By Via One Free Korea comes this news about the release of memos by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that show’s his views on the future of the US-ROK alliance:
“As you know, the new President-elect [Roh] has stated that he wants to review the relationship,” Mr. Rumsfeld wrote. “Rather than pushing back, I think we ought to accept that as a good idea. If we had recommended it, we could be accused of destabilizing the peninsula, but he recommended it.”
Over the next two years, Mr. Rumsfeld’s Pentagon and Mr. Roh’s defense ministry negotiated a substantial drawdown of U.S. troops in South Korea, from about 39,000 to about 28,000. As well, they began the discussions that led to an agreement in 2006 for South Korea’s military to take control of its own troops in wartime. Since the Korean War of the 1950s, U.S. commanders have had wartime control of South Korean troops.
Mr. Rumsfeld so wanted to see a change in the U.S. position in South Korea that, in 2005, he quickly agreed to Mr. Roh’s request for wartime control. “You’re pushing through an open door,” Mr. Rumsfeld told Mr. Roh’s defense minister at the time.
Mr. Roh initially wanted the wartime control transfer to happen in 2009, but later agreed for 2012. Last year, current South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, representing conservative forces who were alarmed by Mr. Roh’s aggressive push to reduce South Korea’s reliance on the U.S. military, forged a new agreement with the U.S. to delay the transfer of wartime control until 2015.
But Mr. Rumsfeld’s desire for change in the U.S.-South Korea alliance was clear in that December 2002 memo.
“We have been there since 1950,” he wrote. “It is time to rearrange the relationship and put the burden on the South Koreans.” [Wall Street Journal Blog]
I believe that Rumsfeld was right in regards to US troop reduction and by using former President Roh Moo-hyun’s anti-American tendencies against him. However, how Rumsfeld decided to execute the troop reduction in my opinion was the wrong way of going about it by sending the 2nd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division to Iraq from Korea instead of redeploying them to the states for additional training before deploying them.
What I have always believed is that the leftists in Korea like former President Roh, that despite all their anti-Americanism that they never really wanted USFK to leave. It is too easy of a target for them to bash and removing USFK suddenly reduces their platform on what they use to motivate their voting base. Likewise I have never believed the North Koreans have wanted USFK to withdraw either for the same rationale. How can they justify the propaganda to their people that they need to stay motivated to free the rest of the country from the evil Imperialists when the American Army is no longer in South Korea? Then of course the South Korean right as well want to keep USFK in place due to the stability and economic benefits it brings to peninsula. So in the end you have all sides agreeing that USFK needs to stay where it is at, which it has with some minor troop reductions since the Korean War.
You can read more about this over at the Marmot’s Hole as well.
12:31 pm on February 9th, 2011 1
I read some of those…He has the eloquence of a college freshman.
1:24 pm on February 9th, 2011 2
He's still trying to sell to the American public that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
2:09 pm on February 9th, 2011 3
Some favorite Rummy quotes:
As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.
I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to four hours?
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, or vice versa.
…as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know.
We would be happy to capture them, we'd be happy to have them surrender, and if they don't, we'd be happy to kill them.
Oh, Lord. I didn't mean to say anything quotable.
I know in my heart and my brain that America ain’t what’s wrong with the world.
There is nothing that some people don't think.
You’re not asking the question that I’ve answered.
If you try to please everybody, somebody's not going to like it.
General, there was no verb in the last sentence.
If I know the answer I'll tell you the answer, and if I don't, I'll just respond, cleverly.
Q: What about the — [inaudible] for the public who — you know, beyond the criticism from human rights organizations for using the cluster bombs, they're calling for a halt — could you explain the tactical rationale for using them?
Rumsfeld: They are being used on front-line all Qaeda and Taliban troops to try to kill them, is why we're using them, to be perfectly blunt.
3:09 pm on February 9th, 2011 4
#3
His quotes read like a cross between Yogi Berra and Vince Lombardi.
4:25 pm on February 9th, 2011 5
#4 Yeah it's like deja vu al over again.
4:58 pm on February 9th, 2011 6
I like how you say that NK would also want USFK to stay in Korea. After all, NK anti-US rhetoric needs a basis.
I suppose you are from the viewpoint that NK does NOT want war with SK and the US, and that their main agenda is survival, and the occasional sabotage against USFK and ROK forces. I have to agree with this view though. A 2nd Korean War would destroy any chance of NK's regime surviving. I am of the opinion that all-out war is NK's last resort.
4:20 am on February 10th, 2011 7
Rhetoric or no rhetoric, NK has been demanding that US forces leave SK since day 1 of post Korean War era. I just find it ironic Rummy, who is so forceful against enemies of US, obliged NK's demand (albeit not completely).
5:13 am on February 10th, 2011 8
Why would Rumsfeld want to reduce our presence in Korea?
My take on him was he was a technocrat. He believed much more could be done with less. That's what most of his clashes with the generals were about.
A number of things he said and did indicated that he wanted to reshape our military into more modular mobile forces. Our heavy fixed presence in Korea didn't fit that view.
He may more explicitly explain that in his book.
5:22 am on February 10th, 2011 9
Just to clarify my comment; my question was rhetorical and I attempted to answer it.
In my opinion, his ideas had some merits in theory, but in practice he tried to force them in the wrong place at the wrong time.
7:52 am on February 10th, 2011 10
Sure, let's debate Rumsfeld and Perry and even McNamara…
None of them did anything their boss didn't allow and even encourage…
12:34 am on February 11th, 2011 11
I don't know how tack on a website, but if you type in this website, you'll see a few good (hilarious) videos of a Rumsfeld press conference.
rumsfeld-hands.wmv
3:09 am on February 11th, 2011 12
Funny. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuOtabxTBuQ
3:11 am on February 11th, 2011 13
Would you agree it was "fake but accurate"?
3:13 am on February 11th, 2011 14
Pretty much.
3:51 am on February 11th, 2011 15
The public accepting this paves the way for (Jeb) Bush in '12.
Otherwise we have to wait until '16 to see a third Bush run. By then people will have forgotten about Iraq. Time does that with the the electorate's memory: most have forgotten that Obama cut their taxes, but they do think he caused the economic crisis of 2008.
6:44 am on February 11th, 2011 16
No way the Tea Party accepts another Bush… Ever…
8:19 am on February 11th, 2011 17
People often take the short view. It's not outside the realm of possibility that the events which lead to the financial crisis of 2008 began during the Carter or Nixon administration. Perhaps FDR set the unfortunate chain of events in motion.
One thing is for sure, we are being ruled by a bunch of idiots with MBA's and law degrees yet they cannot write a tax code even they themselves can understand.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice."
10:03 am on February 11th, 2011 18
#17
Just like Sputnik set off a space race that led to the bankruptcy and collapse of the Soviet Union.
11:29 am on February 11th, 2011 19
#18 You betcha!
1:42 pm on February 11th, 2011 20
I used to love watching Rumsfeld rip into the traitors in the press corps. For that alone, he will always be a hero to me.
1:56 pm on February 11th, 2011 21
"One thing is for sure, we are being ruled by a bunch of idiots with MBA’s and law degrees yet they cannot write a tax code even they themselves can understand."
Dude, your tax code is brilliant for what it is. It was created to make loopholes for corporations while giving the average tax payer the impression he's paying less than his neighbor. Yup, it's to screw the average American, and it does it very well.
2:00 pm on February 11th, 2011 22
So what happened in Iraq? Did you find the weapons of mass destruction? What has changed since Rumsfield? Nothing. US is still in Iraq, which has help bankrupt America, and US is still in Korea.
4:33 pm on February 11th, 2011 23
#20 Yeah, I may not agreed with a lot of what he did but he could sure make some of those reporters look like asses.
#21 You are absolutely correct, sadly.
#22 "…and US is still in Korea."
Which has enriched Korea and made it the nation it is today, so parents of jokers like you can afford to send you abroad for your studies.
I hope it works out well for you.
11:42 pm on February 11th, 2011 24
So why is the US in Iraq again? To do what?
12:08 am on February 12th, 2011 25
#24 I like how you always skirt the points made about Korea in your posts and replies. At least you are consistent.
12:11 am on February 12th, 2011 26
My biggest complaint about Rumsfeld was his apparent push to minimize the straight legs in the Army. It seems like just about everybody is mechanized one way or another now. Hope we never have to fight in a place where vehicles can't go, look at Afghanistan. Seems like about the only legs anymore are in the 'special forces units', SF, SEAL's, Rangers.
12:31 am on February 12th, 2011 27
#25, speaking of skirting points, do you have an answer to my question?
2:35 am on February 12th, 2011 28
There are a few answers to that Tom, most I think are for shit.
Tom, why isn't the ROK military in Iraq anymore?
Oh that's right, you were there long enough to get lucrative construction contracts (not only in Iraq) and the like and then pull out.
No worries though Tom, the world expects Korea to do less for the world than other nations or even individual people. Oprah gives Haiti a million dollars and so does the whole nation of Korea-NICE.
We expect Korea to take and take and give very little back when called on. And don't harp on the whole sending mercenaries to Vietnam thing either, a lot has happened in the last 40 years.
America (36 yrs after Nam fell) and the rest of the world has conitued to help and support Korea at great cost, but we know never to expect korea to step up and do it's part. Maybe the world should start doing for Korea what Korea does for the rest of the world, which is next to nothing.
5:06 am on February 12th, 2011 29
Chris in Dallas wrote:
With an $800 billion war that was waged under false pretenses, was horribly botched in its implementation, and led to us being distracted from finishing the job in another theater, I think you may be a tad confused about who the traitors were.
5:13 am on February 12th, 2011 30
Yes, but private South Korean firms have been helping focus on economic development in the region, to the tune of far more money. Even before the quake, the ROK government and South Korean firms were slated to play a significant role in the major new development plans that had been developed in the months before the devastation.
In fact, the South Korean government and South Korean corporations and NGOs are quietly involved in a hundreds of aid and development projects throughout the world, a lot more than $1 million, driven by a fundamental notion that the world came to its aid and helped it develop and now it is in a position to not just return the favor but to actually help export a viable rags-to-riches development model.
5:20 am on February 12th, 2011 31
The US military presence following the Korean War provided the necessary deterrent to prevent another invasion by North Korea. Without that security, South Korean probably could not have developed the thriving economy it did.
But I don't know if I would go so far as to say the US military presence enriched Korea. After all, there has been a US military presence in many more countries that stayed poor and backward (e.g., the Philippines or Panama). South Korean blood and sweat and economic risk-taking (Park Chunghee did the opposite of what Washington and the international banking agencies were telling him to do), aided by favored market access to the US, is what got South Korea to where it is today.
As for Tom's parents, I don't see how South Korea's success story — "enriched" by the US military presence or not — would have any bearing on Chinese parents' decision to send their boy to Toronto.
6:00 am on February 12th, 2011 32
Kushibo – "As for Tom’s parents, I don’t see how South Korea’s success story — ”enriched” by the US military presence or not — would have any bearing on Chinese parents’ decision to send their boy to Toronto."
Bada – Biiing! Kushibo with a shot! Just when I thought Kushibo was this stale, ultra-serious bore, he shows signs of life.
While I agree the U.S. military itself was not "responsible" for Korea's miraculous rise (and it is a miracle), considerable western influence got the ball rolling and this idea shows it's face in many aspects of Korean society.
6:13 am on February 12th, 2011 33
Zilchy wrote:
Okay, now your turn.
Make no mistake of my opinion here — the US deserves tremendous credit for rescuing South Korea from communist invasion and then supplying it with security without which economic development could not have taken place, while providing South Korea with favored market access — but the Park-era development came largely from following the Japanese model of development (influenced by a handful of Harvard types) and by ignoring the advice of American advisers to focus on low-wage industries.
While we're at it, Taiwan and Japan also owe much of their ability to develop in the post-war period to that same security umbrella provided by the US and the same favored access to the US economy. This has, in turn, been generally good for the US economy as well, as it has fostered mature markets that in turn import hundreds of billions of dollars of goods and services from the US. Even without the KORUS FTA, for example, South Korea and the US have near parity on imports and exports.
All in all, though the US is not always perfect in its actions, it has been a good friend to its allies in northeast Asia, and an important source of stability, thanks to which there are probably hundreds of thousands if not millions who are alive today instead of dead (including some Americans).
Pax Americana, mansei!
6:50 am on February 12th, 2011 34
Kushibo – "All in all, though the US is not always perfect in its actions"
You'll get no arguement from me on this one!Especially over the last 30 years!
9:26 am on February 12th, 2011 35
Korea can't do anything right because it's all Korean's fault, and it's something to take delight in. But for something that Korea does well, it's because Americans did it all for Koreans. Love the American logic.
9:52 am on February 12th, 2011 36
#35 Wow. No one even came close to saying anything like that. Keep playing the victim card. You wear it well.
11:01 am on February 12th, 2011 37
Leon LaPorte wrote:
Perhaps not in this thread (not sure, though, as I haven't read all the comments), but some in the K-blogosphere commentariat come out and say it directly (though not necessarily the two sentences together). For many, it's the subtext of their general belief system and it comes out from time to time.
Interestingly, one thing Japanese nationalists have in common with some American "patriots" (vis-à-vis South Korea) is that they both take credit for South Korea's miraculous rags-to-riches story (e.g., ""<a>It's not an exaggeration to say that Japan built the South Korea of today!").
But… Tom was remiss for inserting it here when no one else had. Tom, sometimes you're right about the crackers and their crattitude, but you'd be right more often — and people would take your claims more seriously — if you would wait until the crackers actually let these things slip. As it stands now, you're the boy who cries wolf at everything.
2:45 pm on February 12th, 2011 38
29: Bah! If Democrats don't like something, it must be good for America.
6:41 pm on February 12th, 2011 39
Chris in Dallas wrote:
I'm not sure what you're point is. For starters, are you saying the Iraq War was "good for America"?
Then again, whether the Iraq War was good for America or not, there were more than a few Democrats who supported it. Al Gore and Obama stood out as an exception to that.
7:45 pm on February 12th, 2011 40
We killed a lot of bad guys- and got the sheikhs in MNF-W to see the AQI as the thugs they were- and kill them.
It isn't perfect- far from it- but it is a lot better than it was.
But it doesn't matter. As long as we have people looking at the war against these sheep- and boy- buggerers as something between states, we've already lost. Our grandchildren will curse us for saddling them with ridiculous debt, but they will curse us even more for not having the same resolve to deal with this threat like we did the Japanese and the Nazis.
8:25 pm on February 12th, 2011 41
Vince wrote:
I'm not so sure about that:
Naisu.
9:41 pm on February 12th, 2011 42
Kushibo's "Naisu" reference is quite disturbing. The fruitcakes will continue to funnel into Iraq and Afghanistan, fight in the name of a belief and have no bones about dying for it. How does the opposition to this reality end this battle?
1:27 am on February 13th, 2011 43
War Within?
Changing of the Guard?
Out Goes the Neo-Cons In Comes the Libertarians?
Cheney was also jeered and called a war criminal at the event.
Couple this with the recent defeat of the extension of the Patriot Act in the House may indicate that the more libertarian minded of the Tea Party, led by Paul's Sr. and Jr., may be a growing thorn for mainstream Republicans.
Should it really be a concern for the mainstream in the long run? Does it indicate a real shift in the base? It's too soon to tell, but the winner of the CPAC presidential straw poll was … Ron Paul Sr.
2:28 am on February 13th, 2011 44
#31 – That's my opinion as well. Park Chung Hee had a policy when I was there, that the only imports Korea had were raw materials. If you wanted finished goods, they had to be Korean made. In my opinion, that policy alone was the main driving force behind Korea's "miraculous" economic upturn.
4:53 am on February 13th, 2011 45
Bill, the protectionism is a boon only insofar as a good effort is made for produce quality replacements for what made prohibitively expensive or impossible to obtain. Park Chunghee used protectionism as a means, not an end, as part of an overall strategy in which protectionism was only one cog (but a major one).
He and others hired smart people to learn how to make things Korean industries didn't yet know how to make, he gave out favored contracts to chaebol on a performance-based basis (e.g., if they couldn't meet certain quality and quantity targets, they would lose their favored status), and he successfully mobilized the people to work harder, work longer, work for less pay, and to save money with the promise that they were all in this together as part of a grand nation-building.
5:04 am on February 13th, 2011 46
I forgot a couple links.
For my comment #37, HERE you see Japanese nationalists proclaiming, "It’s not an exaggeration to say that Japan built the South Korea of today!" It also says, "It is Japan who made it possible for Koreans to join the ranks of major nations, not themselves."
And for my comment #41, HERE is the article from which I got that quote about the Iraq War "fueling radicalism."
8:48 am on February 13th, 2011 47
I didn't see any of those pipe smoking bearded smart guys where I was, Kushibo. Just people trying to get on with their lives, Marines, Iraqi units advised by Marines, and bad guys.
I sleep well at night knowing that we did a lot to help those people who were just trying to get on with their lives. Of course, that wasn't in the news. It wasn't flashy enough, or controversial. But you can believe what you want. The people that matter to me and those who don't are in distinctly different camps.
9:01 am on February 13th, 2011 48
Vince, I didn't pull that out my arse. It was from our own spy agencies.
Me, I think that once we got into Iraq, we needed to do all we could to leave it as a stable, democratic, and secure nation. I have argued with many "liberals" about that kind of thing.
But the good that's been done does not justify the muck-ups we've done. We went in when we did under false pretenses, we did so when we still had not finished the job in Afghanistan (another place we must stay and finish the job), and we did so with an underwhelming force because "traitors" like Rumsfeld thought it would be a cake walk.
Had we waited (when our leaders knew we could) until we had been further along in Afghanistan, and had we used the size of force recommended by, say, Shinseki, then we would probably have had (a) a stable Afghanistan far sooner, (b) a stable Iraq far sooner in the invasion and occupation then we ended up, and (c) far fewer civilian casualties in both places, especially Iraq. That might also mean that what the spy agencies were talking about would have been mitigated to a great degree.
Rumsfeld cooked up a plot and then he ignored sage advice about how to proceed. Lots of people died as a result and we ended up with a very unstable situation in two wars. And now the guy is trying to use a Jedi mind trick to save his reputation for history.
That said, I would be happier than anything if the day we are out of Iraq it is a democratic, stable country. At least that would be something.
9:37 am on February 13th, 2011 49
We're almost out… Time will tell.
Frankly, and with no apologies, if we killed ALL the jihadis, it wouldn't hurt my feelings. Or the average Iraqi who likes to sneak a beer AND actually likes pretty girls.
Fight was on, against people who continually broke UNSC resolutions and threatened to do bad things with bad weapons. We called their bluff. I just don't see a problem in any of that.
9:38 am on February 13th, 2011 50
As for A'stan, it will never be stable.
10:32 pm on February 16th, 2011 51
Will anyone admit to being a dupe?
11:04 pm on February 16th, 2011 52
yep…
(02-16) 07:58 PST LONDON, United Kingdom (AP) — An Iraqi man whose testimony the United States used as a key evidence to build a case for war in Iraq says he is proud that he lied about his country developing mobile biological warfare labs.
The Guardian newspaper published an interview Wednesday with Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, who has been identified as the informer called "Curveball," whose claims about weapon labs formed part of then-U.S.
Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech to the U.N. Security Council in 2003, shortly before the war began. The Guardian quoted al-Janabi as saying: "I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime.
I and my sons are proud of that." Although some intelligence agents were skeptical of Curveball's story, the U.S.
11:31 pm on February 16th, 2011 53
Kushibo and others leave out a lot of context in their arguments.
During WW2 the Western Allies made deals with kind-hearted folks like Josef Stalin and Mao Tse-tung, even supplying them with weapons, in order to defeat the Axis Powers. Between them, Stalin and Mao killed at least 90 Million of their own countrymen.
The USA has often made choices that, out of context, look evil or stupid. Those who study History might learn something. Because History also points out the consistent half-truths and misinformation spread by folks who (for whatever reason) hate the US.
Yes, there were WMD programs in Iraq. Yes, they were on hold. Yes, there were hundreds of tons of "yellowcake" uranium found and shipped to Canada. Yes, the chemical weapons captured in Jordan came from Syria but were manufactured in Iraq, not Syria.
There is enough evidence to show that Iraq was cheating on the surrender terms with French, German, and Russian companies and amassing illegal funds to restart the WMD programs as soon as sanctions were lifted and the inspectors left. Saddam was "just too smart for his own good"; and that convinced Colin Powell and the CIA he was still doing it.
If one actually remembers the paper submitted to the Security Council, WMDs was not the only or the most salient reason for war. It was, however, the point picked up by the MSM since it was the "sexiest". And the Bush Administration ran with it.
Why don't people provide context with their arguments? Because facts often get in the way of their bumper-sticker attention span… and the "Down with the imperialist American hegemony" meme…
12:32 am on February 17th, 2011 54
Then of course this is one of the other reasons we went to war in Iraq:
"After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."
-G.W.Bush
12:39 am on February 17th, 2011 55
#54 I would consider a foreign power attempting to assassinate a former POTUS an act of war. Wouldn't you?
12:45 am on February 17th, 2011 56
Leon, absolutely. But had he phrased it the way you did, it wouldn't have sounded somewhat childish.
2:33 am on February 18th, 2011 57
Just plainly spoken.