ROK Drop

Avatar of GI KoreaBy on April 3rd, 2010 at 7:25 am

Camp Humphreys Construction Update

Here is a construction update from Camp Humphreys:

Work crews will demolish so many buildings at Camp Humphreys in the next two years that two temporary warehouses will be constructed to store property from those buildings, the post’s chief planner said.

They may need to build still more “swing space” warehouses in the future, said Todd Dirmeyer, chief of the master planning division at the U.S. Army Garrison-Humphreys.

Humphreys, in Pyeongtaek, will triple in size in coming years to become the flagship installation of the U.S. military in South Korea and home to the bulk of U.S. forces on the peninsula.

A total of 321 buildings — nearly three-fourths of those currently standing inside Camp Humphreys — will come down over the next two years to make room for new construction, including warehouses where the garrison stores equipment and supplies, said Lori Yerdon, the garrison’s interim public affairs officer.  [Stars & Stripes]

Despite all the delay games involving the Camp Humphreys relocation it is at least good to see slow but steady progress on the construction happening.  Any bets if General Sharp’s statement that the move will happen within 6 years will come true?

Tags: , , ,
- 2,829 views
17
  • Liz
    12:58 am on April 3rd, 2010 1

    We really need to just leave rather than spending money in more construction for a draw down. Let the ROK figure it out. Taiwan had to.

  • Retired GI
    1:39 am on April 3rd, 2010 2

    I have to agree with Liz.

    All the cash being spent on the "Hump" falls into the area of waste and abuse.

    The Hump had a good long run, and served an important purpose while needed. But that time has passed.

    Mission accomplished (long ago), let us depart and leave Korea and her problems to the Koreans, as they often say they want us to do.

    (no more worries about human trafficking, prostitution, underage drinking, BS year long PCS moves, needless marriage and the divorce that follow. Goodbye to the "Soju experience". No driving on post problems with rank. No DUI'S off post. No more off post experience with Korean "drivers". No more wondering out of the "approved" entertainment area. No more debate on treating grown men and women like children with the "curfew".)

    Glade to have served in Korea. WHEN I served in Korea. I learned much and had a great time there. If I had to serve there NOW, I don't think I would have had the same opportunity to learn and experience as I did before.

    Time to go. There is a war to fight and it isn't in Korea. They don't want us anylonger. They do not need us either.

    Take our money, toys and people where they are needed. Somewhere ELSE. ;-)

  • Bruce
    2:21 am on April 3rd, 2010 3

    I was stationed at "The Hump" in 1978-79, assigned to Hq Company Garrison. Was the easiest assigment in my 22 years. Back then there were only Support troops there, and it was more like a collage campus, than a army camp.

    I have put together a web page which covers most of its history, with pictures up to this year.

    http://qsl.net/wd4ngb/cp%20humphreys.htm

    If you have any to add, you can email them to me.

  • Wendy
    8:30 am on April 3rd, 2010 4

    Ah, just the start of hopefully the last time large amounts of US taxpayer money will be pumped in Korea. But I suspect in two years after most of the buildings are near complete, all the fraud will be discovered. We will learn how the contractors cut corners, used substandard materials, and bribed inspectors to look the other way. The building will be deemed unsafe to occupy and then we will have to flood the place with even more US tax dollars.

  • Pete
    9:04 am on April 3rd, 2010 5

    I thought Korea was paying for the building up of Camp Humphreys and the relocation of US forces. This move may be a great bargin the US.

  • Leon LaPorte
    12:23 pm on April 3rd, 2010 6

    *yawn*

    /crickets chirping

  • Wally
    12:41 pm on April 3rd, 2010 7

    The ROKs are paying for it and there is a mutually vested interest for US being hosted in the ROK. The usual insignificant opinions from a minority of Korean or American citizens that we simply pack up and abandon don't see the big geopolitical picture.

  • guitard
    6:47 pm on April 3rd, 2010 8

    Why should US troops stay in South Korea? Is it only about South Korea…? Does the stationing of troops in Korea exist in a vacuum – and if they pull out – there will be no effect beyond the Korean peninsula?

    How would Japan react? Do nothing? Join the nuclear arms race? If Japan decides to significantly beef up its military – what will others in the region then do?

    And if US troops pull-out – what about China? And Russia?

    If the US pulls out and the sh!t hits the fan in Korea – and the Chinese, Japanese and Russians are suddenly pulled into a conflict – what effect would that have on the world economy? Or specifically – on the US economy?

    Yeah…I know. It's all hypothetical.

  • Retired GI
    8:08 am on April 4th, 2010 9

    So it seems that America IS the glue that holds Asia together. Asia would fall into conflict and catastrophe without the American Police Force on the Pen. Good to know—Good to know.

    I had no idea that the "geopolitical picture" in Asia was so very dependent of little ole us, maintaining the "Hump".

    I gave the Asian people more credit than they deserve, so it would seem.

    But wait, it is all about the "economy". So "why" would Asia decide to self-destruct because America pulled out of Korea? Humm?

    I understand that I am but an "insignificant opinion", but I wish to understand why four plus, Major Countries are not intelligent enough to be able to get along without America holding their hands like a bunch of children who are unable to stop hitting each other.

    Doesn't give me much faith in Asia EVER growing up.

    Perhaps America should just take over. Do like the school teacher does and start smaking hands of the children (countries) that can't leave the other children (countries) alone.

    Or are you saying; that IS the reason we stay in Korea?

    Korea-don't touch China or Japan

    Japan-don't touch Korea or China

    Russia-stop telling China to hurt Korea.

    Ah! I get it now.

    Mean while, in the other class room; Iraq and Iran are messin with each other and Mexico is trying to get into the teachers panties.

    Sorry (not really) Too much cold medicine today.

  • someotherguy
    11:30 am on April 4th, 2010 10

    Sarcasm being set aside. The US is the only thing holding China back from its imperialistic nature, or have you totally missed the news lately.

    We do not ~need~ to have a large force here, just a small enough out to do the mission, which is providing logistical / intelligence to the ROK's. China, or any other nation interested in expanding their borders, would have to worry about dragging us into a fight. America hasn't lost a war in a hundred years, its a statistical certainty that we would eventually win any engagement we entered (politics aside). This is without going into the insane realm of nuclear war's and all the nastiness that involves.

    So no, the US should not leave Korea. We've a deeply vested interest in staying on this side of the world. It gives us a platform for projection of power, and the ability to mitigate disputes / put out fires before they start.

    Some people always assume it would be best to just "stick to our own business" because what happens in other parts of the world "doesn't concern us". We discovered the fallacy of that belief first hand during WWI/WWII. The Europeans are just too weak and spineless to actually do anything to keep peace. They'll make statements and gestures, posturing and all that, but in the end they won't do a damn thing. Would be dictators know this. If you ignore small problems long enough, they turn in big nasty problems that ignite world wars which just drag us into them anyways.

    Or to paraphrase, there hasn't been a single major war since the US started its policy of policing the world, containing small wars, and preventing aggressive powers from having a free hand. We've had stellar success in this endeavor despite enemy's both abroad and in our homes.

  • Retired GI
    2:40 pm on April 4th, 2010 11

    I'm glad to see someone make an honest attempt at explaining it. Having spent eight years at the "Hump", on and off over twenty years, I have heard this before. I see the logic of it, as you explained it. I do not agree 100%. I sometimes feel that we should give Asia an opportunity to display some new found maturity. Step off a bit. It isn't like we will EVER be far off, when needed.

    As for dragging America into a fight—not likely in the next three years. (politics not set aside)

    I have spent some time in Korea. I can not in good conscious say that we need to have "boots on the ground" in Korea. My point is mute as we WILL be there for — the rest of my life. I see it as a pointless intrusion on an ungratefull and uncaring country. With the weapon systems of today, boots on the ground are no longer needed—in THIS country.

    Unless your point is that the ROK military is totally incapable of holding off their Brothers from the North for more than a couple of days.

    If that is your point, I might agree that Korea needs to have American boots on their soil. Sad statement that it is.

    (The "doorbell effect" of American military dying when the Reds come down MSR1 is no longer needed)

    As you said, America has not lost a major war in 100 years. I disagree.

    WWII-we got lucky. Korea still has no Peace Treaty with itself. Vietnam-politics got in the way of victory. I do not call it "stellar success". I call it good intentions by a great country. Payed in lost lives. But I will agree that we have had success, to a degree. That we are needed in some areas. To some degree.

    But American Military Personnel on the ground in Korea—no longer needed.

    I think, no longer wanted as well.

  • Wally
    8:05 am on April 5th, 2010 12

    Wheels already in motion. Relocation and transformation already occurring.

    Apparent what the consensus is.

  • Retired GI
    8:18 am on April 5th, 2010 13

    As long as the ROK is paying for it. ;-)

  • someotherguy
    2:11 pm on April 5th, 2010 14

    Luck is merely the result of planning and calculated risk taking. Every war decision has a chance of failure / going the wrong way, with careful planning and analysis you can stack the deck in your favor. WWII was not luck, we entered the war while the allies were getting their a$$ beat, turned the tide of the entire war, and this was on the other side of the planet. WWII critics usually completely forget that all production and troop personal came from the other half of the planet, in 1940's technology. What seems so easy today was a miracle in and of itself during that age. And we did this not once, but twice.

    Vietnam was a whole other story, its the perfect example of what happens when politics handcuffs military strategy. We could of won that war easily enough, stomped a mud hole in the chests of the NVA. Then it would of turned into a counter insurgency and we would of learned the lessons we're learning now in Iraq. But we would of eventually won out and south Vietnam would look much like the ROK does today.

    Umm I disagree that there isn't a need of any military physically located on pen. We certainly don't need combat soldiers, the 700K+ ROK Army is more then capable of beating a NK attack. But that is in a vacuum assuming only those two powers get involved. In reality China would dip in to "ensure" regional hegemony. Through production, intelligence, money and even troops if need be. The ROK peninsula is an amazing piece of strategic land. Its within striking distance of all South and East Asia, a base here gives any nation the ability to project its power and presence.

    There are two super powers in this region, Russia and China. Both were extremely aggressive in the past, and both are currently building themselves up and trying to increase their world standing. Lets be frank, the only real way to increase your "world standing" is for more nations to fear you. That means military power and the ability to do whatever you want, and to communicate your ability to do whatever you want to your neighbors. World power's don't play touchy feeley "lets pass a resolution and send you a mean letter" games. Instead they send tanks, airplanes, missiles, carrier groups and eventually troops to get their point across.

    In short, our presence in South Korea isn't to defend South Korea (although that's a good side effect and excuse). Our presence is to ensure the other two major super powers don't get any ideas about who's on top. The presence of a single US base means anyone entering into an aggressive engagement would immediately involve the biggest nation in the world. The example I will use is the conflict between Georgia and Russia. A section of Georgia attempts to rebel, they are funded and backed by Russia. Georgia mobilizes its military to suppress the rebellion. Russia immediately executes a land grab through a military option, they didn't even attempt to negotiate a peaceful solution. Russian solders crush the Georgian military (super power vs minor nation, was no contest) and make their way to the capitol city. You attempt to take a nations capitol city for only one reason, disabling its government. The stopped their advance the minute a US combat unit touched ground in Georgia (at the invitation / begging of the Georgian government). The Russians did not want to start an engagement with the US, WWIII is not something they want on their heads. The US combat unit didn't even need to engage the enemy unit, we merely needed to be there for the effect to take place.

    This is the same logic as applies to ROK vs NK. With no US base in the ROK, any slight disturbance could give China a reason to execute a land grab and attempt to reunite the peninsula. The ROK's would hold them off, long enough for US combat units to enter the theater, China would then back the hell off (they don't want to start WWIII with us) and peace would settle. Unfortunately many civilians would already be dead and there would be much destruction and economic havoc. Thus we're here, not to fight the NK's, but to prevent China from getting any idea's. NK will never attack without the backing of China. MJI and his heir enjoy being the kings of their ant hill.

  • WALLY
    8:34 pm on April 5th, 2010 15

    ROKs are paying most of it,, not all of it.

    Here's the latest on it:

    Transformation Conference – April 5, 2010
    http://www.usfk.mil/usfk/ShowContent.aspx?ID=466

  • Ole 1st Tanker.
    7:07 am on August 17th, 2010 16

    I recommend reading "This Kind of War" by Fahrenback (sp)

    There is a good historic background of the special relationship between America and South Korea.

    They have been our steadfast allies a long time. Not an Occupied country like Japan or Germany.

    Unless I read it wrong the US prevented the South from reunifying the peninsula when they could have circa 1953, (when the North's Army was defeated and weak)as a result America promised to protect them.

    More good reading, the book by General Whitey Paek.

  • spotteddog
    12:31 am on June 7th, 2011 17

    The only special about the relationship between the US and Korea is the fact that the US needs a spring-board into China…both economically and militarily. The Korean people don’t want the US occupying their country. After living there for nearly 10 years, I can never understand why the Korean Government agreed to pay for relocation of facilities. The US is the one that wants to stay…let them pay for their own facilities. It should be the same as a land lease in the US…whatever you build there (you pay for the construction) and it should revert back to the owner when you leave. The US has equipped the Korean military well during the past decades and they are perfectly able to defend themselves against NK aggression (which is unlikely in our lifetime). The US military should phase out of Korea and let them control their own life.

 

RSS feed for comments on this post | TrackBack URI

By submitting a comment here you grant this site a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution.

Bad Behavior has blocked 30146 access attempts in the last 7 days.