Donald Rumsfeld on Roh Moo-hyun and ROK—US Alliance

by Robert Koehler on February 9, 2011

in ROK-US Issues

Donald Rumsfeld has apparently digitized many of the documents he has collected over his decades of service and is now putting together an online library.

Which is pretty cool, I should add.

Anyway, one of the memos he has uploaded is a 2002 memo on then-South Korean president Roh Moo-hyun’s calls for a review of the Korea—US relationship (.pdf) and the proper US response. You know, say what you will about Rummy, but as far as South Korea was concerned, he was dead on:

As you know, the new President-elect [Roh Moo-hyun] has stated that he wants to review the relationship. Rather than pushing back, I think we ought to accept that as a good idea. If we had recommended it, we could be accused of destabilizing the peninsula, but he recommended it.

I think it is an opportunity. We should agree with him, immediately put in place a process to do it and then drive the process so that we don’t do anything that destabilizes the peninsula. We would coordinate it carefully with our overall policy with respect to the peninsula, but we would get the job done.

He continues.

We have been there since 1950. It is time to rearrange the relationship and put the burden on the South Koreans. We could use the country as a lily pad to reinforce in the event of a conflict initiated by North Korea, but also have our forces there stop being so Korea-centric and instead be regionally oriented. Specifically, I am thinking about having a sea capability and an air capability that could be deployed into the region as well as to assist South Korea in the event of a problem and to certainly continue to have a strong deterrent.
[...]
We do need to rearrange our footprint there. We are irritating the South Korean people. What we need to do is have a smaller footprint, fewer people, and have them arranged not so much in populated areas.

Kudos to the Dong-A Ilbo for finding this.

{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }

1 billnye8068 February 9, 2011 at 3:24 pm

you know, I may despise the anti-American lefties as anyone of us here, but I do agree with them on this: decrease American military presence in Korea. And Japan.

And let them both beef up their militaries. Let China and the Kim regime REALLY get what they demand, and see how they like it.

2 Yu Bum Suk February 9, 2011 at 3:32 pm

“We do need to rearrange our footprint there. We are irritating the South Korean people. What we need to do is have a smaller footprint, fewer people, and have them arranged not so much in populated areas.”

Did Bush always reject his good advice and swallow the bad entirely?

3 Kevin Koehler February 9, 2011 at 3:39 pm

I suppose a broken clock really is right twice a day.

4 Sperwer February 9, 2011 at 6:39 pm

“lily pad” – ROTFLMAO

5 seouldout February 9, 2011 at 8:06 pm

Pity Obama didn’t have the stones to say “No” when Seoul asked to delay transfer of operational control.

Better luck next time.

Or the time after that.

Or the time after the time after that.

6 whitey February 9, 2011 at 10:33 pm

Good post. Thanks. Interesting document.

If anyone here has read President Bush’s book, did it include anything interesting about South Korea or President Noh?

7 setnaffa February 9, 2011 at 10:38 pm

The US Presence in South Korea has been a stabilizing influence. Just like it has been in Japan, Germany, and elsewhere.

Saddam’s boys aren’t taking people into those rape rooms any more in Iraq.

Those who argue against the overall goodness of America are doing so either because they “misunderestimate” human nature or else they’re just lying at the behest of a tyrant.

8 WeikuBoy February 10, 2011 at 1:35 am

“Those who argue against the overall goodness of America are doing so either because they “misunderestimate” human nature or else they’re just lying at the behest of a tyrant.”

Jesus MF Christ, it’s this brand of idiotic aggressive partisan stupidity that made me resign from political discussions here at The Hole.

You dumbass, the U.S. (led by Cheney from the figurative and damn near literal grave of that fucking vampire) is SUPPORTING the tyrant in Egypt even as you lick the Cheetos-dust from your fingers and keypad. There are rape rooms all right — reserved by the Egyptian police (stay with me here: U.S. allies) for minor traffic offenders. Just as it was under Saddam in the glorious days when Rumsfeld and Cheney and the same gang of scumbags supported HIM.

To take credit for eventually hanging Saddam, years after the fact, is a bit retarded (in the literal sense of slow or late). And the price paid for finally deposing that U.S. backed Mubarak-style dictator, in Iraqi lives and in American money and lives, has not been worth it, in the opinion of most NON-galactically stupid people on the planet (read: everyone except Rush Limbaugh).

The U.S. has been a “stabilizing” infuence in countries such as Egypt and Jordan and Saudi Arabia, but at the cost of using dictatorial regimes to crush and prevent the democratic aspirations of those nations. If you think that’s in the U.S.’s best interests, then make your case; but don’t try to pretend that those of us who saw through the lies about WMD’s were lying at the behest of a tyrant. The way you are now, once again, albeit unwittingly — unwittingly being a word that describes you in every sense.

9 Railwaycharm February 10, 2011 at 5:59 am

@#8 Egypt is on the American payroll. It is one of the few stable places in the region.We need to install a new puppet. Would you rather it be taken over by the Islamic Brotherhood? F&%k a bunch of your democratic aspirations! You are naive at best!

10 cmm February 10, 2011 at 8:42 am

Saddam’s boys aren’t taking people into those rape rooms any more in Iraq.

How many people were taken into the rape rooms? And how many innocent people were killed, maimed, wounded, became refugees, had their home destroyed, or had friends and/or family members who were afflicted by one or more of these problems due to the war? Horrible as rape rooms are, when you compare the two options (rape rooms or war), your justification of the war as being the humane response (no more “rape rooms”) just looks dumb.

Would you chop off your leg to get rid of an “evil” splinter in your foot?

Jesus MF Christ, it’s this brand of idiotic aggressive partisan stupidity that made me resign from political discussions here at The Hole.

Is that a promise? ;)

11 WangKon936 February 10, 2011 at 8:59 am

Roh Moo-hyun… Korean democracy’s brain fart!

12 Yu Bum Suk February 10, 2011 at 9:46 am

setnaffa, I don’t usually direct such language towards church-goers, but I’m making an exception for you. Jesus Fucking Christ, by the Holy Mother’s snatch you’re a dumbass. WeikuBoy’s already said all that needs to be said to that effect.

13 WeikuBoy February 10, 2011 at 9:56 am

cmm: “Is that a promise?”

Barring occasional relapses, yes.

14 cmm February 10, 2011 at 10:22 am

it’s a tough room in here today, isn’t is setnaffa.

15 setnaffa February 10, 2011 at 12:46 pm

#8, WB and his sock puppets seems to have had a bad day… and apparently thinks “Cheneyferatu” is running the White House instead of Chicago’s Hope…

Instead of raving and frothing about stuff, maybe he should cut down his intake of caffiene, alcohol, and nicotine and get more rest.

I’ll be here after he composes himself…

Look around the world again. If you hate the USA so much, move elsewhere…

16 Yu Bum Suk February 10, 2011 at 1:48 pm

#15, I for one am not one of WB’s socks as I’m sure my posting history here would show. I think you simply have no idea how unbelievably offensive your hypocritical lying is. If you love the USA so much please stay there.

17 cmm February 10, 2011 at 2:14 pm

@15 I didn’t read WB’s post. Care to take a stab at my question to you at number 10 though, regarding the relative number of rape room visitors and innocent victims of the war, and whether you can still justify the war on humanitarian grounds? That wasn’t necessarily meant as a rhetorical question.

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: