By Here is an interesting article by journalist Ben Hancock in The Diplomat about the US troop presence in South Korea that readers here at the ROK Drop should find of interest. Hancock interviews a number of people about this issue to include one of my Useful Idiots, John Feffer:
‘It’s almost like a temperature gauge,’ says John Feffer, co-director of the Washington-based Foreign Policy in Focus and editor of The Future of US-Korean Relations. ‘When the United States reduces the number of troops [in South Korea] it has historically been an indication of displeasure.’
Today, Feffer says, this is part of the unease surrounding the transfer of OPCON, which dictates who has command over the 650,000 ROK troops in wartime. He describes it as ‘the tension between being abandoned by the United States and being suffocated by the United States.’Given to the United Nations Command at the outset of the Korean War, OPCON was transferred to the US Combined Forces Command (CFC) in 1978, and is to return to South Korea in April 2012. The ROK regained peacetime control of its troops in 1994.
Conservatives in South Korea, like current President Lee Myung-bak and many members of his Grand National Party, are the most concerned about the OPCON transfer and what it might mean for US-ROK interoperability in the event of a North Korean attack. The fact that the decision on the transfer was made in October 2006–the same month the North conducted its first known nuclear test–likely adds to their fears.
But Feffer is dismissive. ‘This is a normal evolution in the alliance — frankly, the conservatives should be celebrating,’ he says. ‘Traditionally, conservatives are concerned about sovereignty, and this should be seen as a sovereignty issue.’ [The Diplomat]
This guy is a Korea expert? First of all, Korea is already sovereign and Feffer seems to be perpetuating the myth that USFK is an occupying force in South Korea. I guess using his analogy that the foreign troops stationed in the US are an occupying force that challenges the sovereignty of the US? Secondly, every Korean not just conservatives take sovereignty very seriously especially in the wake of the Japanese Imperialism of World War II. Sovereignty is hardly a conservative issue in South Korea.
Here is more from the article in regards to some more popular myths in South Korea:
‘Generally South Koreans think the US presence is needed,’ Cheong says, though he adds the 2000 summit between then South Korean President Kim Dae-jung and North Korean leader Kim Jong-il made people ‘rethink the necessity of US soldiers in Korea.’ He also says that feelings toward troops reflect overall sentiment towards the US government, and that attitudes have turned more positive since Barack Obama’s inauguration as US president.
And as with the controversy surrounding US military stationing in Japan’s Okinawa, Cheong acknowledges there’s still significant concern here about environmental degradation caused by bases and crimes committed by US soldiers.
As I have demonstrated US soldiers actually commit less crime per capita when compared to the Korean population, but when a GI crime happens it has been sensationalized by the media to create a perception of out of control GI crime. This same phenomenon has occurred in regards to the USFK camp pollution issue.
The article also interviewed One Free Korea blogger Joshua Stanton about his views on the USFK troop presence as well:
Josh Stanton, a former Judge Advocate General defence attorney who served in Korea for four years and now lives in Washington, has similar memories. Though he volunteered for duty and extended twice, ‘I was definitely a rarity,’ he says. ‘Most of the people were there on one-year tours and they were counting the days.’
Stanton, who still monitors Korean affairs closely and runs the blog One Free Korea, says he enjoyed his time in Korea overall. ‘But I also tried really hard to learn Korean,’ something that’s not worth doing if you’re only going to be in the country for a year, he adds. Stanton also says South Koreans treated the US soldiers ‘at best like a public utility and at worst like a terrible occupier…that was terrible for our morale.’
Stanton left Korea in 2003, about the time Reeder says things really began to change. After the Highway 56 accident, the military put greater emphasis on training troops to be ‘a soldier and a diplomat,’ he recalls. In 2008, the first phase of tour normalization began.
Make sure to read the rest of the article here.
Instead of public utility I tend to use the term “a necessary evil” to describe many Koreans views towards USFK. The anti-colonialism attitudes and the false perceptions among Koreans about USFK helps shapes attitudes towards USFK where many people would rather not have a US troop presence, but understand why they are needed on the peninsula. The occupier stuff is usually coming from the hard left in Korea which many have North Korean ties and not what I consider mainstream views.
As far as the US military presence in Korea, I am a supporter of the Camp Humphreys relocation plan which will greatly reduce the USFK footprint in Korea. I think eventually the use of having the 2nd Infantry Division located in Korea will need to be looked at because their use in a ground war in Korea would have little effect on the outcome considering the huge Army the South Koreans maintain. It just seems the remaining 2ID units would be better used elsewhere. If 2ID was to redeploy, to maintain close ties with the ROK Army possibly Stryker units could rotate to Korea to do training exercises instead of keeping a permanently based presence? The Air Force on the other hand I think continues to be an important asset to the defense of South Korea and I don’t see them moving anytime soon.
You can read more on this article over at the Marmot’s Hole and One Free Korea as well.
So what do readers think about Korean attitudes towards the US military presence in South Korea as well as the current troop deployments that make up USFK?
It is the sad reality. No mistake...
1:16 am on March 5th, 2010 1
The USA is Korea's <a href="http://www.bing.com/search?q=34+percent+korea+military+academy+cadets+survey+united+states+main+enemy" rel="nofollow">main enemy.
2:47 am on March 5th, 2010 2
From a purely practical purpose and viewing matters as they stand now, I think the ROK armed forces are more than capable of handling current threats (ie North Korea). I'm not so certain even the USAF contingent is vital (though certainly very helpful).
Bit of caution for those Koreans Hell bent on getting us out. What do Vietnam, The Philippines and Somalia have in common? They all had a US military presense that left and never came back. In the case of The Philippines, they asked us to come back and we said no. Once we leave an area, we tend to restructure strategic policy to zero out the place we left. Doesn't seem like a big deal now, right? How would ROK stand up against an aggressive China? Or what if the Japanese kick us out too and start getting feisty? ROK might just find itself out in the cold with those uncultured American barbarians sitting on Guam!
4:14 am on March 5th, 2010 3
The ROK may be able to handle the DPRK threat, but they are not so looming that they eliminate the possibility of a DPRK invasion attempt. Second, it is not just North Korea that remains a threat to South Korea — China would make moves as soon as the US departed from the peninsula and Okinawa. This in turn would trigger an arms race that would necessitate the ROK and Japan to go nuclear — their only sure-bet besides a beneficent US military presence — and proliferation is not something the US wants or needs, nor is the instability that would erupt in Northeast Asia.
The US prevents a powder keg from building, and the US benefits from it not building. (It should also be noted that the Guamanians are no more happy about the US military presence than South Koreans or Okinawans are — and dramatically expanding capabilities there could make Pyongtaek look like a picnic).
In short, the chinboistas (see here) don't want us and they try to influence as many as they can in Korea in order to reach a critical mass of public sentiment to boot us out (though they always fail), but most Koreans ultimately want or at least feel the need for the US military presence, which is actually good not only for South Korea, but also the US and its other allies in the region, Japan and Taiwan, as well as our opponents, China namely, because of the highly successful Pax Americana (see here).
The US presence in Northeast Asia is the most stabilizing thing in the region in centuries.
Have South Korea expand its capabilities for assisting the US outside the peninsula, but keep at least a USAF presence in the ROK (and perhaps a meaningful Army presence). The benefits far outweigh the costs, even for the US.
4:21 am on March 5th, 2010 4
Chris, you make good points, but it's important to not look at South Korean opinion as singular or monolithic in this case.
The South Koreans who want us out don't think the Chinese threat is real. It's exaggerated by their conservative governments who they think are pro-Washington and pro-Tokyo lackeys. Those are the chinboistas and those who fall for chinboista rhetoric or tactics.
But a large portion — a considerably larger portion — do see China as a looming threat. That group sees Washington as a friend or at least sees the US military as a necessary evil.
I wouldn't fault the South Koreans for the "necessary evil" attitude, either, as if it were unique to this location. I've seen it from Japan and Okinawa to Guam to Oceanside.
USFK has worked very hard to reduce incidents, and that pays off. Even if the loudest voices — the vocal fringe — keep saying USFK out, USFK out, the silent majority has a far better impression of USFK. Why do they remain silent then? Well, having real jobs curtails demonstration activities.
BTW, now that the pissy former PAO of USFK is gone, maybe USFK can now start having a better relationship with the South Korean media so that the heart-warming stories can get into the news.
4:59 am on March 5th, 2010 5
Those idiots that think US ground forces are not needed in ROK are obviously not properly educated in history AND geography.
US has shed far too much blood for Northeast Asia. And there is so much to lose if that region becomes unstable again.
If those idiots really want to pull back some US ground forces from foreign nations, they should be from Europe.
5:00 am on March 5th, 2010 6
Have South Korea expand its capabilities for assisting the US outside the peninsula, but keep at least a USAF presence in the ROK (and perhaps a meaningful Army presence). The benefits far outweigh the costs, even for the US.
That's what happened with Vietnam although in a slightly different way…
5:20 am on March 5th, 2010 7
Granted, it has been some time since I was stationed in Korea as a Soldier, but when I was stationed there, we always understood our main reason for being there was as a deterrent, but also to ensure US blood was shed early in a strike by NK so that US support would not wane. Lets say that some day NK makes a sneak attack, seriously disabling a large portion, but not all of SK's military might (their being in shock might alone be enough to cause SK to falter early on in an attack), US intervention will be a necessity. Now let's say there are no US forces in Korea or only a small contingent located around Pusan or even Osan (far enough away to avoid any damage during the early hours/days of an assault), I guarantee you many Americans (and surely most liberal politicians) will call for the US to "stay out of a civil war". Sure, SK will eventually win, but at what cost? If US troops are stationed near the DMZ and suffer some casualties early on, the American public will DEMAND we seek our revenge as a nation.
JMHO.
5:27 am on March 5th, 2010 8
I agree. Unless US decides to base a majority of US troops in ROK, US troops will always serve the role of tripwire.
And DETERRENCE is the word to remember also in this debate.
5:54 am on March 5th, 2010 9
"This in turn would trigger an arms race that would necessitate the ROK and Japan to go nuclear"
Well mentioned Kushibo. I think the day the USA leaves Korea, we will rush to build our nukes.
What a paradox the nukes are: A weapon of mass destruction that is the only real democracy mean to nations today.
9:49 am on March 5th, 2010 10
Even the most pro-American ROK military officers I've met always bring up money first and foremost when discussing U.S. troop withdrawal. They never mention a 60-year friendship, common interests, etc. They always talk about how they can't afford to replace us. Glad to know it's mostly about the money to them… What a huge cost to their economy they avoid by having us here to do the heavy lifting. And we have a trade deficit with them.
Don't get me wrong; I'm as pro-Korean as they come (even did an exchange tour at their AF Staff College) but we aren't in the best financial shape as a country. So either the Koreans need to foot a lot more of the bill or we should leave. I don't know what we think we are deterring. The Koreans would never let us use their soil to conduct operations against China. Furthermore, eventually the Koreans are going to have to choose between us and China and they will be Finlandized by China. So all of the money, blood, sweat, and tears that we shed since late 1990s when nK could no longer win a war will have been wasted.
Incidentally the most pro-American Korean officer I know is a defector, a former nKAF fighter pilot.
10:20 am on March 5th, 2010 11
"their use in a ground war in Korea would have little effect on the outcome considering the huge Army the South Koreans maintain"
…and the fact the next Korean War would be fought with unconventional weapons.
10:25 am on March 5th, 2010 12
Pulling out of South Korea because your resources are overstretched? How about pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan instead?
10:26 am on March 5th, 2010 13
Good point.
12:24 pm on March 5th, 2010 14
Vietnam never makes any trouble for us. That's an example of withdrawal being in our own best interest. We're already planning to withdraw from Iraq. Very soon, win lose or draw, we must plan to withdraw from Afghanistan. We should also plan to withdraw from Korea and Okinawa.
1:09 pm on March 5th, 2010 15
Our reasons for being in Korea and Okinawa have nothing in common with our reasons for being in Iraq or Afghanistan. So I'm not sure how you draw your parallels.
While I understand while we went into Iraq and Afghanistan, I agree we should leave Iraq as is planned since it's time and we've done what we can there. As for Afghanistan, in my opinion it's not about winning or losing. It's about not letting the Taliban and AQ re-establish a base of operations. Admittedly, I'm not sure how do that, but I'm sure it will require some sort of ongoing presence that, unfortunately, will continue to result in American casualties.
To think the US presence in Okinawa and Korea has no stabilizing affect in East Asia is to ignore history. Regardless of what we may think today, the nations of Korea, Japan and China have long histories of warring with each other and that's not going to change just because we're living in the "modern age". Early in the last century they thought they were living in the "modern age" and they still ended up fighting crisis wars. Crisis wars repeat every 60 to 90 years and the East Asia region as well as the US are due for the next one.
2:36 pm on March 5th, 2010 16
Lose what? Trading partners or providing protection of countries capable of taking care of themselves?
Our presence as a military on their soil annoys the hell out of them and make the US unwelcomed.
Let them go thier own way, without the US. If all hell breaks loose then we can sell arms and material to all sides regardless of race, gender, or sexual preference.
Or is it influence? By our presence we influence the far east in its policies.
I think we would have more influence by not being there.
But that would mean change, and change we don't want because thats the way it been for 60 years.
5:37 pm on March 5th, 2010 17
Not instead, in addition to and Germany while we're at it.
7:29 pm on March 5th, 2010 18
East Asians can stabilize themselves. The Vietnamese are pretty stable.
1:50 am on March 6th, 2010 19
Vietnam's history is nothing like the historical record that China, Japan and Korea share. I won't go into all the historical differences, but there are more than enough that you cannot look to Vietnam and say, "as the Vietnamese go, there goes the rest of Asia". Furthermore, Vietnam is in Southeast Asia and not East Asia. There is a difference and the histories of the two regions are very different.
2:20 am on March 6th, 2010 20
In response to some of the comments here, I do not advocate removing USFK from Korea. This region of the world has been stable now for 60 years for a reason. I do question why ground troops are needed. The trip wire rationale is clearly already outdated considering 2ID is moving to Camp Humprheys which is far from the DMZ.
So if the troops are no longer a tripwire than what is their role? It is obviously not to play a decisive role in the land war considering how small the US ground troop presence is. If it is to continue to keep close training and partnership ties with the ROK Army why can't non-permanently stationed units that rotate to Korea continue to do this?
8:56 am on March 6th, 2010 21
Lets get out of Pakistan as well, then they can attack India, and India will obliterate Pakistan and Afganistan will be overrun by India as well.
Then China will invade India and the Russians will move into their disputed territiries on Chinas borders. China can have a two front war and the US can sell billions in faulty arms to all sides. (think of emptying the Air Force boneyard, we can use our trade deficit and their dollars of ours that they aquired over the years to pay the cost)
Having no funding or anything of value to trade with China NK would go bankrupt and collapse. (Kim Jong Il would flee to Haite and try to blend in with the locals)
Iran will fire a missle at Poland (because 'allah' told them to), the Polish will send their army to squash Iran and conquer four eastern european contries while trying to locate Iran. Iraq will invade Iran, because its what they do.
World problems solved.
9:04 am on March 6th, 2010 22
I think instead of the UN providing a trip wire it would be in the best interest of all to set up a joint US/UN consulate at the DMZ/JSA. It would be manned (or womaned) by members of the US congress or UN member states elected officials on a rotating basis. 125 members at a time for a 13 month tour.
The cost savings would be enourmous. The deterent would still be there.
9:21 am on March 6th, 2010 23
Agree. Remove the ground troops. However, the US air force should remain as 'viable' threat to the north (and not just a 'trip' wire). The US should only be used in the air or for resupply of the south should a war occur. US air could attack the north and never be on the ground, as well as keeping up with targeting etc. etc, during peacetime.
Why not have the South Koreans train with the US troops in the US, if close training and understanding are required. (California would be excellant) The Korean population in LA alone would make them feel welcomed and at home. I'm sure the discourse would be to our benifit.
And South Korea could foot the bill as well. Isn't that nice.
9:39 am on March 6th, 2010 24
Train in California for Korean climate and terrain? Capital idea.
And maybe we could have soldiers heading for flat, arid Iraq deserts train in Tongduchon by having them wear heavier clothing in the mountains during the muggy summers.
9:40 am on March 6th, 2010 25
On a more serious note, is it cheaper or more expensive, including land acquisition costs, to keep a couple thousand troops in South Korea than California? How about Okinawa compared to California?
9:53 am on March 6th, 2010 26
There are any number of places in the US where the Korean troops could train, many very cold and mountainous as well. They can always R+R in LA. Washington state has a fairly cool climate and many mountains as well. Alaska? All nearby. The major point is they can come to the US to train, the US does not need to be in Korea.
9:56 am on March 6th, 2010 27
So who do they kick off their land to get the training facilities? Or will they be running around national forests and national parkland?
10:13 am on March 6th, 2010 28
Hey, I even go as far as to say, "USA out of Texas!" and "Texas out of the USA!"
10:42 am on March 6th, 2010 29
I,ve been to Texas, I'm all for it. How about California?
10:53 am on March 6th, 2010 30
Well to start there's Yakima firing center, then Ft lewis, Alaska has major areas available. Doubt anyone needs to get kicked off any land. The communities would probobly welcome the added income.
However I don't have a problem with National Forests or Parklands if the training is appropriate to the site.
11:06 am on March 6th, 2010 31
Having US troops in South Korea benefits everyone except the USA. Maybe it's about time we acted in OUR own self interest and pulled the troops out. Our troops in South Korea are just political footballs, in many ways, and our troops shouldn't be put in that kind of situation.
12:21 pm on March 6th, 2010 32
The problem with the suggestion of having the Korea forces go to the U.S. for training is the majority of the troop numbers claimed are conscripted reservists. These reservists make up about 80 percent. I have heard some un-encouraging things about the quality of their training.
As it stands now, the ROK's regular active duty soldiers receive vastly greater quality training than their conscripts. The disparity is supposed to be much greater than existed between American Active and Reserve forces before the Afghan and Iraq wars. Wouldn't having the ROK active duty military do all their significant combined forces training in the U.S. exacerbate the the disparity?
For some of the same reasons, I have always been skeptical of claims for the superiority of the ROK Army over the DPRK's. As we have seen with our experience with Afghanistan, superior weapons and training alone don't make superior fighting forces. Commitment to fighting is a large part of what is needed.
If conflict broke out again of the peninsular, I am not sure the ROKs would have the commitment edge over their DPRK adversaries. Especially when it comes to conscripts who may be more concerned about getting their families to safety than showing up for muster.
1:36 pm on March 6th, 2010 33
The only problem with bringing conscripts to the US would be how many would defect. If units are brought over in battalion or regiment size, the learning or thinking outside the "box" would be invaluable.
I suspect it could even be a recruitment tool for many.
1:50 pm on March 6th, 2010 34
What land aquisition costs? Besides South Korea will be paying for the training in the US.(along with their spending in town). Why give anything to Okinawa that the US can do better on its own terf. (and reap the benifits) If South Korea doesn't want to pay for the training then I guess we all know where their priorities are.
You have to think like a Korean to get the upper hand.
3:02 pm on March 6th, 2010 35
Here are some radical proposals: South Korean officers train South Korean soldiers on South Korean soil! South Korea, an advanced, prosperous country, defends itself! East Asians stablilize themselves! (Same goes for Southeast Asians. And South Asians. And West Asians.)
3:51 pm on March 6th, 2010 36
1/3 to 1/2 of the troops that came here to train would probably end up going AWOL and staying here as illegal immigrants. I doubt many Americans (or Koreans for that matter) realize how many gi-ruk-ki ummas there are in the USA with their kids illegally.
9:15 pm on March 6th, 2010 37
Once the older generation of Koreans is gone, in a few years, there will be very few Koreans who will support having US troops in South Korea. The US government should prepare for that eventuality. It's coming sooner than anyone realizes.
11:02 pm on March 6th, 2010 38
Current USFK missions is to provide logistics / intel / communications support to the ROK military. The ROK may have a highly trained (by us) capable ground force, but their lacking in logistics / intel and C4I capability. Even the mightiest Army in the world can be undone by insufficient supply / intelligence / communications. To this extend we support our ROK allies while also training them (during several joint exercise's per year) on how to out-plan your enemy.
The ROK has approx 700,000 ground soldiers divided into three armies (FROKA / SROKA / TROKA) and its C2 staff elements. In contract the DPRK has over two million in ground force, even if their not properly equipped, they are well trained and are not lacking in main power. With such a short distance between both opposing forces the battle's would be bloody as hell if one side didn't have such an extreme advantage in technology / techniques.
One of the above posters was correct when they mentioned the money thing. For the ROK to develop, maintain and deploy systems to achieve the same capability we provide them with would be an astronomical amount of money. They simply can not afford to do that, especially if you consider China in this picture. If you haven't been reading the news lately, China's been getting uppity in the past year or so, it thinks its the new USSR (not to mention Russia is wanting to attain its former military might).
And this is all without mentioning the supreme power that a USS Carrier Battle Group represents, and we happen to keep one in the region. And the air assets stationed in Japan, all on tap to support South Korea, Japan and Taiwan .. "just in case".
11:32 pm on March 6th, 2010 39
Its not a question of land costs, its a question of time. Shipping troops out of California takes too long to get to the action area. Also the primary mission is logistics / intel / C4I support, you can't do that without being in the local area to understand it.
12:40 am on March 7th, 2010 40
There is one time that I know of when a ROK army unit went to train in the US:
http://rokdrop.com/2006/09/09/rok-army-sends-batt…
As far as training in Dongducheon to go to Iraq, that has already been done. 2BCT of the 2ID in 2004 trained at Camp Casey and the KTC before going on their deployment to Iraq.
12:51 am on March 7th, 2010 41
The US has huge training areas that other nations already use. The Japanese SDF have annual live fire training exercises at Ft. Lewis, WA major training area at Yakima:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakima,_Washington
The Japanese also train at Ft. Bliss, TX:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/news/…
The Germans have permanently stationed troops at both Ft. Bliss and Holloman AFB, NM. Other nations have smaller troop contingents stationed in the US or rotating to the US for training. There is land to train and the Japanese in particular get priority over US troops when they train because their government pays so much money to up keep the ranges.
The ROK Army on the other will never pay the kind of money the Japanese do to conduct annual training in the US.
12:54 am on March 7th, 2010 42
By the way Kushibo just about every military professional development class I have taken in the US has had a ROK Army soldier in it. Every ROK soldier I have had training with I have found to be very professional and some of the best international students. They aren't the best though. Without a doubt the best international students that attend US military training are from Singapore if you can believe it.
1:55 am on March 7th, 2010 43
I would hazard a guess that its the "appearance" of a combat force on pen. Everyone involved knows that a single BDE won't make much off a difference in a war of that scale.
I could possibly see them being used as some sort of defensive measure, especially since most will be moves to the Hump. Only thing gonna be left in Seoul is CNC / UNC HQ.
2:51 am on March 7th, 2010 44
"I do question why ground troops are needed."
GI Korea, what you state is entirely rational. And even if the "trip-wire" argument is becoming irrelevant, I think there is a hostage rationale to keeping 2ID in Korea.
Put yourself in the shoes of a generic ROK-President or an American President with an aggressive foreign policy mindset. Things in America can be cyclical. One of the cycles is the occasional pacifist/isolationist minded American President. What if there is a dovish President in the White House when Mr. Kim decides to attack and there are only some USAF squadrons and some Army support Soldiers on the peninsula. He just might decide to cut a deal with the NKs and evacuate USFK. This option becomes much less available if there is a less easily re-deployable Division in play.
4:01 am on March 7th, 2010 45
You're wrong about that. Most importantly, the young generation has been tending to become more conservative in their views as they get older, so a twenty-year-old today is more likely to arrive at the conclusion of today's forty-year-old today, but within the next ten years.
Second, China's knuckle-crackling has scared the crap out of everyone — including the young people — and that has been a game changer in terms of how Koreans, including the young, view China.
The Chinese run amok in Seoul in 2008 was the worst thing China could do for its image in Korea. An indelible mark.
So on the one side, you have a country (the US) that is here to help keep you safe but whose personnel jump on taxis, drive dangerous vehicles down the roads, and sleep with juicy girls (you think), and on the other side, you have a country (China) that's trying to swallow up yours. Which do you side with? A no-brainer, thanks to China's actions lately.
4:02 am on March 7th, 2010 46
I forgot, the move to Pyongtaek will also create an out-of-sight, out-of-mind situation for that vast majority of Koreans in terms of things to complain about, so the heat will be turned down on anti-USFK sentiment.
4:14 am on March 7th, 2010 47
I honestly thought over the years I'd read it's cheaper to keep them here in the country where they'd be needed than back home, but that could be wrong.
But if the US and ROK can successfully agree on a way to use 2ID in missions in Asia (I don't know how this would work, since I'm not military), in a way that doesn't make it appear that the ground troops are off the peninsula altogether (which could be seen as a "chance" for a DPRK prone to miscalculation), then wouldn't it make sense for them to stay?
5:13 am on March 7th, 2010 48
Misinformation abounds. Did you got a special school to learn how to do that?
~ALL~ of the ROK Army soldiers are active duty, with most of the enlisted being young men in doing their 2yr obligation. The "reserve" you hear about is just the people who have completed their obligation and are still young enough to be called back to war when the situation arrives. They do training a few times a year (if that) and it mostly involved them showing up and saying their still alive.
The ROK has 650,000 to 700,000 active duty Army. Then several million more "reservists", but as I mentioned above this is really just a catch-all category for anyone finished their active time but still eligible for being called up. Its those 700K that we worry about training, not the reservists.
7:38 am on March 7th, 2010 49
One round of emails/text messages and one TV show later, hundreds of thousands of younger Koreans are convinced US beef kills with one bite and that they must protest in the streets against the evil American beef. Yeah, they're loyal, alright, loyal to Starbucks, Baskin Robbins, and McDonalds.
8:25 am on March 7th, 2010 50
The C4I and logistics issues is one of the reason I believe USFK should remain in place and mostly everyone supports keeping an overwhelming air power presence, however what is the logic for keeping 2ID on the peninsula especially when they move to Camp Humphreys they are no longer a trip wire?
8:40 am on March 7th, 2010 51
Even if no US troops were stationed in Korea, there is still the 1953 Mutual Defense Treaty.
Yes, American Presidents have unilaterally scraped treaties in the past, but I don't think any American President could get away with reneging on a mutual defense treaty after aggression starts.
6:45 pm on March 7th, 2010 52
Yeah, Glans, cause if everyone just stays unconnected everyone will be safer! Who has collective defence ever helped, anyway?
4:18 am on March 8th, 2010 53
(To paraphrase Warren Buffet) If the US military pulls out now (tide pulls out) you are going to find a lot of people swimming naked