Here is my take on correct policy: we tell our American soldiers to NOT create "situations", use prudence, and to stand their ground against Korean outrage. If the Koreans are inherently abusive people ready to produce and capitalize on every "incident", then they are not our civilizational friends — let the incidents proliferate till we are forced to concede and give them over to their beloved Chinese home-boys where they spiritually belong. It will eventually happen anyways: South Koreans are at heart — capitalistic-communists wearing watches and Western suits. So start looking for alternative bases NOW — build an artificial island, if you have to.

Furthermore, Lt.Gen. Charles Campbell, 8th Army Commander is an example of the Pentagon's new enlightened policy of creating effeminized males that lead the NEW ARMY. The trickle-down effect of such leadership creates efficient, rational, and egalitarian Nancy Boys such as our beloved blogger — GI. Paul, you too suspiciously smell of perfume and lace with your feminist suspicion towards the "macho-factor". GI could of been a male deep down, but was deprived of manly role models in the military — thus, his clitorial concern to nurture Koreans at the expense of his own men creates a womanish self-abnegation infecting his own men with self-doubt. Even the female soldiers are insecure working in a feminized Army.

For you see, the problem with USFK's technocratic culture is that "equality" slips into androgyny, creating interchangeable men and women, which isn't true to human nature: thus, creating a loss of natural and healthy cohesion in such a vital military institution.

Furthermore, the public relations result of a feminized Lt. General Charlene Campbell wearing his feminine-side on his sleeve before Sixty-Minutes not only gives the Koreans the contemptuous creeps — but emboldens their sense of entitlement fueling their peevish squawking for more American subsidy.

There is no honor in Korea.

Savvy?

I'm not a military guy or planner, but I can picture the benefits of unit rotation. From the Vietnam War, I got the idea individual rotations caused some problems. I can imagine the benefits you are describing.

But, I would also need to show you the quote to see what context the leader put the rotation when asked about the effect of anti-Americanism on the soldiers. Maybe his primary idea about unit rotation was the benefits it brings to USFK as a fighting force, but at that moment, what was in his mind was, "Well, we're not worried about this orgy of hate, because our guys are just here a year and we're trying to cut it down to 6 months." That was NOT an answer for how to deal with the anti-US process in South Korea.

On the USFK commander crying, I am not knocking him at all. I don't know anybody in their positions would stop from pulling their hair out having to deal with that stuff. Even if I were a grunt on the ground, it would be hard for me to duck my head from realizing what sacrifice I was offering South Korea if the North invaded and what South Korea was offering the US military in return for that willingness to die for them. That's just me. But I can understand the frustration of the top boss leading to tears during that specific time in 2002.

However, I also told me sister who called me about it when she saw it, just imagine the pressure that guy was under. He is trained well how to handle public relations, public speaking, the importance of the press, and the importance of good relations as a top guy in the US military in a foreign land. He is a military man above all, but he didn't get to that position without having gone through a lot of training and experience.

And at that really shitty time in 2002, the 60 Minutes guy asked him for the second time, "How does seeing flags burning really make you feel?" And he choked up and cried.

Knowing that several of the early Korean bloggers and people like me who had set up special sites to try to get someone in the US to pay attention to what was going on, and that we were emailing photos and links to the Korean media to US media outlet and screaming that we were pulling our hair out, and we weren't in his position, his frustration is understandable to me with ease…..

I would tell my soldiers to "endure" and show self-restraint, but I wouldn't jump on their asses if it turned out they didn't and I was resonably sure they were telling me the truth about having been overly provoked in the street. I'd do my best to walk away, but I'm not going to demand US soldiers go beyond th ecall of duty in that regard.

And I have a question on the 6 month rotation…

I can see the unit rotation benefits……but is 6 month too short?

I have no idea…..

I am just thinking…..if you are rotating units in and out of a front line, tense, standoff nation like South Korea —– with North Korea having the capability of collapsing at any time —-

wouldn't 6 months be too short to get the new units plugged in and effectively ready for blunting North Korea's thrust or reacting fast enough to a limited strike if the call is to take North Korea out?

Can units get settled in country and up to speed on the terrain, communications, and all the many things that go into being prepared to fight quickly?

How much time would it take for a unit rotating in to be really fighting effective in Korea?

My fear with the 6 month rotation thing is this —

just when units are settingling down to their role in the greater Korean defense plan —-

—- they will be on the short list to leaving and counting each day until they leave.

I would think this would hurt USFK's defense posture and possibly negate the advantages of full unit rotation….

I've been wanting an answer to that question since I heard about the 6 month rotation idea……

I think not. The same folks who you call crybabies are the same soldiers who would fight to the death to stem any invasion from the north. If we cry about anything its that we are prepared to shed our blood for a people who don't appreciate the sacrifice we make.

You are completely misreading the reasons for using a unit rotation system vs individual replacement.

The primary purpose is unit effectiveness. We are using unit rotation in Iraq now; there are reports current in the blogosphere (if you take the trouble to search them out) about how well such units are doing (in terms of fighting effectiveness, re-enlistment rates, etc). Even many of the harshest domestic critics of the Bush administration have acknowledged this.

The individual replacement system/1 year tour for a combat zone was first initiated during the latter part of the Korean War. Like all systems, it has its advantages and disadvantages, but the disadvantages became obvious when it was carried to its penultimate degree during the Vietnam war. It became a key factor IMO in the near-collapse of the Army towards the end of the Vietnam war and the many disciplinary problems associated with that period.

My personal recommended response to the problem of Korean contempt for USFK is to withdraw the permanent stationing of the USFK, as I've stated here many times before. That solution is not imminent; however, I don't think it's wise to compensate (in its absence) by encouraging US soldiers to start engaging in brawls with any belligerent or mocking Koreans they might encounter.

Don't you think USFK should be a disciplined force? If so, just how do you define this quality? I'd say self-restraint in the phase of provocation is a good starting point for anybody's definition.

The sooner we start rotating battalions and brigades into Korea the better. It won't be a panacea that will solve all cases of US soldier bad conduct; but when rotation does happen, I'm confident that the big picture will become one in which individual soldiers will feel a lot more confident in themselves, their values, and their units, as part of a pre-existing organization upon arrival in ROK (as opposed to a more atomized group of individuals subject to constant turn-over). And self-confident soldiers will be less likely to have serious disciplinary problems.

Unit rotation is essentially a return to the way the Army used to be. The reason we got away from it was because in an era of conscription and mass armies (and the worldwide commitments that necessitated these) such unit rotation was too hard to implement.

GI Korea and the rest of the troops aren't responsible for a "weeping" general. If you have a problem with said general's behavior, send him an email or a letter; even better, call his office, get on his calendar, and tell him to his face what you think (the "manly" thing to do).

It's not clear to me exactly what behavior Sally specifically wants to see displayed by individual USFK private soldiers. Indeed, it's always a mystery as to what civilians with no personal military experience imagine the service to be like. Maybe you all think USFK should be a bunch of hardened American Foreign Legionnaires, wenching and brawling, a woman in one hand and a broken beer bottle in another? That's not our national (or our Army's) preferred style, regardless of whatever the popular imagination (from the movies?) might suggest about such behavior being a necessary corollary for military effectiveness.

The 4 man Seal team in Afghanistan, in the news recently, fought to the death; while they are the elite of the elite, I suggest they are more typical of our military's fighting spirit than your posts imply. The drunken Koreans (who mock a general's mistaken surrender to the mawkish emotion now fashionable in this media age) only display to me their own basic insecurity; they will probably be the first to cry for US help if the balloon goes up.

And Sally, again I suggest that you look to your own country first. I commend to you some of the columns of Mark Steyn, the ones where he comments on the almost complete moral disarmament of the English citizen and homeowner in the face of an ever-mounting domestic crime wave.

Or go lecture the English anti-fox-hunters, on the subject of hunting as a character-builder for manliness and toughness. From what I hear, the foxes are practically overrunning the countryside and English chickens may soon be extinct.