I could do without the attacks on Ron Paul, think the descriptions of Korean anti-Americanism are either out-of-date or exaggerated (note to Joshua: I can’t even remember the last time a “Stupid GI Trick” made it into the news), and would argue that while the Koreans might have done a whole lot of fuck-all for us in Iraq and Afghanistan, a whole lot of fuck-all was still quite a bit more than some of our other, ahem, “allies” did, but the major point of Joshua‘s post in the New Ledger — that we need to get out of South Korea yesterday — is sound:
Because South Korea, now one the world’s wealthiest nations, expects up to 600,000 American soldiers to arrive protect it from any security contingency, successive South Korean governments actually cut their nation’s defense rather than modernizing it and building an effective independent defense. Consequently, South Korea still has a 1970-vintage force structure, designed around a 1970-vintage threat, equipped with 1970-vintage weapons. This is partly the legacy of ten years of leftist administrations, but it’s also the legacy of military welfare that allowed South Korea to defer upgrading its equipment, building a professional volunteer army, and organizing an effective reserve force to deal with security contingencies. Worst of all, South Korea diverted billions of dollars that should have been spent on modernizing its military into regime-sustaining aid to Kim Jong Il, to be used, as far as anyone knows, for nukes, missiles, artillery, and pretty much everything but infant formula. To this day, South Korea continues to resist accepting operational control over its own forces in the event of war.
(HT to reader)
{ 76 comments… read them below or add one }
Pretty much my take, too – although I think the problems with (i) his references to anti-Americanism needed to be more nuanced to take account of the fickleness of Korea street and its susceptibility to manipulation, and (ii) given ROK propensity to claim cred for its contributions in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s surely worth pointing out that providing modern sanitary plumbing for a patch of Kurdistan, as worthy as that is in itself, is not deserving of many props – let alone a claim to part of the oil patch.
“Consequently, South Korea still has a 1970-vintage force structure, designed around a 1970-vintage threat, equipped with 1970-vintage weapons.”
But I recall someone saying that NK had bad/old stuff, too:
“lollabrats April 4, 2010 at 12:04 pm
@baduk
Do you really believe that in a one-on-one fight, the DPRK’s military, which cannot feed its own soldiers, maintain enough fuel for their vehicles, and supply enough ammunition for their weapons can hold out against SK for 6 months with antiquated communications and transportations systems and arms?”
So, who has worse/older equipment? Looks like both sides are in bad shape…
Yikes! If the Yanks leave where will everyone get their black market goodies?
Stock up now and ignore the expiration dates. Apple Jacks never really expire, do they?
My view: America is the world’s police force.
No one really wants us until they need us. When things go to hell,
a lot of countrys always expects the US to lead in efforts. (ie. UN)
What sucks is that America’s actions and rhetoric encourages that
view. There will always be a biggest ‘bully’ in the schoolyard and
the hanger-ons who live in the protection of that shadow. America needs to
BUT out of other countries business and deal with it’s own inhouse
problems. We sure got enough of them.
As nationalistic as SKorea is, I can’t understand how Skorea can stand
being so dependant on the US for ‘protection’.
Mr. Stanton, it seems, makes his case more out of a deep-seated dislike of Korea rather than any concern for America’s true interests. Congressman Ron Paul makes the same argument without any ill will toward Korea and out of love for America.
To call him “an anti-Semitic crypto-racist” is to use the worst tactics of PC thought police. It’s sad how “conservatives” have adopted the approach since the ’08 primaries.
@ Maximus2008
“So, who has worse/older equipment? Looks like both sides are in bad shape…”
I think this is a good point. We have learned not only that the South is patrolling the NLL–an area most likely to be a scene of actual and unexpected gun battles–with a leaky ship like the Cheonan, but we also have learned that the air force has been resorting to cannibalizing fighter aircraft due to the lack of parts and forcing pilots to take less training hours than the military thinks is adequate.
But let’s not get carried away. The South’s condition is nothing like the North’s. In a one on one fight, technological superiority, ample munitions, large stores of fuels, and access to food goes a long way. In addition, in case of war, I assume the South has plans to adapt and crank up their industry for military production. The North cannot even build up a credible conventional force during peace time, when nobody is even trying to blow up their unfeuled, unarmed tanks before their tankers even know they are in danger.
The one-sided nature of the recent naval gun fight is revealing. In that clash, the South’s ship chewed up the North’s ship without taking casualties because the accuracy of the North’s gunnery technology was much inferior. This is why the DPRK needs nukes in the first place.
But maybe Baduk is right: maybe the state of the ROK’s military is as bad as it sounds. Still, unlike the DPRK, the ROK has the infrastructure and wealth to modernize. In fact, the ROK looks very credible in the process of their modernization.
Incidentally, I wouldn’t blame the slowness of modernization on Kim Dae Jung as some here seem to want to blame. For those of you who want to blame him, it might be helpful to recall that South Korea was hit by the Asian financial crisis, in which their modest per capita income of over $10,000 in 1996 dropped by more than 22 percentage points. This was not that long ago; most younger Korean teens are older than the crisis.
Without deft leadership, Korea could have become a poor country again and they had to defer their development in every aspect of society while they retrenched. Military procurement was obviously not spared from cuts. By 1996, the ROK was well on its way to becoming one of the major importers of arms in the world by early this decade. Things have clearly turned out differently. American arms companies alone exported about $1 billion to the ROK in 1996. In 1997, that number dropped to about $725 million. In 1998, it dropped again to about $690 million. While defense spending actually increased by about 1 trillion won in 1998 from 1997, the procurement budget was slashed by about a third. The falling won did not help as its purchasing power dropped to half.
Even if the crisis gave President Kim the opportunity to do what he would have liked to do anyway–cut the procurement budget–it still does not change the fact that the crisis did happen, which required the government to retool their budget.
President Roh, however, deliberately hurt their modernization pace without any excuse to do so. Even so, modernization is taking place, albeit, at a slower pace than they were on in previous decades.
Meanwhile, the North has no hope of modernizing their military without a radical departure from their current behavior. Instead, they stock up on and develop the trinity of chemical, biological, and nuclear plus missiles to deliver them.
I don’t know, is it a “Stupid GI Trick” to beat the shit out of a taxi driver, stiff him on the fare and/or steal his taxi?
#6, Cheonan was not a leaky ship. It was commissioned in 1989 – which is not even that old. And it was sunk by an external explosion. I wish people would stop peddling these unfounded rumors.
I’ve always seen the US presence in Korea as simply a lack of faith the US has in Korea to do the job they are tasked with, namely to be the front line of the democratic East Asian powers (S. Korea, Japan, Taiwan) against the un-democratic East Asian powers (N. Korea, China, Russia). If unification under the South Korean banner were to happen tomorrow, would this not still be the case? Wouldn’t the peninsula still be that front line, and wouldn’t the US still not trust Korea to take charge of such an important task by themselves?
(BTW, I know I’m making it sound as if South Korea is incompetent. This is not my point. South Korea may or may not be incompetent in it’s handling of North Korea, but this does not matter. Only that the US sees the possibility everything going sour as real enough to make inaction far too risky.)
Ok, maybe I’m stupid, but does this mean that US is staying in Korea primarily because Korea is asking them to? That US isn’t making the decision to stay primarily out of its own interest, whatever that may be? If that’s the case, then pointing the finger at Korea makes no sense at all.
I mean, let’s not forget — even if S Korea was actually leaning towards the unwilling end of keeping US troops in Korea, if the US says they want to stay, they will find a way to stay.
I’ve always thought that Japan’s political immaturity and the often comical incompetence of its elected political class flow from that protectorate nation having most defense and many foreign policy decisions made in Washington, DC.
Yes, the United States stays in Korea primarily because in the pre-Barack Obama era the United States placed value on keeping commitments to allies. Before we elected Obama, America’s interest was in being a reliable friend to friendly states like Britain, France, Israel and emerging post-Soviet democracies. Now his administration seems to spend its days spitting in the eyes of America’s friends. Don’t worry though, he’ll get around to Korea eventually as the United Auto Workers union is very down on Korea. Korea is very lucky it’s not Jewish, else Obama would have screwed Korea over already. But maybe he thinks there’s still a dictatorship here or something — that shameful piece of shit Obama really seems to like odious dictators.
Did I mention I disapprove of Barack Obama’s performance? Looks like I’ve got company. Five years from now, it will be impossible to find anyone to admit to voting for the guy.
I like the reason because it’s fresh and different but I am not so sure how the South Koreans possessing latest weapons would be good for anyone.
apart from “showing off the flashy new toys” kind of reason.
While I think incidents like Chonanham (which reminded me of the recent dam overflow as well as the Namdaemun burning to a crisp) could be dealt with better with a more solid disaster-response structure in place (be it modernization or re-implementation of workable safety drills instead of a whole lot of 갈팡질팡 아저씨들)…is it beneficial for a nation to be armed to the teeth like the Israelis?
@cm
“#6, Cheonan was not a leaky ship. It was commissioned in 1989 – which is not even that old. And it was sunk by an external explosion. I wish people would stop peddling these unfounded rumors.”
^_^;
Take a breath and take a step back. Whether the Cheonan was “leaky” is a whole separate issue from whether an external explosion sank the ship. The evidence we have now seems to point to an external explosion as the cause. (1) Seismic sensors detected an explosion. (2) The dozens of crewmen who survived all attest that they believe that an external explosion sank the ship. (3) An explosion from beneath the ship cannot be ruled out from what we know of what happened: there was a certain kind of sound; the ship was lifted; there was a huge gush of water forced into the air; the ship cracked neatly in half, and the stern was quickly dragged under. (4) From what they have already investigated, the Koreans seem to have ruled out a massive internal explosion as having occured. For these reasons, I believe that an external explosion did sink the Cheonan and that the right kind of explosion under a ship can sink a brand new ship just as easily as any random “leaky” ship.
As for the “rumor” of the “leaky” Cheonan, I apologize if this has already been debunked. Of course everyone has heard the rumor since it has been circulating conspicuously in the Korean media. But I have not yet heard that this is untrue. Since you are adamant that this rumor is false, I will not say more on it until I learn more.
I understand that you are merely reacting to people who are trying to preemptively absolve KJI by conflating the two issues before any investigation is complete. But as a general rule, just because someone else is trying to fallaciously conflate issues for political reasons doesn’t mean that you should, therefore, do the same.
That’s what I think anyways.
@Brendon Carr
The way you speak about Obama, I often wonder whether you even believe what you say about him.
^_^;
Oh yes, counselor, I remember those blissful, pre-Obama days, when everyone loved America, and all our allies were overjoyed to follow us into a war that had “multi-decade clusterfuck” written all over it.
Let me clear things up for you: I’m counting the days until the November 2010 elections turn him into a powerless lame duck.
@Brendon Carr
I apologize for this mini-thread-jack. This will be my last post on this. But. Brendon, we all have noticed that you are not Obama’s biggest fan. What I wonder is whether you actually believe that your rants against him are completely reasonable and devoid of hysteria or fallacy. I just do not believe that you believe everything you say about him.
“Before we elected Obama, America’s interest was in being a reliable friend to friendly states like Britain, France …”
You mean, “Old Europe”? Yeah, Bush-Cheney showed them respect.
“… that shameful piece of shit Obama …”
Jesus, Brendon; really? Are you drunk? Gone off your meds? How has Obama deviated from the Bush-Cheney party line? You should love the guy, to the same degree people like me are disgusted with him. Didn’t he just last week declare that the president has the power to unilaterally and without any sort of due process order the assassination of a U.S. citizen? (Answer: oh yes he did.) Dow at 11,000. What exactly is your problem?
“I’m counting the days until the November 2010 elections turn him into a powerless lame duck.”
Didn’t you hear? He’s already a powerless lame duck. Massachusetts has spoken. The Party of No controls the Senate 41-59.
Not that there aren’t anti-Semitic crypto-racists in paleocon circles, but I don’t know how that applies to Ron Paul.
One could make the “screw the ungrateful bastards” argument under Roh and Co., but LMB’s another matter. Anyway, there’s no reason to make a withdrawal an adversarial thing. Ultimately, it’s best for everybody involved.
All of this misses the point, as does Josh’s article unfortunately.
If US forces withdraw it should be done as a geopolitical aikido move to undermine Juche and DPRK ideology by removing the “threat” that validates them. I wonder if the tower of Juche can stand without using the old Yankee demon to scare people into submission.
A more moderate move would be withdrawal to the south of the ROK away from the DMZ. USFK at the border makes sense as a “tripwire” defense that ensures US involvement should the North invade (enough US blood having been spilled that American opinion would be for war). But the DMZ tripwire defense posture has a big downside because the DPRK claims the presence of US forces on the border is proof of a imminent invasion, or one that will come if the North ever loses its vigilance. And so that’s why, Mr and Mrs North Korean, you must make great sacrifices — to defend the Fatherland from the invaders! This has always been a pillar of Juche. So sadly, every USFK infantryman is being played as a propaganda tool that actually strengthens Juche, Military-first, and lends an excuse (though a false one) to the crimes perpetuated against the North Korean people.
Robin, the Norks also claim the move from Yongsan to Osan is a prelude to invasion. I don’t think they believe that; but they say it… And some gullible college students eat it up like it was candy…
Putting aside the Obama derangement syndrome hysterics, the Stanton argument is one that Doug Bandow and other, um, libertarians have been making for more than a decade. Platitudes aside, I don’t hear anyone offering up a thoughtful rebuke to the idea that rich, developed countries like Korea should provide for their own defense.
This debate is timely and long over-due. I understand why Koreans might want to prolong their free ride on defense, but I don’t get why any American would carry water for another country at a time when, you know, the U.S. has other, more pressing security concerns that don’t involve outdated Cold War legacies.
DLB
I, too, think the US military should leave Korea. Because maybe then whiny Americans like Stanton would finally shut up.
This sort of thing reminds me of the playground situation where some boys are playing ball and the rich, spoiled kid is the one who owns that ball. But if things don’t go his way or if he starts losing too much then the rich, spoiled kid starts acting like a brat and ruins the game by saying “i’m not gonna play anymore” and goes home taking the ball with him.
To read the comments on The New Ledger, South Korea has generated no shortage of han among people living there or who’ve spent time there:
–”The only place I’ve ever been where all non natives are treated like n***ers. Leave them to their fate. There is nothing in all of Korea that is worth even one drop of American blood.”
–”I tend to agree with Josh. I currently reside in S. Korea, and have been here 3 yrs. And no, I am not an English teacher. I have worked on 4 continents, but in all my travels, have never come across a mindset such as displayed by the dwellers of this resource-poor peninsula. Yes, they have one of the world’s most thriving economies…..because they have “group think”. We westerners value individuality. Koreans do not understand this concept, and do not understand the term “common sense”. They have none. My personal opinion is that barring the imminence front displayed by the “wealthy, i.e severely debt ridden” populace, these folk have the same same mindset as their northern neighbors. ”
——
I recently met a female executive from a major US newspaper/media group who visited Seoul for a 4-day conference and she said two things: 1) She was blown away by the geewhiz communications technology on display and in use 2) It is one country she’s never choose to visit again because of an offputting arrogance she felt, even among shopkeepers, who laughed at her (rather standard for a western) shoesize.
NK,
I can’t tell whether we agree or not, but I see an irony developing here that those of us who recognize that Korea is now rich and developed and very capable indeed of taking care of and defending itself are somehow seen as anti-Korea, while those who champion Korea’s success even as they maintain that the country is so helpless that it still needs America’s security umbrella in its exact current form, no changes, please, thank you very much, are somehow more pro-Korea.
This phenomenom is not new. I’ve seen this argument play out exactly the same way in U.S.-Israel relations. President Obama is probably one of Isreal’s best friends, but with Netanyahu and the Likud calling the shots, anything smacking of repositioning American policy even slightly is seen as a betrayal. And of course there are no shortage of Americans ready to bad-mouth their commander-in-chief even as they carry water for other countries.
So, what we have here is a case of the “pro” Korea side being its own worse enemy. And if anyone still needs a wake-up call, then they should try to attend one of the endless security conferences that take place in Seoul and Washington and pay close attention to how the Americans talk about Korea and then how they talk about Taiwan. The two countries are not equivalent, true, but it’s enough to make any true Korean patriot stop and say, W.T.F!
DLB
Sure, so withdrawing to Japan makes more sense. And DPRK propaganda of course will claim that this too is a prelude to invasion. Everything is a prelude to invasion according to them and it just shows how much they rely on this imminent invasion and mortal threats to gain consent of the governed.
Oh also, though it’s still too early to call, I was maybe wrong when I said before that the US would have a hard time leaving after the sinking of the Cheonan since it would look like abandoning an ally just as they’re being attacked. But judging from opinion chez le Marmo that doesn’t necessarily seem the case. However should public consideration of US withdrawal gain volume, the sinking of the Cheonan by what appears to have been an attack (though I don’t know) will be brought up. I.e. “Have we fought a war and protected the South Koreans for sixty years just to leave now as North Korea has become atomic and they are attacking our Southern allies?” To which your answer can be that by leaving we do more to undermine the DPRK regime than by staying (since staying is maybe also playing into their hands).
From this view it is again possible that the Cheonan was sunk to heighten military tensions for domestic purposes and indeed even to ensure that the US forces stay put. If I were KJI I’d do everything possible to make sure US forces didn’t leave. The perversion:US forces protect Kim Jong Il and the Military -first policy.
DLBarch those are very good points.
Dost think that Mr. Stanton exaggeratith too much, particularly considering what’s happened (or hasn’t happened) over the last four years.
Why don’t Stanton just retitle the article, “Korea Hurt my ‘wittle Feelings so let’s Withdraw our Troops!”
Let me rewrite that analogy to make it more analogous:
This sort of thing reminds me of the playground situation where some boys are playing ball and the richer, bigger kid is the one who owns that ball. But if some of the smaller kids feel jealous and start trash-talking the bigger kid, accusing him of cheating and saying they’d rather play with the school bully who always steals their lunch money and kicks them in the shins afterward. The bigger kid ignores this shit for awhile before walking off the field saying “i’m not gonna play anymore” and goes home taking the ball with him.
Marmot’s Hole favorite Pat Buchanan had an interesting piece regarding this:
http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2009/11/02/the-american-way-of-abandonment/
“In this world it is often dangerous to be an enemy of the United States, but to be a friend is fatal,” said Henry Kissinger.
I would have said we should move our troops out and put them on Guam, but we all know that island would then tip over, so that’s not a solution.
Funny, because I thought Israel was the one screwing the US over all this time…
The way I see it, Obama is the first president with the balls to oppose Israeli settlements. Anyone who has ever been to Hebron, where Palestinians have to leave an adult at home 24/7 so that Israelis don’t break in, change their locks and claim their house – in god’s name, and with the backing of the courts – couldn’t help but attest to the basic injustice of it. Suddenly along comes a president who calls the Israelis out on it, and he’s a jew-hating, dictator-lover.
I don’t get it. You guys whinge so much about tax-payer dollars getting wasted on helping sick and injured people in your own country, but don’t seem to give a shit about the 2.5 billion handed out to Israel so they can continue their cleansing programs.
…because Bush was so hard on them. Maybe the “exceptional” Sarah Palin will put the world to rights when she gets voted in next term.
finally a good post from hoju_saram.
Thank you…I think.
@DLBarch
“I understand why Koreans might want to prolong their free ride on defense”
Actually, I do not understand at all why they do want to prolong their “free ride.” And I think you do agree with this sentiment. If I was still angry over having been successfully invaded by Japan, twice, and seeing my nation arbitrarily partitioned by foreigners, then my anger would be channeled not into blaming the US–the folks who set me free the last time and have protected me while I matured as a new nation–for revisionist history like Taft-Katsura or “starting” the Korean War, but into developing a military that would actually allow me to safeguard my own nation by myself from ever being invaded again so that Taft-Katsura, Yalta, and the Korean War should never happen again.
” I don’t hear anyone offering up a thoughtful rebuke to the idea that rich, developed countries like Korea should provide for their own defense.”
Ultimately, I think this point is the only point that matters in the should-we-stay-or-leave debate. The ROK is today one of the wealthiest and more populous nations on earth. There is no reason today why the ROK should not fully take advantage of their economic and industrial capacity to field a military with the capability to deal with the chaos of a suddenly collapsed North Korea or a war with the DPRK on its own.
…
Maybe it is because I am new at observing Korea, but I just do not think that the Koreans are acting in their own best interest regarding their own military. I think the story of Korea is fascinating and I really want to see what will happen as they feel more comfortable with the fact that they are indeed a rich nation now capable of exporting high-performance tanks, aircraft, and nuclear power generators. I think they are still not really aware that they are a rich nation or have internalized the fact that in the last 11-12 years, their per capita income increased by about 250%. I think as they become more comfortable with their wealth (and maybe less guilty about it), younger Koreans will feel less inclined to believe in the self-fullfilling wish exemplified by the image of the shrimp and two whales. But who knows.
@ Robert:
Except for the people that live in Korea.
The US army should (and probably will) stay in Korea!
@ lollabrats:
I too would like to go on the record as saying that there is no way Brendon Carr believes all he says about Obama (just as there is no way he believes all he avers about Sarah Palin) – but by racheting up the rhetoric like that it places his statemenets so far into the realm of exaggeration that they are unassailable by any rational arguments. It also makes Brendon believe in his convictions a little more, because he walked so far out on the limb that it is impossible to go back.
@ hoju_saram:
I recall seeing a documentary in which it was explained that Bush 1 tried to stop settlements, and that was (partly) why he was only a one-termer.
“their per capita income increased by about 250%”
obviously, their per capita income multiplied by 2.5–theirs did not increase by 250% since 1998.
people who majored in the humanities unavoidably reveal this fact…
EDIT
Umm, is my brain going haywire? I thought “increase by 250%” and “multiply by 2.5″ meant the same thing…
If the Americans really feel they want to leave because South Korea is free, rich, and developed, then fine. Then they should leave. At the same time, the US should not oppose a South Korean’s right to defend their nation through the development of nuclear weapons. The US should also stop medaling in South Korea’s right to develop long distance missile technology. South Korea is surrounded by nuclear powered totalitarian states of North Korea, China, and Russia. And with the withdraw of the US defense shield from Korea, South Korea is vulnerable, and militarily outnumbered and outgunned. Why shouldn’t South Koreans have the right to defend themselves too? If the US wants to keep its hands off of Korea, then it’s not enough just to leave. They should also should stop putting a blanket over South Korean arms development – both conventional and non-conventional. Just take your hands off of South Korean policies, totally.
@hamel
“just as there is no way he believes all he avers about Sarah Palin”
I know I said I wouldn’t post more on it. But.
I agree with hamel on this point, too. At least when Baduk posts something curious, you can actually believe in the sincerity of his conviction. Brendon, if you want to be a partisan hack, I should tell you that you’re doing it wrong.
That’s what I’m saying. If the U.S. really wanted to leave, why wouldn’t it leave? Or at least set up a chain of events leading to a foregone conclusion brought on by the influence of a superpower? Is this too simple of an interpretation? Sometimes — maybe rare, but it does happen — simplicity wins out.
“Umm, is my brain going haywire? I thought “increase by 250%” and “multiply by 2.5″ meant the same thing…”
You’re probably not as confused as I am suddenly. I thought I was right, but a quick conversation with my math hating roommate has got me mixed up…
:/
Barack Obama: Proof that it’s possible to make even Jimmy Carter look good.
“The US should also stop medaling in South Korea’s right to develop long distance missile technology.”
There’s really no reason to bring Michael Phelps and Apollo Ohno into this discussion.
@cm
“At the same time, the US should not oppose a South Korean’s right to defend their nation through the development of nuclear weapons. The US should also stop medaling in South Korea’s right to develop long distance missile technology”
Yes! Right now, I do not think the South Koreans believe that Washington is “meddling.” Rather, probably, from their perspective, a good outcome from curtailing their own development of these weapons would be seeing the DPRK soon disarm themselves. As long as the Koreans want to commit to Washington’s approach to the 6-party talks they should continue to not arm themselves.
But ultimately, I just do not believe that the DPRK has any intention of disarming. And I think most of you here believe the same. At some point in the near future, KJI will croak and die. Until then, things will remain status quo. If what comes after is many more decades of DPRK, still combative with the South and the US, but armed with a larger cache of more reliable HEU powered nukes and revisions to the Taepodongs capable of hitting California and beyond, then it would become even more strange to pursue a nuclear-free peninsula.
“And with the withdraw of the US defense shield from Korea, South Korea is vulnerable, and militarily outnumbered and outgunned.”
You know, I just do not believe that the Korean government sincerely sees Russia or Japan as a likely threat to their security. Both Russia and Japan want better economic integration with the South–not to annex it. Despite Dokto and Yasukuni and textbooks, I think the Koreans realize it.
I think China wants the same. China is the odd one. They have the defense pact with the North. They are the one financing the DPRK. They are the only one benefitting from KJI’s existence. They are the one developing the Northeast Project. But working with the South is lucrative. If there is a war and China gets involved–well, that’s why America promised to defend the South.
Closing our bases does not mean we will sever our military ties. It just means that the South will have fulfilled their promise of becoming a truly independent advanced state. The South Koreans really have just the one threat–the DPRK. Even in the recent recession, when the ROK cut procurement, they still kept as high priority anti-DPRK technology: AEGIS, missile defense SAM, and advanced radar and early detection capability. They have not made a high priority, for instance, their coastal defense against future Chinese or Japanese navies.
There is no reason why a wealthy South should not be able to handle just the decrepit North on its own.
“They are the only one benefitting from KJI’s existence.”
They are the one MOST benefitting. EDIT
One role the US might need to play, should Cheonan-type or other attacks continue, is to prevent the South from retaliating militarily. When I read editorials in the Joong Ang Daily suggesting blowing up the submarine base from which the attacking sub presumably would have come, well, it’s a little unnerving.
Btw has anyone been noticing what Andrei Lankov says on the Cheonan? He agrees with lil’ ole me that the SK gov’t has one and only one military option: do nothing except prepare for the next one. For the Christians here, “turn the other cheek.”
@27
Well thats a fine way of thinking. Maybe they could expand on that; the idea that if you take a South Korean and hand them a United States naturalization certificate, their human life is magically worth more. Maybe they meant to say that Koeans are subhuman? Or maybe they are human afterall, but Americans are superhuman? I’m dieing to hear them ellaborate.
I can almost hear the western hive-mind nodding in agreement, chanting in chorus: “We are individuals, Asians are robots. We are individuals, Asians are robots”. I’m so thankful for that stunningly unique analysis. I’m impressed by this guys individuality.
This guys needs to lookup the Sub-prime Mortgage Crisis. And when he’s done with that he needs to examine the “I’ve gotta buy a house, if you don’t buy a house you are throwing your money away; Gotta buy a house!” groupthink.
Not like we’ve ever heard someone complain about the arrogance of Americans, even when they are trying not to be. Added to that I wonder how many people choose not to visit the United States again because of all the hyper-sensitive ninnies who have an emotional breakdown if someone chuckles at their shoe size, or get in some righteous tizzy if they hear you utter the inncouous phrase “you people”; “what do you mean ‘you people’”? It’s a wonder she didn’t try to file a sexual harrassment suit against the shopkeeper.
Perhaps this will help:
Does “increase by 100%” mean the same thing as “multiply by 1″?
Does “increase by 0%” mean the same thing as “multiply by 0″?
2.5 billion for Isreal huh . . . what about the 3 billion going to Egypt, or the massive amount of aid going to the PLO, around 1.5 billion in goodies or all the aid US forks over to Lebanese. How about the peace and security arrangements in the area that only America can enforce? Get real, the Jews aint attacking anyone, in fact, I recall the so called Arab League trying to wipe out the Jewish State 3 times and guess what, the Arabs lost. To the the victors goes the spoils . . . if the Arabs had won whould they have politely left alone Jewish property alone saying “Oh no no no . . . we don’t do that sort of thing . . . not us . . . no way . . . we are above that kind of behavior.” Give me a break, you would have raped, pillaged and burned every Jew you could have gotten you hands on.
Funny you should mention aid to those states and the PLO as this money is intended to help these governments be good neighbors to Israel. Egypt and the PLO didn’t start getting big handouts until they signed peace agreements.
Got any sources to back up these figures Sumo?
The fact is, the US gives Israel 2.5 billion – at least, since even more money is buried in the budgets of various U.S. agencies, mostly that of the Defense Department (DOD), or in early disbursements. Egypt gets the second most aid after Israel – to support a secular dictorship. Palestine gets somewhere between 70 and 500 million a year – a relative pittance.
Not that I think they should get more. My point is, why does Israel get so much? Israel is a rich country, full of smart people. The fact that the U.S subsidizes their military simply allows Israelis to shift spending to other areas, such as their generous welfare and social programs. So in effect, whilst much of the U.S aid to Israel is military, the U.S. taxpayer is effectively paying for Israeli welfare.
I’m not going to start an argument about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but the fact is it started long before 1948 – 1919 would be closer to the mark.
I’ve been called many things, but never a Jew-rapist-murderer-pillager.
Brendon Carr’s post @ 18 Illustrates an interesting point about the Marmot’s Hole. A very polarised political statement drew 27 votes – and ended up at around an even zero sum.
Which tells me that the ‘Hole readership is a balanced bunch, politically-speaking.
hoju,
There’s probably a high delta between TMH readership and commentership group…
Just as my presence increases the intelligence level and handsomeness quotient of the Hole, to say nothing of the modesty factor, it’s probable that I am slightly more critical of Barack Obama than the average freeloader.
Brendon,
You forgot to mention balla who qualifies for the AMT tax…
WangKon,
What’s a delta?
Brendon,
But think about the poor web neighbourhood you left behind when you came here.
I’m reminded of the comment of the Kiwi immigration minister when pressed about Australian complaints of New Zealander’s moving to Oz to jump on welfare benefits. (We give Kiwis the dole, god knows why):
“They should be happy, because our export of unemployed to Australia simultaneously raised the IQ of both countries.”
Offensive, but funny.
hoju,
Delta is statistical variability. High delta means a wide gap between a mean or average and a low delta means little gap between an average and the actual results.
Well, at least you’ve stopped making similar claims about the size of your delivery vehicle.
but it’s also the legacy of military welfare that allowed South Korea to defer upgrading its equipment,
From the 1950s to the 80s, S. Korea received its military equipment from the US at little or no cost, as part of US military aid or hand me downs resulting from USFK drawdowns and force modernization.
So one can imagine the mentality of a military and government that got a free ride in terms of buying military equipment for thirty or so years. Why buy new stuff when you have a huge pile of weaponery that you got for free and will more or less do the job?
That, combined with a “Koreanize everything” attitude, which results in the military patiently waiting for the local defense industry to build something that can already be bought off the shelf overseas more cheaply, has resulted in a military that still employs WW2 era radios, unmodernized Vietnam-era aircraft and helicopters, etc.
Will the USFK pullout change the attitude of the Korean defense establishment? When Nixon, Carter, and Rumsfeld announced USFK drawdowns, the Korean defense establishment did go into modernization drives that sputtered when it turned out that the drawdowns will be limited at best. So, yes if the US says it will pull out the USFK and shows that this time it means it, expect the ROK military to go into a huge global shopping spree. Me also thinks that some of the local defense projects will be put on ice or scrapped due to the “urgency” of the matter.
That’s something I’ve always found interesting. I’ve heard this blog described — and more than once, mind you — as some sort of preserve for rightwing knuckledraggers. And while I might fit that description, I don’t think it would apply to my commenters in general or my co-bloggers.
I was going to mention that as well – and I think the reason is that people tend to think they’re fairly central, politically-speaking.
You don’t hear Fox News proudly proclaiming to be conservative – instead they say other media is left wing.
The same with the BBC – they like to style themselves a reasonable, middling sort of outlet, at least compared to “conservative” broadcasters.
At the hole, lefties complain about all the righties, and righties about the lefties. I’ve heard grumblings from both sides – although the lefties probably whine a little bit more.
(Might be something to do with the delta thingy.)
case in point
Seems like they made(forged) a disaster manual up “after” the cheonanham disaster and pretended like they had it prior, to try avert the blame.
I’d already mentioned about the lack of procedures in place, but this TV clip is laughable – the defense minister says “we had a manual but not for when the ship is sinking” – it’s a freckin warship – what do they have a procedure for? when the rice cooker blows up?
Here is the SBS news clip
@yuna
(1)Which kind of manual are you talking about. Are you talking about a manual explaining what crewmen should do in the event of a sinking? Or are you talking about a manual detailing how the government should react to the sinking of one of their navy ships in which the DPRK is suspected? It does seem that Defense lacked the latter.
But if you are talking about the former, I should say that the rescue of the crewmen seems to have been remarkably successful. There was no saving anyone in the rear because that part submerged within 5 minutes, according to the captain. The front of the ship may actually have severely tipped forward like a raising drawbridge–one crewmen even talked about how his friend almost fell through a door. Power and lights went out. Waves on the surface of the water reached 3 or more meters, which is one reason some are downplaying the semi-submersible attack possibility. It was night and dark and very cold. It was maybe a disorientating experience. Even so, rescuers retrieved more than half the crew, including some who, according to one MSNBC.com report, had suffered burns or had broken a bone. Maybe I’m misreading you, but I wouldn’t be blaming anyone about how they handled the rescue attempt.
(2)”I am not so sure how the South Koreans possessing latest weapons would be good for anyone.
apart from “showing off the flashy new toys” kind of reason.”
“Flashy new toys” are trivial. “Flashy new toys” that will, in the event of war, increase the chances of survival for South Korean men who are soldiering on behalf of South Korea–let alone make it esier to safeguard the South Korean civilian population–are not.
Yuna, please tell me that you happen to concur with Josh Stanton that Washington should close down the bases, not because you agree with Stanton’s reasoning, but because you just happen not to believe that South Korea is under any real security threat from its neighbors. If so, I would understand, but respectfully disagree. Otherwise, your opinion would seem strange to me.
1. According to the clip, 위기대응매뉴얼 the manual which tells them(navy) what to do in case a ship sinks. A protocol of what to do, who to inform etc. was not in place which seems really mind-boggling, so the latter. I cannot even imagine it being the former, but you never know.
And the cheek of making it up immediately after! That just shows how scared everyone is, of the blame game at the moment. Never a good thing when you are trying to get to the bottom of what’s happened.
I do think the subsequent rescue/salvage (whatever they called it depending on the day of the week) effort was a botch-up, by that I mean not the first lot being rescued but the other sunken part.
2.It was not an opinion when I wondered aloud why it would be good to have up-t0-date weapons. It’s just because I think if N.K. decides to attack properly, it will be an end-game scenario and they will use their nuclear weapons, so no new flashy toys can save the soldiers or the civilians, unless the flashy toys consisted of nuclear weapons. So I was wondering if the author meant it from the view of developing a new defense system is (economically) beneficial to a country or something.
North Korea has very little chance of winning a conventional conflict vs. South Korea. ROKAF will establish air superiority over the Korean People’s AF within 1-2 days. Then the ROKAF can bomb North Korean targets from high altitude, or simply use stand-off weapons beyond the range of NK SAM.
Even if North Korean army was somehow able to push through the DMZ into Seoul, I doubt they’d make it very far with the road traffic (cough). If the Seoul city authorities order everyone to drive their cars to block all roadways, turn off the engine, take the keys and walk away, NK tanks will probably destroy their treads trying to drive through it.
North Korea’s only ace in the card is their nuclear weapons. With the short distance between Seoul and NK, I doubt SK’s missile defense could effectively intercept a barrage of incoming missiles, plus a nuclear warhead doesn’t have to be accurate when used against a city. The greater Seoul area has half of SK’s population and majority of the county’s economic activity. A nuclear strike on Seoul would effectively cripple SK as a country for decades.
IMO SK already has superior conventional arms vs. the north. Their priority (playing armchair general here) should be to use whatever method necessary, however underhanded, to get the North Koreans to give up their nuclear weapons. Once this is done, NK will cease to be an effective threat.
@yuna
“I do think the subsequent rescue/salvage (whatever they called it depending on the day of the week) effort was a botch-up, by that I mean not the first lot being rescued but the other sunken part. ”
I do admit that I think you make good points. But I think you should grant that the rescue of possible survivors in the stern was hampered by the fact that the ROK navy lacked such “flashy new toys” as multiple ships equipped with a decompression chamber or the fact that rescue crew lacked appropriate diving gear. I think that you have to take into account that the people of South Korea simply feel that such flashy new toys are not worth funding when criticizing the navy for their unwillingness to risk more than one diver’s life in the rescue attempt.
@yuna
“So I was wondering if the author meant it from the view of developing a new defense system is (economically) beneficial to a country or something.”
I think it is, for long term, short term, and historical reasons. The history aspect is interesting. Many Koreans whine about Hideyoshi and Japanese colonization. They also whine about Taft-Katsura, partition, and the Korean War. But many of these same people think that South Korea’s military should not be spending the money to modernize. Holding both views takes quite a bit of deliberate misunderstanding and compartmentalization of rationales because they ignore the fact that they were a weak people, by definition, because they refused to modernize their military, which made it easier for an expansionist neighbor to make up their mind to invade and which led to the partitioned state they find themselves in today. And yes, these historical events did wreck the Koreans’ economy.
In the short term, a strong ROK military has economic consequences, too. The economy of the ROK and of the world is highly susceptible to concerns over the safety of business in the ROK. The world learned during the Asian Financial Crisis that the ROK is a vital and consequential cog in the global economy. The ROK in turn learned long before that crisis that they can’t attract much foreign investment unless they have a strong military to allay fears over its national security.
In the long term, a strong military will probably be a necessity for the ROK for several reasons. The most pressing concern will be whether South Korea will have the capability to secure a spontaneously collapsed North Korea on its own. It will be highly difficult for American soldiers to help maintain security for the obvious cultural reason that the North has been indoctrinated over several generations to fear Americans. The Japanese will not be able to help. Neither can Europeans. And there are questions as to whether a weak South Korean military will compel China to invade parts of the collapsed northern territory and setup a security zone because a collapsed North Korea is a direct and self-evident security threat to them. I don’t know whether the South Koreans can take that chance. But without further modernization, they risk this happening. I don’t know if that will be to the Koreans’ economic benefit.
Incidentally, China is going to be a different animal in 20-30 years. There is a lot of talk about how Chinese elites of the generation, who will take over in 20-30 years, are much more nationalistic and hawkish than today’s top leaders, who are all engineer technocrats. And nobody has a clue as to what ramifications that will have. The ROK should not take such concerns lightly. Although it is highly unlikely that China and the ROK will ever be involved in a war against each other, a strong military would help at the margins against being completely dominated.
Another long term economic interest involves the fact that the ROK wants to be a major player in all five trillion dollar industries: food, tourism, wireless, auto, and arms. The government is heavily invested in ensuring that multiple Korean firms become major exporters of arms and currently are seeing critically acclaimed products being actually exported. But the arms industry is affected by scale just like any other manufacturing industry. The easiest way to make quality Korean arms more affordable and, therefore, desirable to foreign states is for the Korean government itself to purchase a lot of their own domestic products.
Finally, as an American, I do find it curious to hear any Korean say that they do not need to modernize their military. It makes us feel that we are more invested in defending the ROK than the Koreans are.
Interesting question. I am neither for or against spending, trying to form my opinion on it – as at the moment 2MB is being blamed by the Koreans in general for reducing the spending on the defense, and his predecessor increased the spending on it, as well as preaching for 자주국방 own defense.
You must log in to post a comment.
{ 2 trackbacks }