The US beef protests have definitely drowned out any domestic media interest about the new USFK commander:
Promising to make South Korea the “station of choice” for servicemembers, Army Gen. Walter Sharp took command of 28,500 U.S. troops Tuesday during a ceremony at Collier Field House.
Sharp, born when his father fought in the Korean War, is succeeding Gen. B.B. Bell, who retires on June 9 after 39 years in the military.
As U.S. Forces Korea commander, Sharp also is in charge of the United Nations Command and Combined Forces Command.
Sharp called the U.S.-South Korea alliance “one of the most enduring in the world,” and said USFK would continue to deter North Korean aggression. Sharp said he wanted to continue to improve the quality of life for troops in South Korea, and to push for three-year, family-accompanied tours. Servicemembers typically serve one-year unaccompanied tours. [Stars & Stripes]
Could General Sharp be the last USFK commander in Korea?
It should also be noted that outgoing commander General B.B. Bell despite the recent curfew decision was actually a very effective USFK commander who was able to get lots of progress done in regards to the Camp Humphreys relocation and the war time control handover. He accomplished all this while constantly combating with the scheming Korean government trying to stop it.
He also tried to address the illegal blackmarketing with mixed results and has been largely successul in stopping the illegal gambling operations. There is still a lot more that needs to be done to make the USFK transformation a reality and to stop the large corruption in USFK, but overall General Bell did a great job and General Sharp has a pretty tough act to follow.
Popularity: 3%
10:06 pm on June 5th, 2008 1
Lets hope he is “Sharper” then the last guys (all of them). I think you have to go all the way back to General Ridgeway before finding a General who really undersood the Koreans.
1:42 am on June 6th, 2008 2
Understanding Koreans? Are you serious?
5:59 am on June 6th, 2008 3
Nah … I think you should skip Ridgeway and go all the way back to MacArthur.
He understood Korea so well that he felt it was necessary to use nukes. It’s too bad Truman fired him.
10:29 am on June 6th, 2008 4
To offer accolades to McArthur in Korea would be paying tribute to a man who felt Korea wasn’t worth his effort, to begin with. McArthur was more interested in becoming emperor of Japan than anything occuring in Korea. A man who ignored early warnings of the impending North Korean attack. Who felt that the appearance of US troops would scare the North Koreans into giving up. A person who after the Inchon landing felt it was more advantageous to take Soeul for propaganda purposes ( and his own picture in the papers) than it was to drive eastward, cut off the Korean retreat and create an anvil for General Walkers force breaking out from Pusan and moving north. A man who blatently disregarded many, many warnings of numerous Chinese in North Korea and continued the attack to the Yalu, with no concern whatsoever for the troops, after dividing his army. Yes, then when all hell broke loose, he panicked , and called for Nukes. McArthur was lucky with Inchon. (It was a Navy Admiral who made all the plans) The two additional divisions that landed at Inchon, had they been given to General Walker, would have produced the same results, albiet slower. McArthur is the perfect example of a General who was past his prime and should have been retired after WWII. That Trumen had the balls to fire him, at a time when Trumans popularity was low and McArthurs very high, tells much about Truman. Skip Ridgeway and go back to McArthur? Naw, I don’t think so.
10:37 am on June 6th, 2008 5
“He understood Korea so well that he felt it was necessary to use nukes. It’s too bad Truman fired him.”
LOL, true. You can’t beat that.
1:09 pm on June 6th, 2008 6
Gerry, your take on history is interesting, but you obviously didn’t get the joke.
11:48 pm on June 6th, 2008 7
LOL, I cannot tell a lie, It was the Guiness, Jax. Unfortunately, I just happened to be reading “The coldest war” at the same time. Put the two together and you get “man overboard”.
5:40 pm on June 7th, 2008 8
In recent years I have read and heard many negative comments about McArthur. To me this brings forth a question. Which is more important - what people think about you and the respect you receive while you are alive or what historians and others write about you after you die? From everything I can read and what I have been told by individuals who lived during the time McArthur lived, he was highly regarded by a vast majority of Americans. Now, years later others seem to view him in a bad way. I guess this can apply to other situations. While you are in a unit do you receive true (not UCMJ type) respect and admiration? After you leave what will the folks say about you? Which is more important? ” I came to bury Cesar - not to praise him”
1:37 am on June 8th, 2008 9
It is history and the revelation of facts not generally known to the public that seem to condemn McArthur during his command in Korea. There is no doubt, at the time, his reputation and stature made during WWII were at thier peak. It made it all the more difficult for those who had to deal with him. The JCS felt they were not in enough of a position to fire him, even though thier concerns over the Chinese entering the war were paramount. The same with Truman. Both had major concerns over reports and warnings given by the Chinese that they were both in North Korea and would enter the war if we did not stop the US military moves above the 38th paralell. McArthur blew them off, giving no credence to the reports. The rise of the imperial McArthur and his distrust and dislike for most politicians and many of those on the JCS seemed to inspire him to make decisions that otherwise should never have been made. His trip to Taiwan and promises to defend that country, was not what Truman had asked McArthur to do. Yet there was a large China lobby that was hoping against hope that China could be regained through Taiwan. McArthurs “triumphant trip” to Taiwan has ramifications that haunt us today. The generals of eighth army, including General walker as well as General Smith of the 1st Mar Div had a tumultuous time dealing with a McArthur who disregarded them in favor of loyal synchophants from his imperial headquarters. McArthurs appointment of his staff General Almond to lead the Inchon landing was very political and served only the interests of McArthur and not the army. The same case can be made for his dividing his forces with General Almond in charge of eighth army, who remained on McArthurs staff and not under the command of the JCS. Much information as well has been gained since the demise of the Soviet Union and the Russia archives being opened for historic study.
7:05 am on September 19th, 2008 10