By So is there anyone left that actually thinks the Camp Humphreys relocation won’t be delayed?:
A South Korean newspaper, the Kyunghyang Shinmun, reported this week that a U.S. Congressional Research Service report said the move could be delayed to 2016. All U.S. bases in and north of Seoul are scheduled to move to Pyeongtaek by 2012.
USFK spokesman Dave Palmer said “to his knowledge” that USFK had not been contacted by the research service when it wrote the report cited by the Kyunghyang newspaper. According to the newspaper, the CRS report on South Korean-U.S. relations was published on July 25 but “opened” on Sept. 16.
The CRS is an agency within the Library of Congress that writes reports for members of Congress and their staff.
Palmer said his office had not seen a copy of the CRS report, and Stars and Stripes could not obtain a copy on Friday.
A spokesman for South Korea’s Ministry of National Defense also said Friday that he had not seen the CRS report, but was aware of the Kyunghyang article. He also said he didn’t know of a delay or cost increase in the base relocation plan.
The CRS report said U.S-South Korean relations could become strained over the base relocation plan as it becomes more expensive, according to Kyunghyang. South Korea’s share of the cost of expanding Camp Humphreys is expected to grow as the U.S. military allows troops to bring their families with them, the newspaper said, citing the report.[Stars & Stripes]
The delay announced in this report just repeats last delay put the Camp Humphreys relocation project’s completion at 2016.
The Korean government has never wanted the USFK relocation to happen for a variety of reasons and the only reason it has gotten as far as it has was because of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s threat to withdraw USFK which was made quite clear with the redeployment of 2nd Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division from the Korean peninsula along with a host of other troop cuts. A few days after Rumsfeld resigned from office the Korean government immediately reneged on the transformation deal and announced the first delay of the Camp Humphreys relocation to 2012.
Since then the delays have only increased and now the Korean government wants to spend even less money for the maintenance of the US-ROK alliance. It is all so predictable and as long as the political will in Washington remains the way it is the USFK gravy train will continue to roll at the expense of the welfare of US soldiers forced to serve a year in Korea separated from their families and living in sub-standard living conditions. Obviously few people in Seoul or Washington care about that.
So is there any more bets yet if Songdo or Camp Humphreys will be built first?
4:13 am on September 21st, 2008 1
I would like to add some profound insight into this debacle, but GIKorea has about said it all.
More "Weak-kneed, Willy-nilly" self-serving, corrupt leadership that we have been seeing for years…all the while the average American citizen will have their head buried in the sand.
Sometimes I really think that the people at the top are actually getting kickbacks from all of the corrupt practices that go on in countries like Korea, etc.
7:21 am on September 21st, 2008 2
I hope they continue to delay the move. I'm not sure the money being spent is worth it. After 50 plus years making this move at this time may be the wrong move. Anyway, I like Seoul better than Pyongtaek.
10:00 am on September 21st, 2008 3
I'm loving it. Chuckle, chuckle, guffaw…
As I always say on this issue, everytime a new delay is discussed or announced; are you ready? Say with me now…
SURPRISE!!!
12:01 pm on September 21st, 2008 4
"Thanks for the memories, South Korea its 'so long', Glad to be outgoing." next stop will be in the US, where the troops can be better utilized elsewhere.
12:22 pm on September 21st, 2008 5
Why don't we wait until someone from the USFK sees the CRS report before we comment? Or better yet, when a US government source comments on it. It may be true…but believing a Korean newspaper on what they report without corroboration is dangerous.
12:31 pm on September 21st, 2008 6
Oh…and the Kyunghyang Shinmun is where I get my anti-US activist pictures from. They support the activist side that the USFK doesn't move and the ROK doesn't pay. The story is highly suspect.
Oh, and the last CRS report I saw was in June 2008 — but the paper says it was July 25th and "opened" in Sept. Why would the CRS issue another report just three months later? That's a lot of work and expense.
12:33 pm on September 21st, 2008 7
Why don't we just move out of South Korea? The country has no value to the US, never did. Japan is the pacific barrier for the US, and even that is questionable. Remaining in South Korea is only a fuse to future conflict. Let the Koreans figure out thier own future. They're either with us , or against us.
12:46 pm on September 21st, 2008 8
Gerry,
Historically speaking, the ROK has always been the buffer zone for the protection of Japan. The Dean Acheson line in 1950 which put Japan on one side and Korea on the other is what started the Korean War.
After the Korean War, we maintained that barrier in Korea. Why do you think the SOFA was not signed until 1963 — after Syngman Rhee had been booted out? It was the US personal buffer zone — bought and paid for through the corrupt Rhee government. And when the world went nuclear, the nuclear alerts started in 1957 in Korea (with TDY planes from Japan) — with the weapons pointed at China. Even the 1963 SOFA was loaded to the US side — and the ROK didn't have to pay a cent for protection until 1991. The US needed the buffer zone to protect its "jewel" — the cornerstone of Democracy in the Pacific — Japan.
Until the Japanese MDS line is up and running — with the US 7th fleet military might — the US will remain in Korea. BUT after Guam is up and running (after 2014) and the moves from Oki complete plus the Anderson AFB buildup done, what you say may come true.
1:07 pm on September 21st, 2008 9
Kalani "Historically speaking", most military experts and americans in general wanted nothing to do with Korea in 1950 , (McArthur included) when the Korean war broke out. It was only Truman who didn't like the idea of the US controlled South being attacked by a Stalinist regime that the US took action. With the advent of the cold war and the Russian actions in Berlin, Greece and Turkey, Truman made a stand in Korea. Achesons statements were foolish not to mention Korea in its sphere of influence in 1950, but it was not the reason for the North to invade the South, only an excuse. The North Koreans invaded at the urging of Kim Il Song, with backing from the Russians. Don't stand history on its head.
1:46 pm on September 21st, 2008 10
Kalani:
The line has been well established, since U.S. Forces have had bases in Japan post-WWII. Moving to Guam really has nothing to do with it, since the majority of those forces are headquarters only and are retrograding FROM Okinawa…NOT coming from CONUS.
The 7th Fleet has had a major presence in the South China Sea since the Vietnam era, so their presence is not anything new.
Korea remains a pain-in-the-ass & will continue to be so until we finally turn THEIR problem over to the Koreans and stop artificially propping them up. It is time to downsize…if not withdraw our forces all together.
2:53 pm on September 21st, 2008 11
Gerry — To "stand history on its head" was not my intent. It was simply brevity.
I and just about every historian agrees with the comments about the US not wanting to be in Korea. How the US got suckered into being in Korea in the first place — as a liberated country — is too long to get into here. The debate of this topic by South Korean nationalists continues till today and is the basis of a lot of anti-American resentment. However, even though the US never wanted to be in Korea, it was forced to because of the social, economic and political problems of the times. Later on, the reasons for staying were different from the Occupation period because the world situation had changed. After the Korean War, the US was stuck in Korea because of the Geopolitical factors of the times.
I have documented the Occupation period at Kunsan and read enough books on the period to know that. The Americans have NEVER wanted to be in Korea — but the geopolitical realities of the world caused that to happen. Lt. Gen. Hodges wanted out of Korea at the time — a quagmire of communist insurrections in a country that lacked infrastructure accompanied by desperate poverty, political intrigue and blatant atrocities by the ROK government. Hodges was forced to turn a blind-eye to the atrocities committed by the Syngman Rhee government just so he could expedite leaving. From the lowest US rank to the highest, EVERYBODY wanted out of Korea. This is a given that everyone agrees on.
The fact, however, was that the US-supported but corrupt Rhee government was going to be left on its own — with the idea that it was going to be the buffer zone. The US foolishly did not believe the North would invade and refused to arm the ROK Constabulary (forerunners to the ROK Army) adequately before they left because of their fear that the South would start a war with the North.
The US wanted a buffer zone between the Communists (China, Russia — and its puppet state North Korea) and the Acheson line just made it official.
Most historians agree that the Acheson line was the root cause for the Korean War as it led Kim Il-sung to misread the signs. Kim Il-sung was set up in a puppet government by the Soviets. Kim had the industrial power of Korea and most of the former anti-Japanese forces were in his army. Remember that the times were much different from what you see today. The electricity for the South all came from the North — and the South was primarily agricultural and its ROK Constabulary was a joke. Kim had T-54 tanks and the South had nada. The South was a pushover. Kim went to the CHINESE first for their approval of the attack — and it was blessed by Mao Tse-tung. Only then did he secretly get the approval of Josef Stalin (a fact hidden in the Russian archives until discovered after the 1990s when the USSR fell apart). The point was that they did not believe the US had the resolve to fight in Korea. Thus the Acheson line was the root cause of the invasion — not an excuse.
On another point. "The North Koreans invaded at the urging of Kim Il Song, with backing from the Russians." The Chinese were the backers and is the reason the Armistice is signed by the DPRK, UN (US as commander of the forces) and the Peoples Republic of China Volunteer Army. The Russians who flew MiGs in the Korean War flew out of China –and were there primarily because of the US bombing along the Yalu posed a threat to the Russians in its territory in Vladivostok and its disputed islands in the Japanese archapeligo. Yes, the Russians supplied armaments, but most were second-hand through the Chinese — and there was never any significant amount of Russian troops involved.
I also need to make a point on the common misconception that the Communist threat was in Europe. The expansion of Communism was not only in Europe — it was in America's face in Asia with the Red Chinese conflict with Taiwan/Formosa (ROC) and the fight for the outlying islands of Matsu and Quemoy. It was the expansion into Thailand that resulted in the assassination of the young king and forcing his brother Bumibol Adunjadet onto the throne. Laos and Cambodia were under attack by the Pathet Lao and the forerunner to the Khmer Rouge (Kampuchean Revolutonary Party). The fight with the French by the Viet Minh to force out the old colonial powers. The communist Moro insurrections started again in the Phillipines. Communist expansion was WORLD-WIDE — not simply in Europe as you imply. Check out who from Asia sent UN troops to Korea to fight the "communist threat" in Korea to get an idea of the world-wide areas involved.
Thus the threat was there in Asia — and the US was intent on containing China and Russia. However, the Acheson line was a miscalculation on the US part as mentioned before. The reason the US entered the Korean War was because it needed the buffer zone to protect JAPAN. This is fact. The US was pushing democracy in Asia after WWII and PI Commonwealth and Japan were the cornerstones. These countries could NOT fall to communism at all costs.
AFTER the Korean War, the US made it official in staying in Korea because of what I said previously that the South Koreans were not able to fend off the North along. The 1957 Eisenhower forward positioning of nuclear weapons in Korea was also a part of this same scenario. The US (and nominal UN troops) stayed in Korea until the 7th ID was pulled out in exchange for upgrades to the ROK military. In 1977, the UN flag came down on bases and the ROK said it could defend against the North alone — if China didn't enter — and the US continued its role in Korea under the 1953 Mutual Defense Treaty instead of the UN Mandate. This is fact and history — not standing "history on its head."
Sorry, if I created the impression that I was "standing history on its head."
3:29 pm on September 21st, 2008 12
Calm Seas,
We have to look at the Korean situation as part of a GLOBAL strategy.
The Japanese key was the revision of the Japanese Peace constitution and the rewriting of Article 9. It looked feasible until things went awry — oops, Prime Minister resigned. It is in limbo now. The bottomline is that the USFJ has completed its reorganization. The overall focus is that the Japanese are funding the removal of US troops from Okinawa and reshuffling troops to mainland Japan. The 3rd MEU headquarters element will be leaving for Guam if they can ever get the infrastructure of Guam upgraded in time. The Japanese said they would foot the bill for a major portion.
Try to think that with modern aircraft, prepositioned ARMY/NAVY fast ships in Okinawa, ARMY/NAVY/MARINE/USAF WRM supply ships in Saipan, and upgrading Camp Carrol for forward positioning of WRM assets, you don't need the troops (and their families) so close to the action. By putting them in Guam, you save money and international hassles — plus people are happier.
GUAM is the key position — and NOT simply a headquarters move. 13th AF relocated there. A new fighter wing was created. New contingency units set up. Anderson AB is being reconverted and as of now only TDY Bombers and fighters are rotating in. The docks are upgraded in Agana to handle a carrier — perhaps permanently based — and currently tw0-three nuclear subs are berthed there. But once the island's infrastructure is upgraded there will be space for families and a permanent move. Remember that the 2008 exercise PROVED that Guam could support the ROK commitment with tankers, bombers, fighters. Keep that in mind when you speak of moving out of the ROK. It is the key element. Currently they are looking at Tinian and other islands as potential bombing ranges because what exists now is too small. All this stuff is being worked on and tentative dates is 2014.
Also remember that I Corps has already relocated some of its elements to Camp Zama, Japan two years ago. This is a POSSIBLE three-star position. These folks are primed to take over the contingency mission currently handled by the CFC — when the USFK becomes a SUPPORT element in 2012. Army Pacific Command has already created the new facilities at Fort Shafter, HI for a POSSIBLE four-star move under PACCOM. Remember that the USFJ reorganization did NOT affect the approval already existing to use the bases as UN support bases in case of a contingency. There is still talk of the three-star 7th AF position becoming the USFK commander as senior officer in Korea — and because the HTACC at Osan cannot be moved as an integral element of Korea's defense. All of this stuff is still in the realm of possibility, but there seems to be a pattern forming.
There is a lot more blathering, but the main point I want to make is that GUAM IS THE MAIN ELEMENT to any change in Korea. The Japanese elements are falling into place — and the Japanese are getting around the Article 9 problem by the approval for SDF forces to be used in a "defensive" role — a little different than "regional" role, but in effect the same thing if we're talking about North Korea.
3:38 pm on September 21st, 2008 13
Oh, the 7th Fleet comment is because of its integration into the joint Missile Defense line being assembled around Japan. The 7th Fleet Aegis destroyers are an integral part of that line. In addition, when the US moves to a SUPPORT role, the 7th Fleet aerial bombardment capabilities are integral in the Olans being drawn up.
Korea just got its used PAC-2 missiles from Germany and perhaps it may upgrade to PAC-3 with an X-band site to join the Japan-US MDS. However, I wouldn't hold my breath on Korean participation as it is walking a tight-rope with China where it has agreed to have joint military exercises — and it will be damn expensive.
9:55 pm on September 21st, 2008 14
"Why don’t we wait until someone from the USFK sees the CRS report before we comment?"
The local news seems to be ahead of any USFK news releases. USFK stood firm on the 2006 move date until around 200?; while the local news was reporting a delay a couple of years earlier. USFK should apply Army Values to its PA program. Fool me once shame on you – ……!
12:29 am on September 22nd, 2008 15
Kalani. Much of what you say is true, I have read the same books. But saying Achesons speech not mentioning Korea as part of the Acheson line was the "cause" of the Korean war is no more true than saying Chaimberlins appeasement policies in Europe "caused" WWII. The "causes" were Kim Il Song and Hitler. The misreading of American intentions may have led Stalin and Kim to believe that the US would not defend South Korea and therefore the time was ripe for attack. But it was Kim with Stalins support and approval that "caused" the war. Placing the "cause" of the war on Achesons speech is "turning history on its head"
3:53 am on September 22nd, 2008 16
Gerry — Just so we are on the same page. I am stating that the Acheson LINE is what caused the Korean War, NOT the Acheson SPEECH.
The Acheson LINE is actually the defense perimeter promulgated by Douglas MacArthur in Mar 1949. It ran from the Philippines through the Ryukyu Archipelago, including Okinawa — then through Japan and the Aleutian Island chain to Alaska. Acheson's SPEECH in Jan 1950 just formalized the line from his position as Secretary of State. As I said before Japan and the Phillipines were the MUST defend nations in Asia for the US — and were on the US side of the line. However, Korea was on the outside of the line — and from the statements of MacArthur was NOT an area that was essential to American national interests. The Occupation forces formally left the ROK in 1949 and did NOT want to return.
However, I have to take back my words in my previous post that the Chinese approved the invasion first. Supposedly Soviet spies in Britain and US were informed of the limitations of US atomic bomb stockpiles and defense program cuts. This led Stalin to conclude that the Truman administration would not intervene in Korea. The People's Republic of China (PRC) was reluctant to support the invasion until being told that by Kim Il-sung that Josef Stalin had approved the action. Though I have reservations that Stalin approved it first because Mao Tse-tung visited Russia for two months (Dec 49-Jan 50) and the 30-year alliance treaty was signed in Feb 1950. I have read books that state the Chinese were the first to approve Kim Il-sung's reunification plans, but I defer to the 1990s archived materials that seem to show that my assumptions were wrong.
Regardless, on 25 June 1950, the DPRK invaded South Korea because the DPRK, Russia and China did NOT believe that the US would intervene in Korea — based upon the existence of the Acheson LINE that stated that South Korea was NOT an important nation to US national interests.
5:28 am on September 22nd, 2008 17
http://posts.same.org/JEETCE2007/presentations/2….
Here are the USMC assets that will relocate from Guam…NOT 31st MEU, but III MEF Headquarters:
USMC III MEF Cmd Element
Ground Combat Element
Aviation Combat Element
Combat Service Support
Plus:Transient Units Visiting USMC & Allied Forces
(New ?10,000 AD/ 9000 Dep)
These are mainly headquarters elements, plus one GCE, thus leaving the majority of GCE forward deployed in Okinawa.
5:31 am on September 22nd, 2008 18
As you were…should read "TO Guam…"
9:02 am on September 22nd, 2008 19
Great discussion guys. Thanks!
11:36 am on September 22nd, 2008 20
Calm Seas — Thanks for the link. Best condensed presentation I've seen to date of what's happening in Guam.
3:13 pm on September 22nd, 2008 21
I wasn't sure whether to put this on the Sarah Palin thread or the Camp Humphrey's thread but I don't think it matters.
If you like finding obscure connections and following Alice down the rabbit hole, this may interest you. I was reading at Mudflats, an Alaskan anti-Palin blog. They had an article about the start of the trial of Senator Ted Stevens (R, Alaska) where I came across this paragraph
CH2M Hill. Remember them — the company that has lead on the Camp Humphrey's relocation. There is no implication that this new company is tainted by it's prior boss, other than withholding documents, but it will probably still bring unwelcome attention.
11:09 am on September 25th, 2008 22
[...] You can put me in the gradual withdrawal category because as I have written about before, immediate withdrawal is not going to happen for a variety of reasons. If the Korean public wants a gradual withdrawal of USFK then they can start by lobbying their politicians to push for their completion of the USFK relocation plan that the Korean government remains committed to delaying. [...]
4:38 pm on October 22nd, 2008 23
[...] then the delays have only increased with the latest delay being 2016 and now the Korean government wants to spend even less money for the maintenance of the US-ROK [...]