General Bell has been doing a lot of truth telling lately and here is the latest truth he has told:
U.S. Forces Korea commander Gen. B.B. Bell said Thursday that a policy requiring most U.S. troops in South Korea to serve one-year tours without their families is an “outdated relic of the Cold War†that should have been changed years ago.
Instead, troops should serve in South Korea for three years with their families, he said.
“This is not a combat zone over here. This is a modern, first-world country,†Bell said at the end of a daylong visit to Camp Walker and Camp Henry. “It is unacceptable in the U.S. military today to have this kind of policy in place and in any way condone it.†[Stars & Stripes]
Wow, it is rare to hear an American four star general speak so candidly, but he is absolutely correct. So what is causing Korea to remain a one year hardship tour? The usual suspects of course:
Bell said he has formally recommended that the Department of Defense extend tour lengths in South Korea, but he has gotten mixed reactions from the DOD and members of Congress, with some saying it’s time to extend tour lengths and some saying the idea is “dumb.â€
Bell said the U.S. Secretary of Defense and the South Korean government would have to approve the extended tour lengths.
I have to wonder if the people who told General Bell his idea is dumb have any Korea recent experience themselves because I always find it amazing what people who have never been to Korea perceive what serving in Korea is like to what it really is. South Korea is no longer a Cold War flashpoint, but a modern nation with one of the world’s largest economies that should be able to defend itself without asking US servicemembers who many have just done a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan to come to Korea and spend yet another year away from their families.Â
 I have to wonder if a lot of these perceptions back in Washington, D.C. is partly responsible by the lobbying of the South Korean government that has long been intent on maintaining the USFK status quo for reasons I have listed before and even the incoming Lee Myung-bak administration doesn’t want the USFK gravy train to change either.Â
Also I have to wonder if our nation’s political leaders are not entirely well informed on Korean issues especially if all they listen to is the sensational news reports in the media. Also it always appears that the few political leaders that do visit Korea simply take a DMZ tour and fly back to D.C. receive the impression that the Korea is still a flashpoint, which it is not. It seems like General Bell is going to have to continue to really push this issue in order to change all the mistaken perceptions about the nature and purpose of USFK.Â
Popularity: 3%
6:57 pm on January 19th, 2008 1
If it were up to the generals in Washington, we’d have a completely “expeditionary” military, on constant short rotations all over the globe and always returning to a different post than the one they left, unhindered by
familiesFamilies and emotions…androids.10:12 pm on January 19th, 2008 2
When I lived in Germany and worked for AAFES in Heidelberg, I remember repeatedly hearing how Korea (in 1992) was the worst assignment to get. Still, though not nearly as bad as Iraq and Afghanistan, I truly feel for the GIs who have to do a year here without their families.
11:17 pm on January 19th, 2008 3
GI,
Congress isn’t well informed about issues close to home Look at Ohio Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur. She mixed up the Fed Chair and the Sec. of the Treasury. How do you expect them to know what goes on in Korea?
Cheers,
Bill
10:09 am on January 20th, 2008 4
yep well I have found for the younger Soldiers, if they stay past one year they typically leave with less rank
8:24 am on January 21st, 2008 5
I was hanging out with some (about 8 actually) of my buddies this past weekend, all of whom are garrisoned at Camp Walker, when we got on the subject of being posted in Korea. Guess what? NOT ONE PERSON wanted to be here or really liked it here!
Again, let’s get the military out of this ungrateful country. They are bleeding the US, plain and simple. If they haven’t learned to fight for themselves after 55 years, that’s their problem. They don’t want any non-Koreans in their country anyway so let’s goodbye.
5:33 pm on January 21st, 2008 6
Actually Korea (as do most countries where US troops are stationed) pays a percent of the cost to keep US troops here. In addition, by having US forces here we have a better chance of selling US weapons to their military (again, same as in other countries where US forces are stationed). Additionally, we build up trading partners and contribute to regional stability. Consequently, the US economy benefits from Soldiers serving overseas. The current trend to redeploy US forces back to the US may have long term negative economic effects. Bottom line – if the US forces were not in Korea, more than likely, soldiers from another country (probably communist) would be here. (Look at our plans to move into the old Eastern European Block nations.)
5:28 am on January 22nd, 2008 7
Korea last year spent $780 million on funding USFK with the vast majority of their money funding building construction and paying base workers. A big chunk of that budget is going towards paying for the construction of new buildings on Camp Humphreys. Who is building all these buildings and working on base? Koreans of course, so basically the Korean government’s money goes to subsidizing Korean jobs.
http://rokdrop.com/2006/12/06/us-rok-cost-sharing-agreement-reached/
What do they get in return? Extremely advanced communications, C2, and intel along with about 1/12th of the world’s most powerful military’s combat power sitting on the peninsula. Sounds like a very good trade off for the ROKs.
The US economy is not benefiting from the current US presence in Korea. They won’t sign a fair free trade agreement or even let US beef producers sell beef fairly in Korea. Though I suspect this may change with Lee Myung-bak taking office.
The only valid argument for a continuing US presence in Korea is regional stability which I think is still valid, but that doesn’t mean the US needs to keep the current troop levels in place.
7:44 pm on January 22nd, 2008 8
Checking in from Iraq …
As I was thinking about seeing my LES this month, it suddenly dawned upon me why Korea is not a combat zone:
- no Combat Zone Tax Exclusion
- no Hostile Fire Pay
If DoD, Congress, and the ROK government want to put their money where their mouth is, then start paying these entitlements to all troops in Korea (ROK and US). I won’t be holding my breath.
Otherwise, let GEN Bell (who is the Commander on the ground) make the call. Afterall, that same priviledge has been consistently afforded to GEN Petraeus.
10:42 pm on May 2nd, 2008 9
11:43 pm on June 10th, 2008 10
1:07 am on July 30th, 2008 11
My husband told me that even after being in Iraq twice, being in Korea without the kids and me was the hardest thing he’s ever experienced. I think it is because it is mostly a regular assignment and it isn’t like being deployed at all. Yes, there are inconveniences and unfriendly people to deal with but it is definitely not a deployment.
So, with our own money, I flew out here with four children to stay here as non-command sponsored. We will have to pay to fly the children and me home as well. My husband AIP’d so we will be here a while anyway. I think making it a family tour would help with any of the legitimate behavior complaints and it would certainly be better for the servicemembers’ physical and mental health (will keep them out of the bars).