderful careers, selling the American people out as they have.
What a mistake.
WTF selling out?
They are maintaining an imperialist presence here. Whose side are you on anyway?
I’m all confused. Is the average expat teacher really unaware of the benefits to the US of its military occupation of Korea? Japan? Iraq? etc.
Spreading democracy? Raising literacy? Combating poverty? I’m bamboozled by the ignorance.
#3, i can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not. if you’re not, commenters 1 and 2 were (i believe) speaking on the government failing its people, not itself. believe it or not, the most important thing on the mind of every american is not trying to create a hegemonic presence around the globe.
the loons are outside gate 5 right now screaming and bullhorning their obnoxious slogans unless they are protesting SECDEF Gates visiting
but its probably the beef issue which has not a fucking thing to do with USFK
once again koreans take the cake for assinine behavior
I don’t understand the Korean policy with respect to the USFK. The Doug Bandow article is interesting. I agree with most of his points and I suspect Robert does too.
Who thinks that the ROK on its own would not (or could not) sufficiently deter the DPRK from doing something silly?
USFK it not in Korea to contain NK, it is solely to contain China.
No, its to contain NK. At least that is the point everyone is using to keep USFK here. The U.S never tries to put itself directly at odds with China on paper.
I imagine that we could save a lot of money by bringing our forces home. SK can take care of itself, and we can still have combined exercises, if necessary. Also, those troops could be used to increase our border security as well as removing a punching bag for protesters.
Actually…
The USFK is in Korea to protect Japan. Been like that since the summer of 1950.
Its possible that its all of those reasons together, and more. I sure hope that the US government can think about multiple factors at once. I’d hate for them to waste the time of 28,500 US soldiers on a single objective.
i don’t know why you’re so collectively angry about USFK staying, and not reducing,
but this is the best news I’ve heard this week.
you would be making a historical mistake to withdraw from either Germany or Japan. Yes, go ahead and laugh.
US withdrew from Korea once. What does history show of what hap penned?
Now, was that war simply of war by Koreans against Koreans? Nope. Never again.
By the way, I don’t see French, German, UK US Expats, busily writing their Congressman,
“Yo, they hate us. Cut, cut, cut, cut, deny, deny, deny, deny…”
So here’s the choice:
1. Keep 28,500 soldiers in a country where they’re not needed
or
2. Redeploy them near the Afghan-Pakistani border, where they’re needed badly
or the US expats in Japan.
just Korea.
Yes, deny FTA. Deny visa waiver. Deny troops.
Just take the women. And because they children can’t possibly attend Korean public school, run when they grow up.
So given that there is some confusion (amongst Hole posters) as to the purpose of the USFK troops here, I have two questions;
1) Who is it that is pushing from the Korean side to keep them here and why?
2) Who is it from the US side that is pushing to keep them here and why?
The US obviously wouldn’t keep troops in Korea against it will. So who is supporting it? State? Defense? Some mysterious lobby group in the US, like the KAF?
Well, since you offered. Only one, though?
History also shows that Korea was poorer than Ghana back then. Not quite the same situation, is it?
For the record, wjk, I really don’t care what Koreans think of the United States. In fact, one of the things I feared about 2MB was that having a pro-American president would obscure the need to reevaluate the Korea-US alliance. The anti-Americanism just makes it emotionally satisfying.
Well, wjk, I’d like to think that’s because our cousins in France, Germany, the UK and Japan just aren’t as sophisticated as we.
@16 interesting questions
I’ve wondered what the US would do if Seoul stood firm in cutting aid. I don’t think they want to leave such a strategic location, at all. Plus, their real estate value here is phenomenal!
I have to admit; I’ve lived in a lot of foreign countries over the years, and Korea, for some reason, hosts some of the most bitter American expats that I’ve ever seen. No one should take that personally, I’m just saying, is all.
Find out who is profiting from the U.S. military presence here and you may find some clues about the current reasons why we are still here.
jag:
Military industrial complex.
For those saying send the 28,500 troops to Afghanistan, remember USFK has one combat brigade in it and it is a heavy combat brigade which means it cannot be used in Afghanistan anyway since it is a light infantry fight.
People don’t realize it but USFK actually has very little ground combat power. Most of the units in Korea are command and control, logistics, communications, and Air Force.
As far as why the US government continues to keep troops in Korea, it is for a variety of reasons. For example there is a huge Korea lobby back in DC that advocates to keep USFK in place.
Also realize that there is still a lot of the “spirit of the alliance” and “blood allies” beliefs that cause decision makers to want to keep the alliance strong. For all the nonsense in Korean society the military to military relationship between the US and ROK militaries is actually quite good.
Then you have a problem of where you are going to put the people that are coming back? The US military just went through a huge base reallignment in order to make room for new units created with the expansion of the military along with units redeployed from Korea and Europe. Any full withdrawal of USFK would be a long drawn out process that an outgoing administration isn’t about to start.
Also there are economic reasons to keep USFK in place. If you were investing in Korea, wouldn’t you feel a whole lot better about your investment if the US military was protecting it?
The list goes on and on but the bottom line is that the USFK presence is to the benefit of each side for now. What will effect the USFK presence in Korea is not the ridiculous beef issue but if the Korean government tries to play delay games with the USFK relocation. USFK is dead serious about the relocation to Camp Humphrey.
If the Korean left gets emboldened by their beef success expect them to try and stop the USKF relocation by demagogueing the camp pollution issue which is nearly as ridiculous as the beef issue.
@19
your spot on. Follow the money trail…
gi korea is right on and i have said it for year you pretty much have 20,000 support staff here and little war fighters
they really arent deterring much if the shit hit the fan
gi korea is right on and i have said it for years you pretty much have 20,000 support staff here and little war fighters
they really arent deterring much if the shit hit the fan
“They are maintaining an imperialist presence here.”
Get off it. South Korea has had democratic elections for 15 years.
#24,
You don’t know much about military strategy and international law, do you? These soldiers are here to slow down a North Korean advance…and die in the process so that the US can legally declare war on North Korea.
It would be pretty unusual for a country to threaten a military alliance to promote beef exports. Not likely to happen - the security issue area is usually given priority for obvious reasons.
WJK - I’m all for reciprocal easing of visas, free trade and even the military alliance, but why would I want to subject my kid to racial discrimination in a Korean public school? No thanks.
The US Government can afford an overseas troop presence? Could of fooled me!
Looks like the US doesn’t need the money for health care, infrastructure, hospitals, social security, and all those other unneccesary items.
#27 You obviously don’t either. One HBCT by itself is not going to stop the NKPA for very long. That is the ROK army’s job. American soldiers biggest mission in Korea is to evacuate themselves. Seriously.
And just think 28,500 soldiers who’s purpose is to die…thats rather depressing, isn’t it?
This disappoints but does not surprise me. At least we managed to subtract the number from 37,000 to 28,500, which means that Roh was only cheated out of a small part of his legacy. I suspect Gates didn’t want to be seen as kicking 2MB in the teeth.
Eventually, the nuljis will be back out on the streets and history will repeat itself again. The numbers fall; they do not rise. Eventually, we can hope, the EUSA Commander will be a first lieutenant at Camp McNabb.
GI Korea, since you seem to be knowledgeable about this,
“If you were investing in Korea, wouldn’t you feel a whole lot better about your investment if the US military was protecting it?”
Investors irrational fears aside, there must have been some cold analytical work done on whether those investments are significantly more at risk if the US pulls out its troops. As per the Bandow article, I find it hard to believe that they would be. Even if they are at a greater risk, the US taxpayer should ask to what extent they want to subsidize investors in Korea.
“Any full withdrawal of USFK would be a long drawn out process that an outgoing administration isn’t about to start.”
I thought the idea was (again per the Bandow article) to draw troop levels down to 24,000. That policy seems to have been reversed somewhere along the line. For sure, redeploy little by little, but there must be somewhere useful to put 4,500 troops whatever their specialities.
“Also realize that there is still a lot of the “spirit of the alliance” and “blood allies” beliefs that cause decision makers to want to keep the alliance strong.”
Even if the ultimate objective was to draw down to basically zero, there could still be a lot of co-operation between the militaries. Territorial assurances could be put in place, similar to NATO, if the parties felt it necessary. That would place an obligation on Congress in any situation that might arise and justify a response. It could certainly be made a lot less ambiguous than the situation with Taiwan.
“…there is a huge Korea lobby back in DC that advocates to keep USFK in place.”
What do Koreans back in the US gain from keeping the troops here? The DPRK posturing would look even sillier if the US were pulling its troops out and they’d have a much harder time justifying the large military expenditure to protect themselves from….the South.
“USFK is dead serious about the relocation to Camp Humphrey.”
One thing I’ve always wondered about the relocation is, if the (partial) objective of USFK is to act as some sort of tripwire against an unexpected attack, why are they all being located in one place? If the DPRK only has one or two really big bombs, putting all the troops in one place would seem to be a bit risky.
#30,
Do I? The American firepower, and a couple of well-placed ballistic missiles, would do a damned good job of slowing down North Korean soldiers, many of which don’t have bullets for their rifles…if they have a riffle at all.
#30,
Do I? The American firepower, and a couple of well-placed ballistic missiles, would do a damned good job of slowing down North Korean soldiers, many of which don’t even have bullets if they have a rifle at all.
#30, I have been here since 2002. MY SON was here for a year in the USFK. The fact that HIS life was on the line does not impress me AT ALL. And, YES, it was rather depressing.
He went from Korea to Afghanistan, and is now in Iraq. He contacts me on a regular basis, and all-in-all, he still says that Korea was the least favorite place he has been.
Now that say a mouth full……
wow. its shows how many people with very very very little clue about order of battle and the wartime strategy are still willing to have an opinion on it.
The “support troops” or whatever you wanna call it are personnel who are responsible for aiding the ROK in command in control, something that is invaluable when considering the U.S’s combat experience and technology.
Secondary role is to support the landing of more U.S divisions and Heavy Combat Brigade Teams, as well as coordinate sophisticated airstrikes (much like the Korean War)
Lastly, they do provide a very substantial role in combat, 2ID has infantry, armor, cavalry, and aviation units that pair up with bigger ROK units to inflict major damage to first line NK light infantry divisions whose goal is a sort of “bliztkreig” to capture Seoul before resources(fuel) are exhausted.
The “here to die” bit is a popular myth. Get your facts straight before you go convincing everyone that Americans are in the business of dying for political justification.
That being said, I dont necessarily oppose are support troops being here. However, that is the role they play, and I never really expected it to go away anytime soon. I mean, they did survive the Carter ordeal.
#35 I assure you your son is in more danger in Afghanistan or Iraq than in Korea. Whether or not he enjoyed the tour is irrelevant.
Forget mad cows from America: We have on our hands an epidemic of inane, tasteless or clueless comments accompanied by the Australian National Flag. You’d think that, with the higher price of petrol these days, fewer people would be inhaling it for recreation.
I’m happy we’re keeping troops here. To me it equals more job security. I don’t wanna be a contractor in Iraq or Afganistan - if I cna help it.
Another step toward the second China-Japan War (WWIII?).
France and others setting high reparation for Germany led to Hitler and WWII.
Japan’s adament denial of WWII warcrimes will lead to WWIII with China. However, admission of those heineous acts will also kindle more hatred on the Chinese sentiment.
There is no way to stop this train.
Koreans in the middle do not know what to do.
What to do?
If they are smart, they will do everything to stop USFK from leaving Korea. There should be a street demonstration against this article.
However, they are doing the opposite. Anti-America sentiment kindled by “Mad cow disease”(I believe this is a lie made by English scientists to stop imports).
Koreans are dumb. So dumb that they want to kick out the only friend they have.
Fools die.
I got confused between this article and “The 8th Army headquarter moving to Hawaii in 2012″.
This article is just lip-service. The truth is that USFK is moving out slowly.
When the next president comes in, be he Obama or McCain, the USFK will be reduced. More troops are needed in MiddleEast.
One Trackback
[...] "The defense ministers shared their view that maintaining the number of U.S. troops at the current level contributes to the joint combat readiness, and agreed to abide by the summit agreement between the two sides," the official said, speaking on customary condition of anonymity. [Yonhap via TMH] [...]