Well the reenactment ceremony of the Incheon Landing Operation by the South Korean military went off without any problems:
More than 300 South Korean marines, soldiers and sailors stormed the shores of Wolmi Island on Tuesday to mark the 58th anniversary of the most pivotal military operation of the Korean War.
The Inchon Landing, led by U.S. Gen. Douglas MacArthur, split the communist forces that occupied nearly all of the peninsula and changed the course of the war.
“It was monumentally difficult,” said Commander Naval Forces Korea Rear Adm. Thomas Rowden, who helped toss a wreath over the side of a South Korean amphibious landing ship and spoke at a commemoration ceremony later in the morning.
This was the first time South Korea re-created the landing. The re-enactment included a 14,000-ton transport ship, South Korea’s biggest Navy vessel; 24 landing vehicles; two hovercraft and six helicopters. [Ashley Rowland - Stars & Stripes]
Like I said before this ceremony could have been a great joint US-ROK ceremony if the US military was invited to participate. Maybe USFK was invited but I have seen nothing to suggest that they were. Any how it is definitely something worth exploring in the future in order to further develop this ceremony if they plan on making it an annual event.
Popularity: 2%
4:53 am on September 13th, 2008 1
Give me a f*ckin break. Why do US soldiers need to be part of this? I thank the Koreans for not tasking us with this. A re-enactment? Not that big of a deal. You are concerned with all the wrong things GI KOREA(Korean War was over 50 years ago…and most didn’t even care then. That’s why it’s called THE FORGOTTON WAR). It sucks but thats the reality of it. It’s obvious that you dont like Korea or Koreans. You try to say nice things from time to time but when it comes down to it you seem to have an anti-Korean streak in you. It’s obvious in your posts. You remind me of usinkorea.org. Primarily exposing negatives about Korea. It disgusts me. Koreans are generally nice people. So what if a GI does a good deed for a Korean and Korean media doesn’t publish it…I can guarantee you the Korean that the GI helped will have a different perception of US military people. For those few good deeds there are way more GIs totally f*cking up in Korea. You have cited most of those examples. So my question is…who’s side are you on? You talk shit about both. Is that all you do? Just talk shit?
8:54 am on September 13th, 2008 2
I went ahead and read GI’s previous post on the Inchon landing re-enactment, and found this perplexing statement towards the end:
“It [the re-enactment] would have been a great opportunity to promote the US-ROK alliance with such a joint mock operation to honor the veterans of the Incheon Landing Operation.”
I’m sorry, but in the time that I’ve been reading this site, a consistent meme trumpeted by GI is how the US-ROK alliance has little utility at present. That the ROK military should be more independent and be able to stand on its own. According to GI, South Korea is only enjoying the proceeds from the US “gravey train”. If that’s still his contention, I fail to see the point in inviting the Americans to participate in the Incheon land re-enactment.
The dissonance here is amazing. On one hand GI wants the ROK military to act more independently of the US military. And then on the other he wants the ROK military to sufficiently supplicate to the US military and show due deference.
Not to belabor the same point, but you can’t have your cake and eat it too, GI.
12:18 pm on September 13th, 2008 3
What…Are “Lawrence and Gaetano Calebrisi” celebrating pile up on GI Korea day?
I think you both are waaay off the mark.
Maybe for you guys the renactment of the Inchon landing is NOT that big of a deal, but I would say, at least hundreds of thousands of past, present & future U.S. Marines would violently disagree with you. This is NOTING to do with the Korean military being able to stand on their own feet, etc. It is about celebrating a part of history that was one, a feat of military genius due to the tidal range encountered, and a very bold and decisive act on the part of the military planners & leaders involved…not to mention the brave men who scaled the walls/shores of Inchon. I had the pleasure of having a Recon instructor, who had been a PFC. BAR man during the landing…an outstanding individual. Your suggestion that it is no big deal belittles the sacrifices that these men made.
1:34 pm on September 13th, 2008 4
You misinterpret what I’m saying CalmSeas.
I’m fully recognize the fact that the Incheon landing was one of the most brilliantly executed military acts in the annals of warfare. Moreover, I’m fully cognizant that US Marines and other military personnel performed bravely and honourably in the service of the United States, as well as in the defense of the Republic of Korea. Given those things, it is worth remembering and celebrating what US soldiers did over a half century ago. Showing respect to history per se is no flaw or crime.
That being said, historical rememberance, honoring what military personnel of the past did is being tied up with promoting an alliance that GI himself seems to not think all that highly of at the moment. If, as GI seems to think, that the US-ROK alliance has little utility at present, why try and then “promote” that alliance by honoring the sacrifice of US military personnel. It would have been better had he just said that inviting the US military to participate in the re-enactment would be away to honor the sacrifice of US soldiers. Period.
But GI doesn’t stop there. He goes on to say that the US military should participate in order to receive recognition for their sacrifices to then in turn promote the US-ROK alliance, an alliance he thinks that the US is getting very little out of.
Maybe to a partisan like you that inconsistency is a minor detail. For others, however, it’s worth pausing over if not critiquing.
1:54 pm on September 13th, 2008 5
I believe all GI Korea was saying is basically it would have been thoughtfull for American military personel to participate in a re-enactment of an event which they were responsible for bringing into fruition to begin with. Its like having a re-enactment of Normandy and only inviting French soldiers to storm the shores.
2:06 pm on September 13th, 2008 6
I should correct myself, if it were a proper re-enactment the same flags worn by the marines at Inchon on that day would be displayed and worn.
2:18 pm on September 13th, 2008 7
Yes, it would have been “thoughtfull” (sic) had American military personnel been asked to participate. Maybe the ROK military wanted to place emphasis on what ROK military personnel did during the landing. You know to boost morale. To be frank though, I don’t know what the hell anybody was thinking who planned this event.
But that’s all peripheral to my main contention. GI’s talks a great game about how the US is getting the short end of the stick in terms of the US-ROK alliance. How the Korean, in essence, are cheating the US and getting a form of free welfare (this despite the fact that he himself, a member of the US military, also get considerable welfare benefits).
If GI strongly feels this way, then why does he feel that the US should participate in a re-enactment to bolster an alliance he doesn’t think all that highly of?
Also, you’re right to assert that it’s silly to have a re-enactment of the Normandy and only inviting French soldiers. Just like it’s silly during our Independence Day celebrations to all but barely mention the participation of the French during the Revolution. Or for that matter white-wash the pivotal role that the Soviets played in securing victory over the Nazi’s in Europe.
5:58 pm on September 13th, 2008 8
I’m surprised, in a good way, that the ROK gov’t held this event. It would never have happened under Roh or Kim DJ. Gotta give Lee MB some credit for trying to maintain the alliance.
“How the Korean, in essence, are cheating the US and getting a form of free welfare (this despite the fact that he himself, a member of the US military, also get considerable welfare benefits).” This is an ignorant analogy. The U.S. provided security from an attack by NK, allowing SK to use its capital to develop its economy. This is a form of “welfare” we have provided to Korea, insofar as they were disadvantaged after the Korean War. Now, in my opinion, they have a military capable of defending themselves and the U.S. proportion should go way down.
The U.S. service member on the other hand is doing a job and receiving benefits in addition to pay that the majority of Americans feel they deserve. In no way is that “welfare.”
The Korean government has stalled on base relocations and balks at paying more for its defense, so it’s time to reduce our presence here and move troops to where they are needed.
6:39 pm on September 13th, 2008 9
First let me start with Lawrence. This is not the first time I have been accused of being anti-Korean and probably won’t be the last:
http://rokdrop.com/2007/03/01/is-the-rok-drop-a-korean-hate-site/
Also last year 36 servicemembers were convicted in ROK courts which leaves about 27,464 USFK servicemembers minding their own business. Just in the oil spill clean up hundreds of servicemembers participated which easily dwarfed the number of servicemembers who got in trouble last year. This totally debunks your claim that more GIs are causing trouble then doing good in Korea.
Now to Gaetano. Gaetano is once again using his usual technique of claiming someone said something they didn’t say in order to advance his own thesis. Gaetano cannot find anywhere on this site where I said that USFK should be withdrawn from Korea. The only way I would support a withdrawal is if the Korean government asks us to leave.
I am in fact a big advocate for the USFK transformation plan that would reduce the force numbers and footprint in Korea. The current configuration of US bases in Korea are not in the US’s strategic interests, the camp consolidation plan is.
Some other things Gaetano claims I said is that the Koreans are getting free welfare from USFK. Once again he cannot find one time I ever said that. I have consistently stated on this blog that cost sharing should be 50/50 which the Korean government will not do and has in fact has been doing everything possible to limit available funding for the USFK relocation.
No matter what the political relationship between Korea and the US may be, the military to military relationship is good and this would have been an opportunity to showcase that. A joint mock landing which doesn’t have to include a whole a lot of troops maybe 50-100, followed by a ceremony honoring Korean War veterans from both the US and Korea that participated in the landing is a way to improve any future ceremonies like this.
7:46 pm on September 13th, 2008 10
“The dissonance here is amazing. On one hand GI wants the ROK military to act more independently of the US military. And then on the other he wants the ROK military to sufficiently supplicate to the US military and show due deference.”
And this is what we get from someone who goes around smugly belittling others for shallow thought fallacies…
All of what he has said in this thread is to twist things around so that the only way GI Korea could be “consistent” would to be to have the one-track, simplistic view of Korea and the alliance that he wants to lambaste GI Korea for having.
The frame just won’t hold….
I’ll go further than GI Korea (and most of the other conservative K-bloggers - like DPRK Studies, One Free Korea, and I believe Kalani):
I want all US troops out of Korea — because the costs, and mammoth potential costs if the North were to strike out as it collapses in the future, are not even close to the benefits of staying in country. That is my opinion.
But, as long as we do have tens of thousands of troops in country, gee….wouldn’t it be better if they and the governments got along? Wouldn’t it be better if South Korean society could see more positive scenes of the two working together?
Only someone overly-burdened with a bias would consider such thinking — a horrible contradiction.
And to suggest pretty much directly some correlation between - wanting to see the ROK military taking on more responsibility in South Korea’s strategic defense and wanting to see the US military invited to join in a commemorative reenactment is laughable - and makes me think of eggs…..
8:07 pm on September 13th, 2008 11
A couple of weird statements.
1) “Gaetano is once again using his usual technique of claiming someone said something they didn’t say in order to advance his own thesis. Gaetano cannot find anywhere on this site where I said that USFK should be withdrawn from Korea.”
The reason I can’t find it GI, is because I’m not looking for it. And the reason I’m not looking for it is because I was never talking about the actual physical presence of USFK in Korea. If you had carefully read what I was arguing, I’m talking about your views of the US-ROK alliance in general. And it’s clear from your previous statements that you have a pretty dim view of the current alliance. Consider a post titled “General Bell Call for Upgrade of US-ROK Alliance”. In it you state this:
“Any significant upgrade of the US-ROK Alliance in my opinion is about as likely as seeing command sponsored tours in USFK any time soon. Any other words not likely.”
You go on to list a number of incidents where the ROK military is non-compliant with US government request to further advance the notion that the current alliance has little utility and hence not in need of an upgrade.
If that’s the way you feel about the alliance fine. I have no opinion about your opinion on the matter either way. What I do find odd is that given this view of yours, you’re griping over the fact that the US military didn’t participate in a re-enactment that would “promote” an alliance that you’re pessimistic about to begin with.
2) “Some other things Gaetano claims I said is that the Koreans are getting free welfare from USFK. Once again he cannot find one time I ever said that.”
Sorry GI, but that’s just a flat out LIE. In your post “Why Immediate Withdrawl of USFK Will Not Happen Anytime Soon”, you state this:
“USFK is a massive gravy train for the Republic of Korea. Much money is made both legally and illegally from the USFK presence in Korea. First of all you have all the jobs that Korean workers hold on USFK bases which is an example of money made legally from USFK. You also have all the businesses outside the camps that are another example of legal ways money is made from USFK.
Blackmarketing, illegal gambling, golf course scams, gate scams, housing scams, shady contracts, etc. are examples of illegal means that Koreans are making millions off the USFK presence in Korea. There is way to much money to be lost that in today’s economic climate in Korea cannot be replaced if USFK pulls out.
This is one of the main reasons why the ROK government will try and stop the USFK relocation to Camp Humphreys. More camps mean more jobs and more black market economic opportunities to further drain money from USFK. By consolidating on Camp Humphreys that means less Korean jobs and easier monitoring of the blackmarket economy with consolidated PXs and commissaries.”
It’s funny how previous statements can comeback and bite you.
8:12 pm on September 13th, 2008 12
USinKorea,
I don’t think that it’s too much to ask for some type of “consistancy” in the things that GI says. You and he demand it of others, I don’t see why others can’t demand it of him.
Furthermore, non-participation of US military personnel in a re-enactment hardly constitutes that the two militaries aren’t “getting along”. Last time I checked both are still sharing intelligence and conducting training drills.
Like most people with too much time on their hands, you place too much weight on symobolic gestures and then proceed to huff and puff.
9:07 pm on September 13th, 2008 13
Once again Gaetano is making himself look foolish with his claims.
He cannot find one time I said that USFK should be withdrawn. {Just for the record I currently only support the full withdrawal of USFK if the Korean people want it.)
So instead his latest claim is that I don’t value the alliance. The fact I think Korea will not upgrade the alliance does not mean I don’t value it. Notice how he didn’t even include the link to the article he cited so readers could understand the context of my statement. Here is the link:
http://rokdrop.com/2008/03/14/general-bell-calls-for-upgrade-of-us-rok-alliance/
General Bell was looking to upgrade the alliance to conduct missions off of the Korean peninsula such as anti-terrorism. The Korean government is not willing deploy troops to combat terrorism against their own people in Afghanistan yet Gaetano thinks the Korean government is willing to upgrade the alliance to conduct meaningful anti-terrorism missions with the US?
The scholars that recommended this upgrade even think Korea should be used to contain the rise of China. Does anyone think that the Korean government is going to upgrade the alliance to where it puts them at odds with China?
I wonder if Gaetano is one of these supposed scholars that came up with these ideas?
Notice also how Gaetano makes no mention of my own recommendations for upgrading the alliance. I recommended using ROK naval power to patrol sea lanes as well as drawing up plans for joint disaster relief operations. I provide realistic ideas for upgrading the alliance and Gaetano claims I’m against upgrading the alliance and don’t value it.
Also like I said before I never said that Koreans are receiving “free welfare” from the US. You could not find one quote where I said that. The term gravy train is not free welfare as you claim.
The definition of welfare from dictionary.com:
“receiving financial aid from the government or from a private organization because of hardship and need.”
Korea is not receiving welfare from the US. Korea has long advanced past the need for welfare from the US.
What Korea is doing is taking advantage of the USFK gravy train. Once again from dictionary.com the definition of gravy train:
“a position in which a person or group receives excessive and unjustified money or advantages with little or no effort”
And that is exactly what the blackmarket, ville economy, and numerous scams making serious money for many Koreans is, a gravy train.
Finally holding a ceremony to honor Korean War veterans as I recommend is not “huff and puff”. I have attended ceremonies honoring Korean War veterans and to them it was not “huff and puff” and they appreciated that their sacrifices from long ago were still being remembered by soldiers today. Since you are not in the military I guess you could never understand what honoring our veterans is all about.
Also just for you information you are on moderation until you improve your manners and quit claiming people said something that they never said. You continue to do this and it annoying me and others that we have to waste our time defending ourselves against self invented claims from you.
9:08 pm on September 13th, 2008 14
I for one, understand the significance of any tribute to the Inchon landing, as it was successful and acheived its original purpose of cutting the North Korean Army in two. Unfortunately what is often forgotten is that MacArthur had several good locations to use an amphibious force, but choose the more risky. The addition of two fully equipped divisions would have made a significant difference had they been landed at any of the choice locations, or been given to general Walker in the pusan perimeter as well. As such he risked his divisions on dangerous tides and shallow water. MacArthur succeeded “brilliantly” as the newspapers stated, but failed miserably to follow through in blocking the retreating North Korean Army. Instead he opted to take Souel for its political significance and self grandeur. Letting the remnants of the North Korean army escape to the north east.His poor leadership finally came to light, when, after ignoring all warnings,(and the warnings were not insignificent) by allowing his army to be both divided and ambushed in very weak positions during his quest to reach the Yalu river. Many, many, more soldiers died needlessly because of MacArthurs fame at Inchon and his need to glorify himself.
10:29 pm on September 13th, 2008 15
“I was never talking about the actual physical presence of USFK in Korea. If you had carefully read what I was arguing, I’m talking about your views of the US-ROK alliance in general.”
Perfect….
“to further advance the notion that the current alliance has little utility and hence not in need of an upgrade.”
So….complaining that the Korean government won’t put up the money and changes that the US gov wants - is arguing that the alliance has little utility - and that is the same as saying changes aren’t needed……..
Of course, believing the US gov was behind 9/11 is the same as believing the surge in Iraq is working…. So what should I expect…
“that would “promote” an alliance that you’re pessimistic about to begin with.”
This is at least one of the points from which you are going off in the wrong direction:
promoting change in a current alliance situation you don’t like is not contrary to not liking the current situation.
You have to do some perspective/mental gymnastics to even argue such a point…
(And this isn’t even coming at the issue from where I did in my comment — that you can wish for something to end that you don’t like - but also wish - since what you want to see happen isn’t likely (USFK removed altogether) that things were done to improve the situation as long as it remains.)
On #12 –
I was arguing with the “inconsistency” you portrayed.
Once again in #12, you are attributing a universal statement of opinion (to me this time) that in effect creates a strawman argument. You say I am against people demanding “some type” of consistency from GI Korea or me or whoever. I have no problem with attacking inconsistencies — that are real.
On GI Korea’s moderation - it is his blog and blog owners should be free to handle it as they like - like Big Hominid basically allowing little to no commenting at all — but…
….for myself…though I understand the reasons - I wouldn’t moderate Gaetano Calebrisi.
It is annoying having someone twist what you say and use shoddy or questionable tactics to try to pull readers over to their point of view — but — I believe they dig their own graves in the end. A majority of readers will see the fallacies in the end.
….just my opinion…
10:35 pm on September 13th, 2008 16
Guys:
For what is worth, I see a personality/ideology conflict here that is missing the point on the re-enactment of the Inchon Landings…at least IMHO.
While I personally have a few hardons with specific things that occur in Asia, I try to categorize them into specific discussions.
Again…IMHO…we should seriously downsize our footprint in S. Korea, but not in Japan. We should completely withdraw from the Philippines. We should re-establish military relations w/Vietnam, to include basing options. We should seriously massage our relations with countries like Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, etc.
But we should NEVER, forget, or belittle the sacrifices and contributions that the men who have come before have shed their blood and given their lives for in protecting our freedoms.
10:38 pm on September 13th, 2008 17
“(And this isn’t even coming at the issue from where I did in my comment — that you can wish for something to end that you don’t like - but also wish - since what you want to see happen isn’t likely (USFK removed altogether) that things were done to improve the situation as long as it remains.)”
I wanted to amplify this point:
I am against keeping any US troops in Korea for a number of reasons I won’t spell out here. I’ve mentioned them often enough over the years.
HOWEVER — I am even more against what I call “Tripwire Lite”
For example, I’m against cutting USFK down to just the Air Force bases. The “Air and Sea Hub” idea as I broadly (and ignorantly) understand it.
Why? Because any significant number of US troops left in Korea - will most likely automatically cause a large committment from the US military if war breaks out again —- it is still a tripwire.
So, if we are going to leave troops in, I want them to be an effective fighting force in their own right.
I’d prefer no troops at all, but if I can’t have that wish, I’d prefer what we have now to some significantly scaled down version.
That is not inconsistent thinking.
10:51 pm on September 13th, 2008 18
Yes…NO TROOPS AT ALL would be the BEST option, thus why I would recommend NO adustment (perhaps even some inflation) of U.S. troops in Japan.
We are only sacrificing ANY troops stationed in Korea IF the NORTH, or CHINA ever devides to launch an invasion. Again, this would be my justification for establishing basing options in the previous countries that I mentioned.
ALL Korea is, is a battle ground, and any of us who have ever operated there on a level above Squad Leader, should recognize.
10:39 am on September 14th, 2008 19
“ALL Korea is, is a battle ground”
Oh, really ?? That’s revealing.
“and any of us who have ever operated there on a level above Squad Leader, should recognize. ”
Well .. at least Koreans knew that from the beginning.
CalmSeas, I praise you for your honesty.
That’s the reason why the USA can’t leave Korea, it is just such an important battle ground, and you guys can not afford loosing it to China. Right?
Freedom of Korean people is just rhetoric, and we always knew it.
3:37 pm on September 14th, 2008 20
“CalmSeas, I praise you for your honesty.
That’s the reason why the USA can’t leave Korea, it is just such an important battle ground, and you guys can not afford loosing it to China. Right?
Freedom of Korean people is just rhetoric, and we always knew it.”
Dr. Yu, Korea has been invaded countless times by foreign forces reapetedly. At no point in time in it’s very disputed 5,000 year long history has any nation showed it and it’s people mercy such as the U.S. The United States since the Korean War has spent more time, effort and finances from it’s own pocket in helping develop Korea than any other outside force would ever consider, lest it colonize it completely. If Koreans feel that America is just a scoundrel who pillages and does not care about Koreans besides as a fort to stop China, then perhaps the country suffers from a collective short term memory disorder. To say that Koreans always knew that freedom was just U.S. rhetoric, then Koreans will never know freedom, ever. We do not need to stay there to keep China at bay, Korea is not the center of the universe nor is it a springboard to Asia. If anything Japan is and we have plenty of troops stationed around those islands to not have to even deal with Korea. The people of Korea have every chance to kick us out whenever they feel like it, do not complain that they have refused to for soo long. If the U.S. did not care about the hearts and minds of the people of Korea then it would not give second glance to controversial issues even as obscure as dots in the sea.
5:40 pm on September 14th, 2008 21
@19
Those are just the words of one man. It would be a significant mistake on your part to apply those thoughts to all Americans. Even if it were just a battlefield—which it is not; this does not mean Americans will “always” shed our blood to defend it. This is especially true when we are not wanted by people like you.
6:38 pm on September 14th, 2008 22
I had this kind of conversation before so I won’t continue.
As I said before, I praise CalmSeas for his honesty. That’s all I have to say.
Regarding Japan, you are not welcome there. Can’t you see?
7:13 pm on September 14th, 2008 23
Dr. Yu:
I am kind of confused by your post.
If ALL of Korea is a battleground…in which you seem to agree with me, and ANY U.S. military we have there will just be sacrificed in the event of hostilities…then why on earth would we want to keep them there?
Especially in light of the hostile and opportunistic Anti-American attitudes that we currently have to endure? Is it really worth it?
Given today’s technology it is far better to have a little stand off distance…at least initially, so we would have time to assess the situation, formulate a plan and proceed to bomb the aggressors back into the stone age…then & only then, would we want to send in the Groundpounders to close with and ultimately destroy what is left of these Godless heathen.
Are you saying that we, the U.S. cannot afford to lose S. korea, or are you saying that S. Korea cannot afford to fight a war on their own? I would then have to ask…of what value is S. korea? Do you have natural resources that we need? Do you have a vibrant economy that we can export to? Do you have Oil?
As with the false “Domino Theory” of spreading communism, which led us to “Eroniously” get involved in Vietnam, what threat would a united Korea under communism be to us that is not already there (perhaps the greatest threat is to Japan)? There are no major shipping lanes that would be lost, no safe distances from the threat of N. Korean missiles, etc. What would be the great loss of having a very precarious toehold on N. Asia? I really cannot think of one that is still viable in today’s strategic situation.
Perhaps these are questions that Koreans need to ask themselves, if they still desire our presence, and most definitely questions that America needs to ask and act upon.
Time to Downsize our footprint, if not leave the Korean penninsula altogether.
7:20 pm on September 14th, 2008 24
@22
Might I suggest you do what I have done in the past? Contact your “democratically” elected government official and request that U.S. troops redeploy where they are welcome. As for the Japanese, are you the spokesperson for that nation? U.S. troops may not be welcomed by a significant number of people on Okinawa. However, the general population seems to have enough good sense not to operate from emotion. I hope your vision of a U.S. free Korea comes true sooner than later, Dr. Yu. Most Japanese seem to recognize that whatever the shortcomings of the U.S. military presence in Japan it is still needed. Obviously the benefits presently outweigh the negatives. Just think Dr. Yu; if an American who is married to a Korean and has family in Korea feels this way, what must many Americans with fewer ties be feeling. The sad reality is geographical for the people of Korea. The Japanese seem to have come to terms with their geographical plight. So tell me? Who is left for an ally when the United States leaves, the gently and trustworthy leadership in Beijing? The Japanese? Perhaps the Russians? Or perhaps you don’t need allies, just a few nukes.
7:57 pm on September 14th, 2008 25
Guys, you are overreacting.
All I said is that I praise Calmseas for being bold enough to say the truth. I never insulted the USA, I never said USA in not welcome in Korea, I never underestimated the role of USA in Korean War.
You are loosing the focus, which is “facing the truth” as CalmSeas did. If lack maturity to you to deal with it, that’s your problem but don’t insult me because of it.
This is funny, comments in this post started by confronting GI, but now they are all focused on me. You owe me one GI.
8:15 pm on September 14th, 2008 26
Dr. Yu,
My apologies if I misunderstood your intensions. I would simply say that there are many Koreans out there with a lot bitterness towards Americans. Thus, it grates on men such as me. Some of us, Americans, have to deal with this animosity on a daily basis. Often the ill will is based on misinformation and emotion, for example, the Anti-American beef protest. I am glad to hear that you are not one of those people who unfairly have it in for Americans. Best wishes.
8:35 pm on September 14th, 2008 27
Just so Dr. Yu realizes that he is not being ganged up on I just want thim to know this. Korea might teach its children and population on both sides of the border that they are unique amongst nations on Earth and that their language is superior along with other things and fallacies. Not to degrade Korea, but it is a just another nation like any other nation on this planet which just happens to be divided. It should not be pampered into believing it is the saving grace of the world, it is already dellusional due to centuries of locking itself up like a hermit away from anything not Korean and instilling a mindset of racial purity and superiority in the people. This has bred an attitude of entitlement which would be viewed as extremely bizzare to the rest of the world, especially given the bargaining chips in place, which clearly shows Korea not really having much. What the U.S. did was fullfill their commitment to helping Korea rise out of the ashes of the Korean war and back the R.O.K. financially and military wise so it can defend itself on it’s own, in case it’s twin brother decides to attack it again. When the Soviet Union fell, North Korea began to starve. If the United States were to somehow fall then, well lets just say that Japan will always be there with open arms.
8:41 pm on September 14th, 2008 28
^ Ok, that was written while Dr.Yu was making his response. I have to admit that I agree with In Seoul. This past summer’s events has really hit a string with many of us Americans who until previously never would have thought there would be anti-Americanism in South Korea of all places and I got a little hot headed.
7:52 pm on September 16th, 2008 29
Getting past the “he-said, she-said” commentary that this has degenerated into and back to the original point of the ROK landing.
Remember Oct 2006 and the fiasco that was the FIRST all-ROK amphibious landing attempted. It was a disaster where they had to borrow civilian boats to make the crossing. The Dokdo was standing off-shore but didn’t participate. It was a total disaster and the conclusion was that the ROK would need US naval support to perform a naval amphibious landing in the North if required as a counterattack.
Jump forward to 2007 and the ROK has been practicing its amphibious landing tactics with the Dokdo…and now to 2008 where the ROK has started to gain some confidence in their abilities.
Amphibious landings are not simply driving up to a beach and off-loading. It is a special operation that requires training and a massive amount of coordination. This has nothing to do with the ROK fighting skills, it is a coordination exercise and the ability to load up your men on YOUR ships — not the US Army fast ships that are used at Pohang. It is an exercise to put all the pieces together. Also remember that the ROK — which under Kim Dae-jung and Roh REFUSED to build more landing craft for its ROK Navy — is now rushing forward to finally replace its decrepit fleet of US-hand-me-down WWII landing craft. The ROK is still building their landing craft.
This was not simply a public-relations Inchon landing, it was an announcement to the world that the ROK is ready to perform an amphibious landing ON ITS OWN!!! Unfortunately it was as the Admiral Rowden stated “monumentally difficult.”
Jump forward again to the latest move by Gen Sharp to ask for the Marine 31st MEU from Okinawa — a very special unit who constantly qualify for their tasking — to lead an amphibious landing at Pohang, the headquarters of the ROK 1st Marines. Will the ROK Marines join in??? This is still being debated.
The question comes down to whether the ROK Marines are truely ready to accept some of the taskings that they will lead if and when the transfer of OPCON comes about.
The lessons learned from the Inchon landing reenactment are probably still being gone over and over by ROK staff. This is probably the reason that the ROK has shown reluctance in accepting the invitation to join in the festivities in the Pohang landing. It is one thing to do it on your own, but another to start taking on the leadership role for a multi-national force.
Anyway, that in my opinion is what the Inchon reenactment was REALLY about.
8:09 pm on September 16th, 2008 30
Kalani. Excellant commentary and I certainly hope you are correct. The troubling statement is “Its one thing to do it on thier own, but another to start taking on the leadership role for a multinational force”. In retrospect, thier previous and current leadership, over the last 15 years, may not welcome this type of thinking. The government still seems to want to play the victim who needs help. (when it suits them).
9:45 pm on September 16th, 2008 31
[...] Incheon Landing re-enactments, the US Marines want to conduct a full blown amphibious landing exercise with the ROK [...]