In National Interest, Marmot’s Hole favorite (and that’s not sarcastic — I agree with 99% of what he says) Doug Bandow sounds off on the Cheonan crisis, arguing that while tragic and a significant challenge to South Korea, it affects US national interests not even one iota.
Money quote:
The sinking of the Cheonan was an outrage, but it was an outrage against the ROK. It should not be an issue of great concern to America, which normally would offer diplomatic backing but not military support to a democratic friend.
Yet American analysts have been producing articles and studies carrying such titles as “America Must Show Resolve over North Korea” and “U.S. Must Respond Firmly to North Korean Naval Attack.”
The question is: why? No American forces were attacked. None are likely to be targeted. The U.S. military already is very busy, especially in Afghanistan. There’s no reason for Washington to risk war over an assault on another state, especially one well able to defend itself.
Were the ROK still a helpless economic wreck, one could concoct an argument for American aid. But the South vastly outranges the DPRK on every measure of national power. The ongoing debate about whether Seoul is ready to take over operational control (“OPCON”) of its own forces along with any U.S. troops during a war is symptomatic of the extreme dependency in which South Korea finds itself. For the ROK to cower fearfully before Pyongyang is roughly the equivalent of the U.S. running to Brussels to request European troops to deter a Mexican attack.
I agree… except for one thing. While I think the goal of US Korea policy should be to rework the bilateral relationship to reflect current capabilities and interests, as long as the alliance is in effect, we should honor our commitments. What that means in the case of the Cheonan, I’m not really certain, but it does seem a bit dodgy to tell Seoul its on its own NOW, right after they’ve been wacked.
{ 49 comments… read them below or add one }
The worst thing about the Cheonan’s sinking is that any hope for gradually removing Amer. troops from the ROK is gone.
I’d agree with that last sentiment too, and I’d also point out that this -
- is a bit silly. The ROK isn’t cowering, its dealing with a smaller, unpredictable, psychotic cousin. And history has already demonstrated (several times) how a relatively small, technologically inferior, asian communist army can wreak havok even on well-prepared forces.
If the ROK was to take on the DPRK in a war without outside intervention, I think the result would be closer than many people think. Let’s not forget, that had it not been for the UN and US in 1950, the Norks would have won the war quite easily. Times have changed, but the desire north of the DMZ to unify Korea under the DPRK banner hasn’t changed one bit.
I agree that the US needn’t wring its hands over an attack by the DPRK on the south – for these reasons:
1. The ROK needs to face the fact that their northern nieghbours are at the root of the problem that has plagued the peninsula since 1945 – and not, as your previous post pointed out, merely reacting to outside actions and influences. So long as they continue to play “balancer” or “traingulate” or whatever other rubbish they call it, they should deal with the consequences of the DPRK actions largely by themselves.
2. The DPRK may well have sunk the Cheonan in a ploy to bring the US back to the negotiated table, to try and win concessions and break the status quo, which is currently not in their favor. For this reason the US should remain in the background, and not take the bait.
3. The ROK needs to start looking after itself. Part that that means a strong military, less reliance on the US, and firmer resolve – in words and deeds. The US, while still showing solidarity with her ally, should do what adults do to their children when they grow up – begin to gently coax them towards their own independence by giving them more and more responsibility of their own.
A hard kick in the pants whilst showing them the door works too.
A bit patronising, isn’t it? Who mollycoddled the Brits, the French, the Norwegians, yada yada?
Taiwan stands with less assurance of US support than Korea, I reckon Seoul can too. Of course if you think Korea still needs a
crutchwheelchairiron lung perhaps an Aussie one should offered?I’m not sure, who?
I’m sure if it came to war, Australia would be involved – like we were involved in WW2, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq 1 & 2, Afganistan etc etc.
Anyway, if it came across as patronising, it wasn’t supposed to. I tend to think Korea can stand on its own two feet (miltarily), so long as the US gives it some firm encouragement to do so.
If North Korea’s attack on South Korea has nothing to do with the US, then makes you wonder what is the point for the US military to be stationed in Korea. Just pack up and leave.
#6: “Just pack up and leave.”
Congratulations! You just discovered what a lot of us Holers have been saying for years.
If there is a need for a large increase in US troops here I wonder when the anti-war right in the US will start bringing out all of the anti-American / mad-cow clips and showing them on Fox News.
Hmmmn wars start cuz of security pledges and maybe just maybe . . . this might be a really hard concept for liberals to understand . . . wars are prevented by security pledges.
Liberal neo Marxist: Gasp . . . hell no, having big weapons don’t prevent anything. They just cause tensions, the reason no real communist nation has ever truly evolved into a real utopian paradise was because of aggressive war mongering western imperial powers. Here you have an example of a peaceful emerging socialist nation attempting to find its identity in a new world order, however, it felt so threatened, they had no choice but to arm themselves and invade the south in order to free the laboring masses.
sumo294: You mean the Norks did not start the Korean War?
Liberal neo Marxist: Hell no, its quite simple really. If you knew full well someone was trying to kill you–you have to defend yourself–just like North Korea is doing right now. I mean sanctions as we all know is tool capitalist countries use to wage war. I mean all the wars were over resources–and resource intensive nations that produce more items are inherently more greedy and aggressive. Peaceful countries that emulate socialist ideas consume less, need less stuff and thus inherently more peaceful. North Korea after being patient and patient is simply trying to survive and there is nothing wrong with that.
sumo294: So North Korea was justified in killing 46 South Korean citizens?
Liberal neo Marxist: You don’t get it. North Korea’s eco footprint is so much less than South Korea. There are no like basically no cars in North Korea. They consume less calories, don’t overwork the land and basically walk or bike to work. Their austerity and eco friendly lifestyle is so worth of emulation. In contrast, you have a Southern neighbor busily destroying the planet out of greed. It’s aggressive consumption of resources is destroying our world ecology that has basically been at the root of the North’s inability to have stable weather to implement micro farming. The South has killed millions of North Koreans and you stand there like a HYPOCRITE telling me North Korea killed 46 persons–HOW dare you sir–how dare you!!!!!
I’m not quite as well-informed on this subject as many of the regulars here, so you’ll have to forgive my ignorance. But the author seems to be assuming that any large-scale conflict involving North Korea would be decisively won by the ROK, which I think is perhaps an overly optimistic assumption to make. Seems to me that North Korea would attempt to support their inferior conventional forces via unconventional means; i.e. guerilla tactics, sabotage and I can only imagine what else. If North Korean spies/saboteurs manage to wreck havoc on South Korean infrastructure as a prelude to wider conflict, it’s hard to predict exactly what the outcome of said conflict will be. I don’t think NK have the means (or even the desire) to claim the whole peninsula, but it’s frightening to think, if things go their way, how much damage they could do within Seoul alone.
Korea did send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, yes? Is this not enough reason for the US to reciprocate with military support in a time of crisis? I think what bothers me here is that there seems to be more of a justification for military action against NK as there was for Iraq 2003 – we know for a fact that they possess WMDs and we also know they have been offering assistance to terrorists. I think it would be wrong of the US or Korea’s other allies not to offer military support if the proverbial suddenly hit the fan.
I would like to know why the South Korean government’s response to the incident; broadcasting annoying propoganda messages via loudspeaker to people who don’t want to listen is exactly the same as what its politicians are currently doing to Seoul citizens. Are they, in a not so subtle way telling us that they hold us responsible too?
No one. And that’s the point. They, much like almost everyone else, were able to fend for themselves.
Sorry mate, that’ll be too late. Since you feel that Korea still needs support – to
build ski jumps at Pyeongchangavert Nork aggression one supposes – let’s see those Aussies here now. The Yanks can vacate whilst the Aussies occupy. Got 20k spare troops and a few fighter squadrons ready?Bloody Bandow again. I know he might be Mr. Marmot’s favorite, but in my opinion he is a clueless ideologist who found himself in some hot water a few years ago.
Marmot’s saving grace is where he recognizes what Bandow refuses to:
As long as that alliance stands, it affects US interests. That’s it. Case closed.
Bandow seems to write (the ideology of non-interventionist libertarianism virtually forces him to) within a hypothetical context of a world in which the US has no overseas alliances or commitments. I know that is probably what he – and his fellow-travelers – want, but that is not the real world that we live in. At least not for now.
If Europe were attacked tomorrow by Russia, for example, Doug Bandow would probably argue against sending troops, saying, “as long as no US interests are affected, the US shouldn’t get involved.”
It’s fantasy-land!
Oh, and get a load of this:
Let me tell you how it is. Are you ready? If NK decides (heaven forbid) to attack Seoul, Yongsan Garrison, Camp Casey etc will not be surgically excluded from receiving artillery fire. They are just as likely targets as my apartment building is – probably more so.
US troops, here to stay!
what..who wrote the article?…..after all the compassion the world including Korea showed to the USA after the 9/11 attacks, someone comes up with this rubbish?
It just shows how some people (not directed at the Americunts) are very quick to forget.
All the compassion, does that include the cartoons taking the piss that were broadcast here? The majority of Koreans again and again show their true feelings about Americans, yet are somehow able to show genuine amazement when one of them bites back. As for your delightful play on ‘Americans’, well that just nicely counters everything you say in one sad little racist ditty, well done, although i doubt you meant it, or even realise that you have.
Have a great weekend
(schadenfreude laced) compassion (and insults) in exchange for 60 years of support, incl. 30,000 dead, another 20,000 wounded, billions of dollars in aid, loans, preferential market access, etc., etc. — what a deal!
The Korean War, 40,000 dead and the tens of billions of dollars the U.S has spent on Korea since means the US can say and do pretty much what they want with regards to the current security arrangement on the peninsula, shit-for-brains. (And no, being “compassionate” about 9/11 doesn’t quite balance the ledger)
@ sperwer: the problem with Americans and Western people in general it’s they’re too compassionate and sweet-hearted, you can’t afford it any longer in a world dominated by the likes of Hu Jintao, Putin and nuclear bully-wannabe Lula Da Silva.
This enlightment shit is definitely passé, we live in the age of vandalism, we all need to act accordingly
Trust me, Korea doesn’t want 20k of bored Australian troops wandering around. Just ask the Egyptians – they banned us for 50 years. Besides, I think you misunderstand me. I think US troops should leave – in bit parts, and preferably not right now, at such an obviously crucial juncture.
Also, and to repeat what many Koreans have mentioned – lets not forget this fact: the US isn’t staying in Korea for Koreans – they’re doing it for America. If the honchos in Washington thought for a moment that being in the ROK wasn’t in the American national interest – gone.
The nuclear factor complicates the issue. The two halves are not big. This is also a poor time to renege on the committment. Espcially with the current Yi Min Bak as President. But if the US makes not one more commitment in the next 200 years, I would not be disappointed. Doug Bandow’s beliefs are rock solid, and are among the best I’ve seen for anchoring future foreign policy.
That’s a moment of epiphany.
I suppose if I had some loudspeaker truck blaring terrible music — as we have now during this boisterous campaign season — I might be tempted to shoot at it too. Perhaps this demonstrates just how out-of-touch politicians and the South Korean Government are with the public they supposedly serve. I remember reading in the JoongAng Ilbo that a group of experts mentioned that one problem for Korea, in the future, is instilling more trust in its government.
The honchos in the beltway only know that it is in their own interest to stay – which is what happen until someone/something galvanizes sufficient support for change in accordance with the genuine national interest. Prophet Bandow’s work is valuable because he’s providing all the necessary ammunition for when the time comes
agoldensky: got some statistics there, bud, to support that claim?
to sperwer “(schadenfreude laced) compassion (and insults) in exchange for 60 years of support” and hoju-saram “means the US can say and do pretty much what they want with regards to the current security arrangement on the peninsula, shit-for-brains”: I will simply say that I am very disappointed in you both.
But he said Americunts!
I think hoju owes only an apology to shit, re: #13
What would happen if the fifth (or sixth) larger holder of Treasuries would be wiped off the face of the earth ?
Since there never was a peace treaty, the UN (primarily the US) is still at war with North Korea, just like our ROK buddies. May I suggest those who want the US to abstain reread the Security Council authorization and the Cease Fire documents?
http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1950/scres50.htm
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/korea/kwarmagr072753.html
Those are the only applicable “international law” in this situation…
@26
What are you trying to say? The UN is at war with North Korea? What grade are you in? Is your comment part of a social studies project?
He’s a Hitler. He’s got WMDs. He’s got ‘em…
Oh wait, there’s no oil involved. What I meant to say was let the ROK and the UN handle it.
I was in Korea at that time along with several commenters on this board, including Jeffery Hodges, who had very candid discussions with Koreans about the terrorist attack. In contrast to Britain, whose parliament sang our National Anthem, and Canada, where US flags flew across the country, both acts a show of solidarity, there wasn’t much public expression of sympathy in Korea, aside from a very small pile of flowers in front of the US embassy. The Chosun Ilbo took to task Koreans for their schadenfreude with an editorial titled “To Those Who Beautify Terrorism.” Whatever one thinks of the alliance, no one can support a claim that Koreans showed visible compassion. Of course, Korean friends and neighbors expressed empathy when the topic came up. My friends and neighbors were kind, polite, and cultured people who knew good manners. Those same good manners are why I never heard in class or read in a paper a single anti-American remark from any of my university students while my Canadian, British, and Australian colleagues were given mini-lessons in Hanchongnyeon propaganda whenever topics relating to the US were brought up in class.
‘In contrast to Britain, whose parliament sang our National Anthem, and Canada, where US flags flew across the country, both acts a show of solidarity, there wasn’t much public expression of sympathy in Korea’
yeah, koreans showed their support w three thousand troops. any other asian nation do that? answer: nope.
three thousand toilet-installers and guards, themselves guarded inside a Kurdish enclave by actual Kurdish combat soldiers
well, that’s more support than the alleged better friend in asia, no? in my opinion, it’s more than than the us should have gotten. this war w the muslims is a western problem not korea’s. koreans should ask themselves if the price of being an ally to a nation that shows absolutely no appreciatian is really worth the wrath of the muslim street. i say no.
ps i think you should stick to posting nude photos of yourself on the web! (enter sonagi)
Why, you need some new wank fodder, Pow Pow?
Well, I would say that those 3k Korean troops in the safest region of Iraq were more of a symbol or gesture than anything else… they never expected to go into real combat but I wouldn’t knock toilets. A modern septic system is the best cure we have against dysentery, something that’s a very real and dangerous thing in the third world.
Exactly; and one that the US would have been better off declining, considering the preposterous claims for cred demanded by Koreans in return – claims that themselves are demeaning to a nations from whom so much more should be expected given the history, its current geo-economic status and its geo-political
pretensionsambitions
Couldn’t decline. Bush had to convince the world there was such a thing as the “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing”>Coalition of the Willing.”
Considering the ROK president at the time, we were lucky to even get that!
Btw, I’m watching “W” right now. Hilarious!
Damn hyperlink mistake:
Coalition of the Willing.
Sure he could have; he just wasn’t really cowboy enough to do so. His weakness/mistake
he definitely could’ve declined bro. what he couldn’t decline were the neocons infesting his admin and the gov’t man.
Well, when I say “couldn’t decline” I don’t just mean Dubya but the Administration, which at that point was pretty much controlled by the neocons. Hell, if they were willing to accept troops and support personel from Mongolia and obscure Eastern European countries I’m sure Dick Cheney and Runsfeld probably had raging hard ons by the prospect of 3k “troops” from South Korea.
How are those who’ve been “wiped from the face of the earth” repaid? With spirit money like the Chinese use?
Careful with that one; appears to be a good deal for the Mercans.
it was just a PR exercise bro. i don’t know why they even bothered man. the war was already sold.
Rather than asking “What does the Cheonan have to do with the US?” we should be inquiring “What does South Korea have to do with the US”? And no matter what your standing on the issue, the answer should be the same. The conservative reaction to this incident is a metaphor of shifting global tides.
Bandow’s and the general balking on this string at the thought of South Korean dependency just shows how it is becoming increasingly harder to justify US hegemony in Korea. Couldn’t be more timely, of course, given the rise of China and South Korea’s recent turn towards its increasingly powerful neighbor. After all, there’s been a historical and cultural tributary system that’s been in place for over a thousand years between the two countries that makes US-Korea relations look like blip in a radar.
And if Bandow et. al. are on the money, it should stay a blip well into the future!
Wall Street Journal counterpoint:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704627704575204200080708816.html
Sperwer,
“Cowboy” enough? An American just riding off to the sunset with his horse? Wake up, Mr. “I don’t need anybody. I’ve got my rifle and my horse”! World is a much more complex place than the 19th century.
I think Korea’s supplying 3K troop is very important act when the French was in bed with the enemy, Sadam. EU nations may oppose the US in the times to come. Even Britain.
The US needs friends. It hasn’t got many. A lone cowboy.
Balderdash! America as the “Coalition of the Willing.”
Sheesh; anoter Korean/kyopo who doesn’t get irony.
Anyway the US doesn’t need “friends” who fix toilets; it needs fighting allies.
You must log in to post a comment.