Former Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan has a recently published article out concerning the reduction of American forces overseas and it of course includes his thoughts on the US military presence in Korea as well:
Consider, too, the opening South Korea is giving us to end our 60-year commitment to defend her against the North. For weeks, Seoul hosted anti-American protests against a trade deal that allows U.S. beef into South Korea. Koreans say they fear mad-cow disease.
Yet, when a new deal was cut to limit imports to U.S. beef from cattle less than 30 months old, that too was rejected by the protesters. Behind the demonstrations lies a sediment of anti-Americanism.
In 2002, a Pew Research Center survey of 42 nations found 44 percent of South Koreans, second highest number of any country, holding an unfavorable view of the United States. A Korean survey put the figure at 53 percent, with 80 percent of youth holding a negative view. By 39 percent to 35 percent, South Koreans saw the United States as a greater threat than North Korea.
Can someone explain why we keep 30,000 troops on the DMZ of a nation whose people do not even like us? [Chronicles Magazine via Western Confucian]
Obviously Mr. Buchanan has not been reading the ROK Drop because if he was he would already have his answer to why US troops are still stationed in Korea and empire has little to do with it.
Popularity: 2%
:mrgreen:...
8:40 am on July 29th, 2008 1
I agree with his question though. Why does the US maintain garrisons here when a vast majority of these pieces of shit view the US as an enemy. Not all Koreans think this way, but a majority do and it’s time to leave.
Although your arguements make total sense, it’s time for the US to put into motion plans to leave this pathetic dung heap of a nation.
The Koreans who are grateful to have the US here are few and far between now. If these people can’t defend themselves by now, tough shit.
10:14 am on July 29th, 2008 2
“Why does the US maintain garrison here when a vast majority of these pieces of shit view the US as an enemy(?).”
Great question C7. And following from that, why not also ask GI why the US maintains garrisons in that piece of “shit” called Iraq even when the anti-US animosity there makes Korea’s decidedly insignificant in comparison.
10:25 am on July 29th, 2008 3
I saw this a couple days ago….it’s always good for someone in the (relatively) mainstream media to be calling for this. To highlight the absurdities of the situation. If we could only get a presidential canidate to do the same.
10:35 am on July 29th, 2008 4
It doesn’t matter if South Koreans hate Americans or not; that is irrelevant to the overarching question, which is: does having U.S. forces in South Korea serve U.S. interests?
Think about it: how would the U.S. leaving South Korea help the U.S. maintain or increase regional influence? It wouldn’t. In fact, it would have the opposite effect - besides the reasons GI Korea links to, a ROK with no USFK would be counterproductive to U.S. security in the mid-to-long-term;
http://atimes.com/atimes/Korea/HI09Dg02.html
It’s not about being liked.
10:37 am on July 29th, 2008 5
I think the reason we have troops in Korea is not the North Korea threat, but other countries we don’t trust in the local area.
10:45 am on July 29th, 2008 6
From the link I posted (from 2006):
10:59 am on July 29th, 2008 7
I agree with most of what Richardson has to say. Unlike say Europe, Asia has no substantial transnational bodies or institutions like the EU or NATO to ensure regional stability.
If you want a good rundown of the possible hypotheticals that could arise from a US withdrawl from South Korea I suggest reading “A Parable: The US-SOuth Korea Security Relationship Breaksdown” by S. Enders Wimbush.
http://www.asiapolicy.nbr.org/programs/northeast/Enders%20Wimbush%20-%20Korean%20Parable.pdf
And more than in the Middle East, a strong case is to be made that stability in the East Asia and Pacific region is far more important to America’s long term national security.
11:16 am on July 29th, 2008 8
I am not in the military nor will I try to understand the workings. I grew up here as an Army brat and life here was awesome as a child. M
11:28 am on July 29th, 2008 9
“Why does the US maintain garrison here when a vast majority of these pieces of shit view the US as an enemy(?).”
“Great question C7. And following from that, why not also ask GI why the US maintains garrisons in that piece of “shit” called Iraq even when the anti-US animosity there makes Korea’s decidedly insignificant in comparison.”
Both are very good questions and IMHO deserve the same response…both places are very ungrateful that we saved their bacon from ruthless dictators and now deserve to be left to their own devices.
Just returned from Iraq and the “Arrogance” of Iraqis was overwhelming…that place is not worth one more American life, and YES, we should be making plans to leave there soonest.
11:39 am on July 29th, 2008 10
“Obviously, the original purpose of the US-South Korea alliance was to counter the North Korean threat. However, as that threat has waned, a more important, diplomatically incorrect mission has evolved in addition to deterring North Korea: ensuring stability among China, Japan and Korea.”
Again IMHO, we can accomplish the same goal from Japan…who is cooperating as an equal partner in Asia…and actually shows signs of wanting our presence (even though it is somewhat hesitant).
Don’t get me wrong…I like korea for what it has to offer for the troops (mainly their women), but we are talikng about the overall presence and military/political relationship between our countries.
It has soured and the ROK leadership has done very little to repair it. Just as the U.S. bases finally left the Philippines, after a ridiculous demand for 1.2 billion dollars rental a year…NOT due to any National Soverignity issues as they would have people believe, it is time for the U.S. to reposition it’s forces throughout the Pacific and take away the Gravy Train from S. Korea.
Lately I am seeing new talks with Thailand, etc., so S. Korea’s bogeyman to the North may soon be their own problem…we can always bomb them back into the stoneage…wait a minute, they are still there…well, we can just cut off food and fuelaid to them. That usually brings them back to the table to talk.
11:57 am on July 29th, 2008 11
It would be nice, but USFJ can’t moderate the South Koreans. And South Korea is not the Philippines. South Korea’s geography won’t let it be so inconsequential as to be influenced from Japan with no substantial military presence there. An arms race with ROK in the middle would be the outcome, and that is not in the U.S. interest.
12:16 pm on July 29th, 2008 12
GI made some really great points about why the USFK will not be pulling out anytime soon.
However, I like that at least someone in Washington is asking these questions. I certainly hope more of the power structure in D.C. could take a little notice and start talking tough with Korea- tell them it’s time to put there money where there mouth is. They seriously need to learn the lesson ‘be careful what you wish for!’.
Now, we know the USFK is not going to pull out tomorrow. I certainly think it would be to our advantage to start threatening to do so. Time to take the kid gloves off. It worked in 2002-3. When the orgy of anti-Americanism was at its zenith, USFK commanders and some in D.C. were making public statements of “We will not stay were we are not welcome”.
It scared the sh*t out the ROK government and they really worked to put the lockdown on the protesting and get the public back in line.
It can work again. Threaten to pull up stakes to scare the sh*t out of the government and wake up the silent supporters of the US/alliance into shutting up these ridiculous idiots in the streets and the lying/rumor mongering in the media and on the Internet.
As of now, the ROK government is taking a rather soft approach in dealing with those who started this latest round of anti-American activism. Time to scare them into real action!
12:51 pm on July 29th, 2008 13
Its not about scare tactics, its about politics. Let the troops leave and let Japan worry about the consequences? South Korea is not in a position to influence any country in the area. The mentality among Koreans is to have one Korea and revert back to the stone age, where all outsiders would never be welcome. That said, it would be an invitation for the Russians, Chinese, and Japan to again invade politicaly, and economically for infuence, if not at some point militarily. The US would save billions and could certainly use the troops and equipment elsewhere. The end result would be Korea being divided by 300 different political parties and a return to poverty with no one in control.
1:16 pm on July 29th, 2008 14
Not really. A South Korea unprotected and unrestrained by the U.S. could very easily build capable ballistic missiles and nukes (and much better than the North’s). A cash-strapped reunifying Korea almost certainly would go that route rather than maintain a more costly large military, which it would feel inclined to have.
This is a short-term vs. long-term argument. I’ve never seen anything other than a wishful thinking type argument that says Korea doesn’t matter long-term to regional security and long-standing U.S. interests.
2:48 pm on July 29th, 2008 15
I don’t agree with the opinion that US forces are needed in Korea to check on Japan. First, I don’t believe Japan will be a threat to Korea (commentators who insist so have no idea of the social, political, and economical situation of modern Japan), and second, if Japan is really a threat, US forces in Japan is enough.
3:07 pm on July 29th, 2008 16
Just for the record I do not advocate a full withdrawal but I am a strong supporter of force reductions and the Camp Humphreys relocation. A full pull out for reasons Richardson pointed out is probably not wise at this point. However, does the US need 27,500 soldiers in Korea to be a regional stabilizer? I don’t think so.
Could the US still be a regional stabilizer with half that amount of troops in Korea? I tend to think so and rotating Marines and Strykers to the peninsula to work with the ROK military is another way to keep good interoperability between the two militaries without needing a large force footprint.
7:34 pm on July 29th, 2008 17
Wouldn’t American interests be furthered by a little more instability in Eastasia? I mean, had we not bankrolled the defense of economic rivals like Japan and Korea for the past six decades, we’d still have a manufacturing base to speak of. (I’m from the Rust Belt.)
It’s not that they make stuff better than we do (remember your grandmother’s Maytag refrigerator that lasted forty years?); it’s that the globalists in Washington dedided that we’d be the world’s “security exporter” and let other countries take over the industries that we once dominated, as we transformed into an unworkable “service economy” at home.
So, we let Korea and Japan dump their products in our markets in exchnge for the privilege of keeping bases in their countries. Empires of the past that exploited their vassal states always lost out economically in the end, no matter what Leftists will tell you. Our empire doesn’t even exploit our vassal states, so we’re tanking out all the faster.
It’s time to rethink having hundreds of bases and hundreds of thousands of government employees (in uniform) around the world maintaining dozens of “entangling alliances,” to borrow the Founders’ phrase. No country can attack us. No country would dream of it as long as we have the 2nd Amendment (buy your assault rifles before Obama takes over). No country would have any reason to if we were minding our business. We could be a giant Switzerland, living in peace and prosperity.
11:03 pm on July 29th, 2008 18
Just for the record, I advocate a full withdrawal as fast as possible. Pulling out everything, even taking the nice “American” grass. Americans should take all the civilization they have given Korea and leave the mud huts, dirt roads, rag clothing, disease and filth. Korea can be as it was when it was “pure” before the USA and Japan gave her culture and civilization. They can live like North Korans and eat tree bark and grass.
12:15 am on July 30th, 2008 19
Despite what the polls say, I suspect if push came to shove and the Korean gov’t held a referendum on telling the U.S. to take its troops out you would see anti-Americanism disappear overnight as the prospect of losing Uncle Sucker looms over the peninsula. Koreans say this kind of anti-U.S. BS because there are no consequences (in their minds).
I agree with GI Korea on a draw down since Korea’s military is capable enough and the troops are needed elsewhere. But they should stay to keep China in check and the norks at bay. Hell, keep them here just because they piss off the Korean “leftists”
12:33 am on July 30th, 2008 20
Calmseas;
A few weeks ago I was reading the NYT and an article written by an Iraqi women who is working there as a reporter. She was surprised at the way she was treated by Americans, with kindeness etc in stark contrast to the arrogance of the soldiers stationed in Iraq!!!
1:00 am on July 30th, 2008 21
Right now U.S. forces aren’t needed for that. That argument is a mid/long-term one with the condition that USFK is no more. Probably you didn’t follow the link I posted above.
That’s not the argument. The argument is that Korea would perceive Japan to be a threat and (in part) initiate an arms race. Again, follow the link.
Beware of unintended consequences.
Isolationist fantasy.
The fact is America’s power today is built on trade, and stable trade requires both engagement in the world and the means to help moderate it, otherwise known as our military.
I don’t think those that suggest reducing our influence in East Asia recognize the economic significance of the region and/or the role U.S. forces play. I’ve seen the “get out now” argument many, many times, but never a coherent understanding of the implications by those who want that route and think we can maintain our position. Still haven’t.
2:33 am on July 30th, 2008 22
“The argument is that Korea would perceive Japan to be a threat and (in part) initiate an arms race.”
Who cares if Korea and Japan get in an arms race. Korea will lose, so they will have to put up or shut up. They can’t pay for an arms race so they will shut up. Japan wont get in an arms race unless it has to.
2:51 am on July 30th, 2008 23
Let’s see, that would be the U.S., China, Russia…
Yes, Korea would not be able to pay for a conventional arms race, hence nuclear proliferation.
Again, explained here; http://atimes.com/atimes/Korea/HI09Dg02.html
3:34 am on July 30th, 2008 24
Sorry Richardson, you “realpolitik” is way off course. The bottom line is that a unified Korea will need to borrow a few billion. They will be broke, and needing money. A nuke race wont happen.
Also Russia could care less if Korea goes nuclear. The US will look at this as a major betrayel, and momma USA wont allow it. China will use real pressure to stop it, espcially if theUS has no troops there to get killed.
3:44 am on July 30th, 2008 25
By the way, this is freshman poly-sci analysis.
“Japan must then consider its options in countering an openly nuclear, reunified Korea without USFK. Already building momentum to change its constitution to clarify its military, it’s not inconceivable that Japan would ultimately consider going nuclear to deter Korea. As in South Korea, there is no technological barrier preventing Japan from building nuclear weapons. ”
Korea and Japan go nuke-> then Taiwan, and then China gets angry and WWIII, all because of Dokdo. Weak…freshman poly-sci analysis. Koera doesn’t matter and won’t go nuke. Japan wont go nuke etc etc..
Otherwise a good read.
5:05 am on July 30th, 2008 26
I dispute the premise of the piece — I think South Korean polls are extremely suspect. I’d put them on a par with human cloning, chaebol tax returns and Ivy League college degrees held by public figured. In other words, HOGWASH.
5:22 am on July 30th, 2008 27
From “shattered”: “The bottom line is that a unified Korea will need to borrow a few billion. They will be broke, and needing money. A nuke race won’t happen.”
That’s funny, last time I checked neither Pakistan nor Iran are exactly flush with money yet the former already has a nuclear arsenal and the latter will likely have them in the short to medium-term future. Furthermore, if according to your reasoning money is the determining factor whether a country will pursue a nuclear arsenal, then please tell how it is that a mendicant and pauper state like North Korea pursued and tested a nuclear weapon?
If you’re going to accuse Richardson of “freshman poly-sci analysis”, then I think it’s more than fair to label your own analysis as no more than sophmoric at best. Bottom line is that your analysis utterly fails to understand the post-colonial mentality of the post-WWII era. Fact is, that postcolonial nations will no longer tolerate an international order that allows a small select group of nations to determine by fiat who does and doesn’t possess the most destructive weapons on the planet.
Add to that the increasing spread of globalized information and transnational institutions and actors, then it becomes clear that money becomes but a mere detail in the grand scheme of things.
8:00 am on July 30th, 2008 28
Can someone here please contact MBC or the Korea Times and ask them to publish Pat Buchanan’s comments and translate them into Korean so Koreans can see that the outside world is looking in to these shenanigans and protests.
11:50 am on July 30th, 2008 29
Nations have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies. Only permanent interests.
By the way, have we ever had 30,000 troops on the DMZ? Pat “we’re going to return this country back to who it rightfully belongs” Buchanan is a f’tard of the highest order.
11:50 am on July 30th, 2008 30
“your own analysis as no more than sophmoric at best”
True dat.
“last time I checked neither Pakistan nor Iran are exactly flush with money ”
Yes and North Korea too. But they are not democracies.
12:01 pm on July 30th, 2008 31
A Listener, Pat can barely get air / print time in the US because: 1. He’s a f’tard. 2. He’s anti-semetic. 3. He’s a racist. 4. He’s a f’tard.
11:28 am on July 31st, 2008 32
Shattered,
It’s clear we’re at very different levels of understanding when it comes to the Koreas and the big picture of East Asian regional security vis-à-vis U.S. priorities. Perhaps I should leave it at that.
12:19 pm on July 31st, 2008 33
In this, I tend to agree with shattered. The US has nothing to gain by staying in South Korea. In fact it may only make things worse when North Korea collapses. The balance of forces in the area will not change dramatically as the US still has Japan, Okinawa and Guam and the 7th Fleet. The adversaries would mainly be China and to a much lessor degree Russia. The same adversaries as Japan. China would not want a nuclear Korea as they would be the second biggest threat to Korea, next to Japan, historically. Korea would have to have to establish its own balance of power in the region by itself. Minus the US. The future of the region would be dependant on the behavior of the poweres in the region and not the US.
3:10 pm on July 31st, 2008 34
Richardson:
I see that you’re a respected analyst and I’m just a anonymous layman whose real-life job is in the private sector. One question I want to ask is this: It seems like as long as the Japanese feel secure with the Americans being there, they won’t seriously build up their military. If the Americans fear an arms race, they could just assure Japan protection. If so, Korea can build up their military for all Japan cares. Any reason why America can’t do so, if America is so worried about nuclear proliferation, etc.
Also, China is quickly modernizing and strengthening its military, but it hasn’t really ignited a regional arms race, has it? What’s your take on this?