By That is what this article from The Diplomat is suggesting may be a possibility for the ROK Army in Afghanistan:
But it was a second deployment to Afghanistan in 2010 that marked South Korea’s true debut as a military power. In response to US President Barak Obama’s call for a bigger international coalition in Afghanistan, Seoul last year pledged a Provincial Reconstruction Team and a powerful infantry force to accompany the team—a total of around 500 troops.
South Korea also plans to send helicopters to support these ground troops. The aircraft, scheduled to arrive this year, will integrate into the US Army’s 3rd Combat Aviation Brigade based at Bagram, according to brigade commander Colonel Don Galli.
Engineering and reconstruction are core strengths of the Korean military. But the planned Afghan PRT represents a ‘face-saving vehicle’ for Seoul, providing political cover for the combat force, according to Scott Snyder, an analyst with the San Francisco-based Asia Foundation. While South Korea is committed to making a meaningful contribution to the Afghan war, sending fighting troops ‘is somewhat sensitive in the South Korea political context,’ Snyder told The Diplomat magazine. Hence the ‘reconstruction’ rubric. [The Diplomat]
Read the rest of the article at the link, but the article goes on to mention how the Dutch used the PRT concept in order to sell their deployment to Afghanistan to the public, but the PRT found themselves in heavy combat, which meant having to actually kill Taliban and having to deal with civilian casualties as a result. The Dutch public was not prepared for such a thing and now the Dutch are in the process of withdrawing their troops from Afghanistan. I think a difference with the Korean deployment is that they are based out of Bagram-Kabul area, which is a much safer area to conduct PRT work from than Uruzgan Province, which has long been a hot bed of Taliban activity in southern Afghanistan.
I still maintain though that there should be no Korean troops sent to Afghanistan for reasons I have outlined before. However, if the ROK Army is being sent to conduct meaningful reconstruction work and not just hide within their base like how the Zaytun deployment in Iraq turned out, than I could be swayed to support the deployment.
I just hope Korea has removed all their civilian citizens from Afghanistan because they are now open game for the Taliban. The price for their release will be much more expensive than last time.
3:24 am on April 30th, 2010 1
I smell another round of Korea bashings coming up…
Another day, same sh*t. That's what's all about..
8:00 am on April 30th, 2010 2
Without it you could not engage in your America bashing. Wow – the road runs in two directions!
10:57 am on April 30th, 2010 3
Any negative suppositions of how the South Koreans will act in Afganistan is based on their behavior in Iraq. They got and deserved a poor reputation for doing nothing of value with the exception of building a nice, well protected compound.
2:23 am on May 1st, 2010 4
Anyone who believes that a PRT is a combat unit has no idea what they are talking about. I spent nearly 12 months as a PRT engineer working the N2KL area in 2008 have first hand knowledge of the workings of this kind of unit. If they are in the Bagram area it is highly unlikely that they will see any Taliban. The Dutch situation is much different…I was in the Tarin Kwot/Qalat area in 2005-2006 and we handed the reconstruction of a road over to a military unit because it was too dangerous for a small engineer team and a US contractor with limited firepower to work in. Good luck to the Koreans; I hope they do some reconstruction work instead of hanging around the boardwalk on Bagram air base.
6:13 am on May 1st, 2010 5
A good Korean soldier is a death soldier, right? Until we show some serious casualties among our soldiers, GIs will always believe that Korean soldiers owe something to them. They think our soldiers have to prove them something but thousands of GIs died in Iran and Afghanistan and … what did they prove???
I wonder, do Americans know that Korean soldiers fought along side to American soldiers in Vietnam? Do they know that we also suffered serious casualties? Have them ever been to Korea Town in LA to show their appreciation for the sacrifice of Korean soldiers in Vietnam? Do Korean-Americans demand sign of gratitude from Americans because of Vietnam every time they feel offended because of something?
I think installing toilets is not a bad idea.
1:05 am on May 2nd, 2010 6
Nobody (well, almost nobody) wants to see dead Korean Soldiers. But if they're going to come configured such that they're a net liability, what's the point? Besides with so many Koreans not wanting to be involved in this fight what's the point of complaining we don't want them in the mix? BTW, I know Korea was pressured to send a contingent. We shouldn't have done that.
As to Americans being aware of the Korean contribution to the Vietnam War, the answer is by and large they do not. When Vietnam was a current event, the media outlets didn't note it much out of either arrogance or anti-war bias. Later when the conflict became history, it wasn't really taught in schools. When it was (or is), the discourse is basically "we went into South Vietnam/things didn't work out/we left/the end". And given Americans mostly aren't aware Australians and New Zealanders fought there too, its not really a racial thing.
1:22 am on May 2nd, 2010 7
Yes we know. Thank you for that! What have you done since 1975? Just asking.
7:54 pm on July 18th, 2010 8
I know.ROK marines 25 kill 1 death ratio i wish i have their infantry handbook.Tho if they didnt want to get involved they dont have to.U.S bases in Korea,and contribution to vietnam means they are a commited ally(Blue house and KCIA).If the politicians did some preasuring on s.korean govt.than shame on them.Maybe airrforces and medical staff from s.korea wouldve been okay. What does S.Korea have to gained from from Afaghanistan?Other than their military gaining experience and helping set up a democracy.But a voice of support for U.S. troops wuld be nice also
9:14 pm on July 18th, 2010 9
Korea's contribution to the Vietnam war was so easily forgotten compared to what legend of ferocity and dedication it was able to permanently cement within the deep circles of US DoD [http://www.history.army.mil/books/Vietnam/allied/ch06.htm]. Korea was the largest ally of the US fighting in Vietnam with commitment of more than 300,000 highly trained, highly motivated soldiers, a very difficult endeavor considering what a shithole country Korea had been in the time frame with its own tight defense requirement, to fulfill its pact of mutual defense at a time when other countries were hesitant to fulfill their own. Even though Korea might have had an underhand motive for participating in the Vietnam War, which would have been to further solidify the prospect for the US's continued guardianship over Korea by proving Korea as a useful ally of the US, and therefore one worth protecting, it will not break the truth that the sacrifices made by these Korean soldiers were ones faithful and genuine, and it will not overshadow the fact that the Korean government understands what duty it needs to perform when an agreement was formed to work both ways.
There's a very stark contrast between the level of respect being given to the ROK military's dormant prowess for warfare by the old GIs and the new GIs, and I wonder what precise failure the ROK military has atrociously committed in its later history to have changed the GI's minds so… 35 years is not yet enough time for the lessons of the asymmetric war in Vietnam to fade into history from the living memories of the young officers and NCOs who today form the topmost brass of the ROK military and its security analysts. Time will come eventually when they'll indeed fade into history, but that time is not yet. In fact it's still too early.
5:41 am on July 19th, 2010 10
I agree with #9, K. ROK made a significant contribution during the Nam. No doubt about it.
7:26 am on July 19th, 2010 11
Korean soldiers going to Vietnam said they were going to Vietnam to fight with the americans to pay the Korean war debt.
It seems that we paid the bedt but we forgot to get the receipt.
10:37 am on July 19th, 2010 12
The reason soldiers nowadays have disrespect for the ROK military is that the only view into the ROK military US soldiers have is the KATUSAs. KATUSA's traditionally have been sons of the upper crust liberal Korean society, the ones with enough money / connections to get real English schooling and get their kids on the KATUSA list. These kids tend to have a very anti-military, "I'm just doing my time so I can continue my life" mentality, one that is starkly contrasted with what a professional Army has. They tend to be whiny and always complaining / trying to dodge sh!t which just ends up back on the US GI's anyway. This isn't entirely their fault as most US NCO leadership would rather ignore the KATUSA's then grow them professionally.
Now actual ROK soldiers are a bit different, especially the ones who decided to make it a career. The pay is way below what the US Army gets, and the benefits are crap at best. It takes a special kind of dedication to make a life out of that.
And yes I have this sinking feeling the ROK's are just gonna hole up in their compound and pretend to be hero's. The ROK leadership just isn't willing to take on the political heat for causalities.
9:12 pm on July 19th, 2010 13
One major internal problem that ROK's civilian Ministry of Defense faces today is the fact that, almost half of its leadership is composed by the same group of people who want their children sent to KATUSAs or even exempted from the military (which precisely means most of them don't give a fck about military strategy, and they are only concerned with the benefit that the positions offer to them; some to them and some to their children). They'll be the first ones to hurry outside to get their manly kids out of the firing zone when they should be riding K-21 smashing some Communist head.
But that probably still will not largely affect the performance of the military 'in battle' if things really get rough. Military commanders and military ministers are not one and the same. The former are the ones who are genuinely concerned with winning a battle and eventually a war, and acquiring the means and men to achieve just that; the latter are merely for PR. It's a pretty bad combination I admit given what threats ROK faces today.
Btw, Korea has about 300,000 active professional troops as of this moment, and a million personnel out of its present reserve troops are from professional background (the reserve troops numbered 4.5 million 3 years ago, and the military decided to remove the conscripts from the roster and retained the professional ones to make the reserve corps run more efficient, which resulted in 3.1 million reserve troops in 2008). Today the competition ratios for both NCO and officer positions in the ROK military are more than 4:1. There will be no shortage of willing soldiers if only the Korean government could afford the payment for all of them.
And SOMEOTHERGUY is correct, the professional ROK military personnel are being payed less than 1/3 the salary of GIs of equal rank for their job, while still living in a comparatively Spartan environment (try spending just 3 days in a Pohang class or Chamsuri class as a sailor for a while; you'll really want to abandon ship the very next time the ships dock. Or maybe you'd like prawling the Taebek mountain range on foot as a Soldier, or be stuck in Baekryeong island for six months as a Marine). But even then, quite in contrary to a drop in morale, the soldiers actually regard the meager compensation they receive as a blessing.