In Foreign Policy, Fletcher school prof Lee Sung-yoon argues that the US and South Korea are unprepared for a North Korean collapse, and that US leadership will be key to maintaining stability in the region:
A power vacuum in Pyongyang will require the immediate dispatch of South Korean and U.S. troops. Next will come other regional powers — Chinese peacekeeping forces securing the northern areas, followed by the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force transporting people and supplies along the Korean coastlines. In the short term, a multiparty international presence north of the 38th parallel under the nominal banner of the United Nations will enforce order and provide aid. But even when the dust from the flurry of human activity and balance-of-power politics settles, the task will not be done.
En route to Tokyo in 1945 to embark on the occupation of Japan, U.S. Gen. Douglas MacArthur laid out his goals for Japan to his aide, Maj. Gen. Courtney Whitney: “First destroy the military power, then build up representative government, enfranchise women, free political prisoners, liberate farmers, establish free labor, destroy monopolies, abolish police repression, liberate the press, liberalize education, and decentralize political power.” The transformation of North Korea will require nothing less.
But unlike Japan, a developed and highly bureaucratized society in 1945, albeit one scarred by war and warped by militarism, North Korea will need a complete reinvention. The South Korean government will naturally take the lead in the political reorganization of the North, building an interim representative assembly that is eventually be incorporated into a single pan-Korean national assembly in Seoul. But reorienting North Korean society and culture toward a lifestyle marked by individual freedom and capitalism will take decades and require the sustained help of various international organizations and financial institutions. That means continued U.S. commitment to Korea and U.S. leadership in maintaining stability in the region, even in the face of mounting domestic and international pressure to withdraw or redeploy U.S. troops.
OK, so we’ve got to reorganize North Korean society and culture towards a lifestyle marked by individual freedom and capitalism, eh? Well, seeing what a grand job we’ve done of it so far in Iraq and Afghanistan, it should be a piece of cake!
{ 53 comments… read them below or add one }
Okay Marmot, here it is. I know that you have suggested before that US troops could and should be pulled out of the peninsula, a-la Mr. Opinion-for-Hire Doug Bandow, but you’re wrong.
As Lee Sung-yoon points out in the article you linked to above, U.S. troops will be very much needed here and in Northeast Asia in general to ensure the stability of the whole region. To remove them now would create a power vacuum.
I understand that in Bandovian (and possibly Marmotian) terms, South Korea’s security may not be an American concern to risk blood and treasure over, but I would argue that the wider issue of Northeast Asian security certainly is, because the knock-on effects could be very likely quite bad for the whole world.
At the very least, Robert, in an act of enlightened self interest, can’t you see that for yourself and your own personal security, it would be best for the US troops to stay? (since you do live here and all)
Maybe I should, as you suggest,shoot you now?
IMHO… good comment hamel.
If and when North Korea collapses, the entire country will become a Gaesong Complex. North Koreans will continue to be paid shit wages with sub-standard conditions. North Koreans will be taken advantage of, in every way possible, by their Southern “brothers”. The North Korean women will be the new farmers’ wives; no more Vietnamese.
Sure there are a lot of South Koreans that don’t want unification because of the economic burden, but I’m sure there are many that are jizzing in their pants at the thought.
Hopefully, the North won’t have other foreign powers dirty hands all over like a giddy virgin English teacher.
Hmm.. how would other foreigners fit into all this, including expats, in the new Korea land.
I for one would like to travel from Seoul to Europe by an express train. That would be an awesome experience.
Turdleship: Amen on the train ride. From Busan to London by train? Awesome!
Seth Gecko: “If and when North Korea collapses, the entire country will become a Gaesong Complex.” That idea is commonly held, and it makes sense. However, it is predicated on one assumption: that South Korean troops will be ordered (and will obey that order) to shoot North Koreans, in order to force them to stay north of the DMZ.
Why? Because otherwise, why would northerners (especially strong, healthy and single adult men, who are most likely to be able to go on the move for work) want to stay put? They know that life is better here, and it is shit there. Would YOU stay put? Most will want to rush down here to South Korea for a job – almost ANY job – to get real cash that can buy real stuff.
Lankov has written about this question: will the South keep the northerners at bay. It all basically depends on the South Korean public stomach – maybe they could accept 10 or 100 North Koreans killed if it kept them all put.
But if they kept coming, in desperate human waves (picture the Albanians falling off crowded ships trying to make it across to Italy in the early 1990s, or the Sri Lankans still coming to Australia by rickety fishing boats from Indonesia) how many people would they be able to stomach being killed/drowned/etc before they said “enough! they are brothers! let them in!”
Politics will be an interesting time then, my friends.
@hamel. The US can do all those things you want via force projection, from a location outside of Korea (and Japan). Which would also give them the advantage of not being held hostage to NK (or SK domestic politics) and encourage Japan and SK to be responsible for their own security.
Funny how, given that the “knock-on effects” could be quite bad for the “whole world,” the “whole world” doesn’t feel the need to formulate a Korea policy… or at least a Korea policy that involves an open-ended commitment of troops, money and political capital to help protect countries with the 2nd and 13th largest economies on the planet. Of course, why should they, when Uncle Sam will do it for them, courtesy the American taxpayer (and the Bank of China)?
Let’s hope the Chinese will lend the US the money to stay engaged. Oh, good for you!
Or maybe we ought to let China pick up the we’ll-rebuild-NK responsibility and costs if Seoul punts.
Shit wages and sub-standard living conditions given by a Southern boss is A LOT better then the worthless “wages” and sub-sub-standard living conditions (and political and religious oppression) given by their current Northern overlords. Making the entire country a Gaesong Complex would be a vast improvement.
*than* not *then*
Kinda like the argument made by the Japs when dragging Korea into the modern era.
Anyway, will the internees still be paid in Choco Pies?
seouldout… that’s nothing like the “promise” (more accurate term would be external “justification”) Japan made to a late Joseon era Korea.
Balderdash.
Why does the author take as a given that when Kim Jong-il goes the rest of the DPRK power structure will vanish like the forces of Mordor after Frodo throws the ring into the pit of fire?
Wouldn’t an Army take-over be more plausible?
It’s not fair to compare North Korea with Iraq and Afghanistan.
1. North Korea is largely homogeneous compared to Iraq and Afghanistan that have both ethnic and religious minorities and factions.
2. The people in Iraq and Afghanistan are less entwined to their state governments to begin with. The level of state involvement is miniscule to what North Korean people face with North Korea. That makes the state a much more vital partner in reconstruction.
3. Culturally, Iraq and Afghanistan is still stuck in pre-Enlightenment. North Korea is in militaristic nationalism. Less of a leap in cultural development.
4. The nature of the North Korean regime is much more akin to WWII Imperial Japan than to present-day Iraq or Afghanistan. It wouldn’t be unfair to make the extrapolation that nation-building will follow the Japanese model a lot closer than the Iraq/Afghanistan failed models.
5. With Iraq and Afghanistan, there is less trade shocks from trade partners having economic displacement. Compare that to the level of potential economic shock that will occur from China, South Korea, and Japan having a sudden influx of immigrants and belligerent rebel groups trying to gain leverage with nuclear weapons.
6. Nuclear Weapons.
@14
No but it isn’t organized in such a manner there is a clear second-in-line for rule. That is why it’s much more dangerous. There are a lot of powerful entities that would try to position themselves as the head of North Korea. That leads to a subsequent collapse. The army may try but there are several generals. Not to mention there are several factions who each have influences over various sectors of society.
It appears that the main opposition to stationing U.S. troops in Korea and Japan is an economic one. In light of crazy budgetary concerns back stateside, it’s clearly a valid concern. With that in mind, I have a proposal (for both the U.S. and her Pacific allies).
What if Korea and Japan agreed to subsidize the total cost of maintaining and stationing U.S. troops in their respective territories so it’s actually cheaper than to host an equal number of troops in U.S. territory? Just a thought.
Why make the proposal? The world is an unstable place. I like to have a relatively uninterrupted military logistical chain from the U.S. territories to the Middle East from both coasts. I like to have an insurance policy. I mean hell, I’d reckon that a good chunk of the value of the U.S. dollar is tied to its military capabilities. It sure ain’t our gold reserves any more! Any ways, if our allies subsidize it to a point where cost is not a significant issue, wouldn’t that be a win-win?
shrug,
Excellent points!
Shrug (#15), well said. You hit most of the points I was thinking. I would also just stress your point #1 about religion playing a key factor in the difficulty in the middle east. Religion will be less of a barrier in N.Korea due to, as you pointed out, the relative homogeneity. However, in your comment #16, I do think a military takeover is also highly possible. Even with many generals, it’s always the one who can muster up the most support and influence that takes the cake. As you know, this has happened in S. Korea before.
All of that seems to make sense.
It’s because of the potential chaos following a collapse of the Kim regime but not the Army (which could fracture or who knows what) that it seems unwise right now to pull out US forces. That said it would be nice if there were a way to make clear that there is no intention to invade or send US troops north (and anyway South Korean troops would seem a more natural choice were it necessary to establish military control).
As for the costs of rebuilding the north, though the initial investments would be huge believe the payoff could be even bigger. It doesn’t seem it would be hard to borrow even $100b to rebuild north Korea if it were reunified. That said again I think it’s very possible a new North Korea could emerge without reunification happening at all, or only slowly and later, in which case rebuilding would also seem to happen at a slower pace and with less access to capital.
I said $100 billion — that’s $5k per North Korean. Is that realistic? Is $50b closer?
When the U.S. first made its security commitment to South Korea, the Cold War was in full force, South Korea was a basketcase third-world economy, the North was industrially far more powerful, and the Soviets and Chinese were active supporters of the Kim Il Sung regime. Needless to say, none of that is true anymore. Make no mistake…South Korea is THE post-WWII economic and political success story of the 20th century. Yet 20 years after the end of the Cold War, U.S. troops are still there, treated as paid mercenaries by countries like Korea and Japan, where they have long been increasingly unwelcome.
But putting all this history aside, what’s even more disturbing is the sad reality that every argument pushed forward by the “U.S.-military-has-to-stay-in-Korea-no-matter-what” crowd boils down to a single, perverse view: Korea is unable to provide for its own defense.
Now, there may be some special circle of hell for those who can square their Korean pride with this huge concession, but I’ve always been a big fan of Korean nationalism, even when it’s been directed against the U.S. (or even against me on the streets of Seoul) because, well, I’m an American nationalist and I dig it when I see it in other people. And the logic of Korean nationalism, Korean self-respect, and the country’s frickin’ awesome success over the last 60 years dictates that the day must come when U.S. troops leave the country.
One final point. Korean conservatives love to bad-mouth former President Carter for threatening to pull U.S. troops out of Korea at the end of the 1970s, but what they invariably don’t mention is that in 1974, President Park Chung Hee himself told the NY Times that he expected that South Korea would be militarily strong enough by 1980 that the U.S. military could leave the country by then.
Thirty years later….
DLB
Good news for you, Robin Hedge — Mr. Joo Seong-Ha in his recent article pretty much conceded that his initial projection about NK’s currency reform was wrong. You should be able to see the translation of that post later tonight on my blog.
DLBarch if you’re replying in part to my comment I have sometimes believed US troops should leave, however today the situation in the North is changing very fast. It *could* be that removing US troops would in fact precipitate a regime collapse up North by taking away one of the regime’s last raisons-d’etre.
But there’s a big trade-off, because during the chaos that could follow a collapse the clear deterrent of US forces could help prevent the worst outcomes. As much as possible, Seoul must be protected. My fear is that potential conflicts between DPRK generals for example could lead to bizarre or (from our viewpoint) irrational behavior like the a conflict spilling over the border or some desperate attack on the South for internal North Korean reasons. That’s my worst case scenario and maybe it’s just a tail risk, but because of the damage the DPRK army could do in just a few hours, it does still in my mind at least merit US troops staying put.
I’ve actually been a proponent of a peace treaty with the North, only to help the regime fall or change, of course. Troops should be removed after a treaty, not before. And a treaty seems impossible today given the internal US political situation. For these reasons I don’t think the US can withdraw now, unfortunately. Maybe Bush could have gone there if he’d only have let Colin Powell deal with the whole thing from the beginning…
As for nationalism, I don’t like it at all and am personally a fan of cosmopolitanism. What do you like so much about nationalism? War? Can’t we be energized by something other than flags?
methinks that the parallel is off with Iraq as the marm-man has already pointed out the faulty parallel republicans made with Iraq-Korea in posts before.
nation building in North Korea is not the big challenge… i think it’s weathering the initial storm that will be the big challenge…
North Korean people will naturally be angry at their former government…. but they are “naturally” indoctrinated to follow authoritarian regime. North Koreans at this point has zero “revolutionary” spirit in terms of forming guerilla bands or using terrorist tactics. Everything is government controlled and I doubt insurgency will be a big problem over there…
On the otherhand, yes… the cost of American involvement… how much would it be? That is a seriously legitimate questions. America right now is really suffering. I think America no longer has the luxury of thinking in terms of “what is in America’s best interest?” let alone “what is in the world’s best interest?” We just can’t afford this… There just isn’t any greenbacks in the wallet…
it’s the grim truth. South Korea has better healthcare than United States. That’s the bitter reality.
@thekorean, sweet! : )
Don’t need to worry about post N. Korea collapse. China would take care the business well before the US or S. Korea involvement over the territory. China would be the one who wants direct control over NK territory as it has strong political and economic involvement.
According to Kukinews article, China already had conducted a war-game with Russia over N.Korea collapse scenario in 2005 that they would immediately send troops to the territory and make China-Russia friendly reforms.
http://news.kukinews.com/article/view.asp?page=1&gCode=kmi&arcid=0003426137&cp=nv
So the US parameter would be depends on how much power Chinese (or Russian) control should be over N.Korea.
And N.Korea territory would become another “Tibet”. Wait…how about Japan? She would want intervened as well with “Self-defense forces” to protect islands. And S. Korea politicians would still fight each other’s interest over “SeJong city”.
You’re overlooking the most important cost. Why should American blood be spilled, or put in harm’s way, for Korea? If Seoul needs to be protected, as someone else, said, let Koreans do it.
I like nationalism because without it, nation-building is impossible. The movie Invictus is a nice illustration of that.
@25 Virtual Wanderer
hhmph — messed up the tags again… excuse me please…
if china tries to take any part of nk after it’s collapse, there will be war and china will lose. the people of sk and nk aren’t going to tolerate it. it will not be tibet where the religion preaches non-violence. this idea that china is going to take over is really more about individuals who wish the worst for the korean people. you mark my words, if china tries to take northern korea, there will be war and the chinese will lose. vietnam, anyone?
*****
the fact that us troops are in korea tells me they’re there for reasons other than defending korea.
*****
if you want sk to defend itself, then the us will have have to stop dictating what kind of weapons korea can have. is the us willing to do that?
@ Robin edge
nationalism is behind lots of human achievements, and some horrific things too i agree. What would have America become without the Manifest Destiny docrine ? What England would have achieved without their Britannia Rules mentality ? Would Korea have leaped into the industrial age without a healthy dose of nationalism ? I doubt it
Nationalism is pride, pride is life
Nationalism: I don’t have a problem with the celebration of “us.” It’s when the conversation turns to “them” that I get itchy…
I do understand the argument that nationalism can fuel collective action, but I’m very uneasy with it. We really should define “nationalism” better. Can you have an inclusive “nationalism?” Can “I” join “your” nationalism? And I’m always hoping ideals can take the place of nationalism, but maybe I’m just a dreamer… But let’s see, the European renaissance happened sans nationalism, Singapore is successful but not nationalist (but it’s so small…), post-war Germany isn’t nationalist. Still, it’s hard to argue that some kinds of nationalism haven’t had good sides (though I’m not endorsing all of the examples mentioned in the thread and could argue several of them aren’t actually examples of nationalism, but we’d get back to definitions again).
Maybe I should say I can be supportive of certain nationalist movements if they prominently include humanist ideals as part of their identity. Still, it does make me uneasy.
@ # 28,
That’s a good point. That would be one of the major risks. Potential loss of American lives in Korea and Okinawa. Personally, I think the risk of loss of life is minimal, particularly if stability is maintained. I believe U.S. troop presence in Germany and other parts of Western Europe enabled the Iron Curtain to fall with relatively little bloodshed. I’m hoping it will be a similar situation in the Korean peninsula.
I also agree that the current arrangement to take the 2nd ID off the frontlines makes sense. I personally believe that they should be used as a mobile reserve in the event that South Korean forces can’t contain a North Korean attack. Fat chance of that ever happening. If so, then the possible loss of life should be highly minimal.
“Of course, why should they, when Uncle Sam will do it for them, courtesy the American taxpayer (and the Bank of China)?”
Sounds like a perfectly good arrangement to me.
Anyhoo…. I suspect the rest of the world isn’t really that bothered. The fear of the great communist threat seems to be over. North Korea shares no real trade or other exchange with the wider world so ultimately if it was taken over by China what would the greater world lose.
What if Korea and Japan agreed to subsidize the total cost of maintaining and stationing U.S. troops in their respective territories so it’s actually cheaper than to host an equal number of troops in U.S. territory?
Is this not already the case?
Another guarantee of security would be to always have a lot of Chinese tourists in Seoul. If the Norks ever shell or lob Scud missiles at Seoul and it results in a number of dead PRC citizens on CNN, then that’s something the Norks (and the PRC) have to put into consideration also…
Let’s sponsor a Chinatown on the road leading to Seoul!.. I jest.. I jest..!…
I recently dined with a Korean businessman who informed me, into our third bottle of soju, that the area of China bordering North Korea, “Liaoning,” is traditionally Korean territory. He bemoaned the US’s prevention of Korean re-unification because he wants a unified Korea to retake this territory.
No. Look, you (who say the US troops should leave now/soon/yesterday) are all wrong and haven’t been paying attention.
Robert (in comment 7) didn’t even TRY to argue against my points – he simply put a few few of my phrases in quotation marks and then whinged that the rest of the world wasn’t prepared to share the burden with the US. I acknowledge that is true, and must stick on Robert’s craw, but it doesn’t change the facts.
It is not about whether South Korea can defend itself or not. Although the Americans do have a precedent of prematurely declaring South Korea capable of holding off a North Korean invasion since 1949 (as we saw in Allan Millett’s excellent book The War for Korea Volume 1).
South Korea probably could now fight off a North Korean invasion. It might not be able to prevent Seoul from being turned into a proverbial Sea of Fire by artillery shells and WMDs (flattening yet more of those nice little Hanok houses in Gahoi-dong that Robert would no doubt mourn the loss of). As Sperwer points out, Koreans should be the ones taking the bullets to save Seoul (and, by extension, his and Robert’s and my white asses if we are here if/when invasion comes).
What South Korea could NOT do by itself is prevent a region-wide chaos/conflagration, drawing in Japan and China and possibly Russia.
US troops, by very dint of being here, are actually a stabilizing factor. This doesnt have to involve actual loss of US blood and treasure. Yes, there is a risk, but the risk might even be lower (game theoreticians, do your best) than that of the loss of US blood and treasure that might occur if, after a pullout of US troops, a region-wide conflict DID erupt and US troops came to the aid of Japan and/or South Korea later.
Again, let’s look at 1950 as a precedent. If US troops had not left South Korea to fend for herself, would Stalin have given the green light to Kim Il-sung to invade? If he hadn’t, could that have saved the lives of the 36,516 U.S. dead? Sure, it’s counter-factual, but maybe instructive when making decisions today.
By all means, scale down the US military, and draw them further away from the DMZ. Consolidate bases and hand back the smaller ones. All good ideas. But leaving just enough here to act as a deterrent for the Northeast Asian fit hitting the shan – that’s a good idea too.
No I’m not and yes I have.
OK…
I’ll assume you agree that your reference to the American mistake of 1949, in light of South Korea’s current gross economic, demographic and technological superiority, is about as relevant as citing America’s pre-WWI lack of a standing army in discussing US strategy in the Middle East, so I won’t argue.
The presence of US troops in Korea, or Okinawa, for that matter, wouldn’t stop the North Koreans from turning Seoul into a proverbial Sea of Fire, either. So irrelevant, unless you want to argue that fact.
Who said anything about South Korea preventing by itself a region-wide conflagration? Sure, such a conflagration seems rather prohibitively expensive for all parties involved (who are one another’s largest trading partners), even if South Korea and Japan didn’t go nuclear. But even granting the risk of such a conflagration — just as there is even WITH the presence of US troops — why do you assume that the regional powers involved wouldn’t come to security arrangements of their own?
Why would we need to come to the aid of Japan or South Korea later? Do they look like they need help with anything? Japan has Asia’s largest and most technologically advanced navy, and South Korea has 600,000 men under arms. Both could go nuclear overnight. They’re big boys who don’t need the American soldiers or American tax payers to protect or rescue them. If you’re really that concerned with the balance of power, why not just rely on US naval and air power as a deterrent… assuming South Korean and Japanese nuclear deterrents weren’t enough?
Yes, it would be instructive… if this were 1950, and Japan were a bombed-out shell, South Korea didn’t an economy 30 times the size of the North’s, a large, well-supplied army that drives perhaps the world’s best main battle tank, F-15s, a navy capable of projecting power even to foreign shores and the potential to turn North Korea into a sheet of glass if it wished, and North Korea weren’t a starving shit hole relying on antiquated Soviet equipment. Not to make too fine a point of it, but if South Korea were still unable to defend itself given these kinds of advantages, it would represent such an abysmal failure that Seoul wouldn’t DESERVE an American rescue.
Right… because as everyone knows, it’s 2ID and a handful of A-10s and F-16s in Osan and Gunsan that’s the REAL reason why the PLA aren’t going buck wild in a war of regional conquest. Pulling those guys out would be nothing short of Munich.
Seriously, hamel, do you really think US troops in Korea are that key in maintaining the regional balance of power? Even if I were to grant for argument’s sake that the US should continue guaranteeing regional stability through a local military presence, it seems to me that when the Chinese are looking at the map, they’re looking at Guam, Okinawa and wherever-the-hell the US 7th Fleet is at the moment, NOT Pyeongtaek.
Pay attention to that, tough guy!
US military is a double edged sword. It is so powerful that American policy makers are tempted into making some truly bizarre decisions–>Iraq.
In fact, I believe we are in this situation, because Americans are just so used to pumping money into this bottomless craphole. Here on Marmot’s blog, a large number of people seem to have the feeling, “we need to leave Korea, because they are ingrates.” I can understand this feeling, but what really bothers me is that there is no emphasis on, “we can’t afford to do this.”
What I fear is that people in America still thinks it’s in America’s best interest to put substantial amount of national resources in the military and continue to exact American foreign policy using US military as it has been doing in the past….
Americans have to come to terms that what made America a hyper power in the first place is it’s industry, economy, and technology. But, American future looks pretty bleak. In every engineering school in America, all the engineers come from China or India. If you look at women engineers, it’s even more one-sidedly asian. If American economy looks like crap, there will be reverse brain drain. Noone talks about this…
Or the fact that if American economy is crap, we won’t even get illegal immigrants working in those “dirty” jobs.
People in other countries don’t talk about, “hey let’s go into Iraq and make democracy!” or “let’s go defend South Korea!” because they know they can’t do it or afford it. Americans have to come to terms with the fact that we also can’t do it. It is not within our power. Obama is wrong on some things…. “No we can’t” is more realistic and pragmatic motto.
Sooner Americans come to the realization that we are in a crisis, sooner Americans will have the luxury of talking about going into other countries and enforcing American will.
We have to come to terms that we can’t prevent countries like Iran or North Korea from becoming nuclear power.
pawikirogii,
Dream on. SK fighting China? Man, it will be like Mexico fighting the US. No match. No chance of winning.
And, do not expect the US to somehow get involved. As Marmot wrote, many Americans have no intention of fighting the Chinese to save SK.
When NK collapses, China will enter NK as requested by NK and set up another puppet government. That is the only outcome.
When SK somehow mistakenly “invade”(yes, this is how other countries will see SK’s “unification attempt”) NK, no countries including Japane, EU or the US, will help SK’s stupid move.
SK will be demolished by China and disappear from the face of the Earth. No more SK. The united Korea will be ruled by another general. And, China will take what is good in SK, smart people, manifacturing facilities, big corporation, money, gold,etc, to China.
Korea will become a gigantic gulag as NK is.
This will happen within twenty years.
2012 is a crucial year. After 2012, SK is on its own.
China may intentionally induce KJI’s government to collapse. Maybe by assassination.
I believe there is a mutual defense treaty of some sort between NK and China. This gives China to march into NK when NK is in trouble.
However, SK does not. It will be a pure “invasion”.
SK generals and young punks like Powi will suggest that as Chinese troops enters NK territory SK has the same right. And, they will pour into NK despite the US’ attempt to stop.
And, SK troops and Chinese troops will meet in the middle of NK. And, SK is over. Over. Kapoot. No more SK.
Some smart politician should educate SKs about this possibility. I hope LMB or others like him to be in power when this happens. And, keep SKs calm, despite the Chinese troops entering NK.
Calm and collected. Otherwise, SK will be no more.
do you smoke weed, bodunk?
Ooh, I’m shaking. Seriously, I would argue all of the points you made above, but I am about to go down to Yongsan for a nice leisurely brunch on post. (One more reason I hope the USFK stays here!)
All I can say for now is that whatever your arguments and mine, the facts on the ground seem to show that US policy makers appear to be more close to my thinking than yours.
Oh, and why not come straight out and say it, instead of implying it: you don’t think the US should be guaranteeing regional stability anywhere outside of its own territory and (perhaps) immediate neighbors.
I personally don’t think the US should be guaranteeing regional stability, indeed it would take a lot to convince me that US led action in Iraq/Afghanistan has promoted regional stability, whilst at the same time I believe their presence in Korea does and I’m quite happy as noted for the US to pay for it.
Where I would perhaps differ is from Roberts inference that America does this for the benefit of others. The US does this regional interference and projection of power for basically the same reasons of the British did in their time of world influence. Stability promotes trade, and keeps trade routes open, which increases markets and access to same for British (now american) industrial might i.e. for the ultimate benefit of their own economies. However the world changes, and just as the british found the balance of industrial power shifts, the US is no longer the industrial power that it was, and as observed by others above it quite simply can’t afford to finance such a policy, just as after the first world war and shift in industrial base to the US, the british no longer could.
Really, please you don’t have to follow the british into the mire.
PS no ones answered my previous query, doesn’t the korean government subsidise the US presence here in korea?
they pay about 40% but that would get in the way of painting it as a free ride.
Korea pays 40% of the non-capital, non-personnel operating costs — i.e., gas money. Provided the gas is bought from them. It’s as close to a free ride as one can imagine.
well, lucky for korea then.
Thanks, pawi, thanks Brendon, the 40% was kinda what I guessing (50%), but I didn’t realise it was 40% of almost nothing.
So I was chatting with L. Gordon Flake of the Mansfield Foundation last night. He is an Arizona Republican who spoke quite cogently (much better than I could) about the need for US troops to stay in Korea to maintain stability in not only Korea, and Northeast Asia, but the wider region.
I told him about our little debate here, and said that the line this blog host is taking is quite similar to that of the Cato Institute/Doug Bandow and typical of the isolationist wing of the Libertarian movement.
This caused me to think that free trade and stability maintenance through military projection beyond your borders seem to work nicely together. In this inter-connected world, the failure of one state of region can have quite negative effects far beyond its borders on trade – witness Somalia, for instance.
It would seem to me that, if you are into free international trade, being an isolationist vis-a-vis foreign policy would be contradictory. But then no more contradictory, I suppose, than living in a country/region that enjoys the benefits of US troop protection and arguing for those troops to leave.
It also occurred to me that, since in this thread I am not arguing against merely a single position (i.e. US troops should leave Korea) but an entire ideology (i.e. isolationist libertarianism), my chances of actually changing the Marmot’s mind on this issue are exceedingly minimal. I could bring up the best arguments in the world to support the position (or, more likely, somebody else could) and it would have little to no effect, because it runs counter to the prevailing ideology.
It would be like trying to argue with a staunch Roman Catholic about whether transubstantiation really works or not. As a non-Catholic, my views would already be wrong, and, therefore, easily dismissed.
So while I cannot change my friend’s mind on this issue, looking at the work that Presidents Obama and Lee have done in their meetings last year to cement the alliance (and to state the US commitment to a future unified Korea), I can rest safe in the knowledge that Mamot and I will continue to enjoy the stability maintenance role that those troops provide for a long time to come, and the Cato Institute is as unlikely to take over the White House as I am to take over this blog.
I have been informed that the correct label is not “isolationist libertarian” but “non-interventionist libertarian.”
The rest still stands.
You must log in to post a comment.