South Korea vastly under reported its share of the cost of a massive U.S. base relocation project to lawmakers and the public, according to U.S. diplomatic dispatches cited by the South Korean media Wednesday.

The dispatches, released by WikiLeaks, said Ministry of National Defense publicly stated that South Korea would pay for half of the project, but the U.S. estimated in 2007 that South Korea might be responsible for as much as 93 percent of the relocation to U.S. Army Garrison-Humphreys, then estimated at $10 billion.

“We are aware of the press reports,” U.S. Forces Korea spokesman Col. Jonathan Withington said in an email on Wednesday night. “We do not comment on the authenticity of the documents released by WikiLeaks and we strongly condemn any continued, illegal disclosure of classified U.S. Government information.”  [Stars & Stripes]

You can read more at the link, but the overall costs of the relocation according to the article is $13 billion.

I really don’t believe the 93% number being thrown around considering that the GAO was critical of USFK earlier this year of the $18 billion in costs they were looking at in regards to the USFK transformation plan.  So if South Korea is paying upwards to $13 billion and USFK is paying $18 billion that sounds like cost sharing to me?

 U.S. military officials say they remain committed to the planned consolidation of American troops in South Korea in areas south of Seoul despite a growing movement in the Senate to derail the effort.

While U.S. Forces Korea will follow any changes directed by the Pentagon, “The consolidation of forces remains on plan,” USFK spokesman Army Col. Jonathan Withington said.

“Relocation of U.S. forces is a win-win situation for both the (Republic of South Korea) and U.S.,” he said. “It returns valuable land to (South Korea) while better positioning U.S. forces to support future operations.”

On Tuesday, the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support unveiled its additions to the Senate’s proposed defense budget for the coming year, which would deny funding for projects that would allow more servicemembers to bring their families with them when stationed in South Korea. The move also could affect U.S. military plans to move Marines off Okinawa.  [Stars & Stripes]

You can read more at the link, but considering the amount of construction going on at Camp Humphreys someone is going to move there.  It will be interesting to see if it is going to be Yongsan Garrison units or 2nd Infantry Division units that will be tapped to be moved to Camp Humphreys first?

A report by the Government Accountability Office shows the realignment of forces in South Korea, Japan and Guam could cost the United States and its allies more than $46 billion this decade. Military estimates of the various components have been inaccurate or nonexistent, the report said.  (………….)

The report adds to growing doubt in recent weeks over the long-planned overhaul in the region, which could eventually allow servicemembers in South Korea to bring families along for three-year tours, reduce the controversial presence of Marines on Okinawa, and turn Guam into a major military hub in the Pacific.  (………)

In South Korea, the DOD has so far identified $18 billion in costs but does not know the full price tag of the realignment, which includes consolidating forces south of Seoul and giving soldiers longer three-year tours so they can bring along families, the GAO said.

The accompanied tours will mean moving thousands of DOD civilians into South Korea and require the construction of schools, hospitals and other facilities to support them. At Camp Humphreys, where most of the new residents would live, the military plans to add more than 1,000 new structures, including five new schools and assorted housing plus 2,320 acres of new land at an estimated cost of $13.1 billion, according to the GAO. But the increase in population will require seven additional schools and additional increases in housing, post offices and commissaries. The plan may also requiring buying even more land, the GAO said.

Work has already begun on the project without considering the addition needs and costly modifications could be needed after major construction begins, according to the report.

The longer tours could also require U.S. pilots to travel to Alaska for required training because Osan Air Base is shared with Korean forces and cannot provide enough flight opportunities to train during a three-year deployment, the report said.

DOD is moving thousands of dependents to South Korea and building hundreds of new facilities “without fully understanding the costs involved or considering potential alternatives that might more efficiently achieve its strategic objectives,” the report said.  [Stars & Stripes]

It is surprising that USFK planners apparently didn’t consider the costs of all the infrastructure to support bringing families to Korea.  You would think this would be one of the first things they would have taken into consideration before making such a decision to bring more families to Korea?

Influential senators called Wednesday on the United States to freeze plans to relocate military bases in Japan and South Korea, describing the moves as politically unfeasible and too costly.

The three senators — John McCain, Carl Levin and Jim Webb — also suggested that Japan needed to focus on rebuilding from its massive earthquake and tsunami disaster rather than wade into a political quagmire.

The base realignment plans “are unrealistic, unworkable and unaffordable,” the senators said in a joint statement.  (………………..)

The US military is also looking to consolidate dozens of bases around South Korea into two hubs — Pyeongtaek, 70 kilometers (45 miles) south of Seoul, and Daegu, 300 kilometers (180 miles) southeast of the capital.

The move would allow US forces to leave their huge Yongsan base in Seoul, which was set up for the 1950-53 Korean War but now lies in the heart of the developed and densely populated city, leading to frictions with residents.

But the senators called for a halt, saying there was not enough clarity on who would pick up rising costs at Pyeongtaek where the US military wants to start shifting troops next year.

The senators also questioned the Pentagon’s plan to allow more of the 28,500 US troops based in South Korea to bring families.

“There is an inherent contradiction in planning to increase the number of US military family members in South Korea when there is the real potential that a destabilizing security situation in North Korea could unfold rapidly and unpredictably,” Webb said.  [Associated Press via reader tip]

Were these same people worried about a destabilizing security situation during the Cold War in West Germany when the US brought many more families there than what are in currently in Korea? I am a big supporter of bringing families to Camp Humphreys which lots of planning and work has already been done to accommodate the influx of these families.  With many military families experiencing long separations from deployments there is no reason why an assignment to Korea should be yet another family separation.

Anyway for those unfamiliar with the USFK relocation plan I recommend reading a “Historical Overview of the Camp Humphreys Expansion“.  Some other recommended reading on this subject is this posting, “Debating the Future of the US Military Presence In South Korea“.

The first negotiations to move Yongsan Garrison occurred in the early 1990′s and was scuttled due to the 1994 nuclear crisis.  Since then back in 2004 decisions were made to execute the latest USFK plan to move Yongsan Garrison and 2ID to Camp Humphreys and a variety of Korean governmental delay games have pushed this date out to 2017.  Now due US governmental delay games I can only imagine how much further out this date will now move to?  The nonsense going on Okinawa is equally frustrating to see play out.

I already know the answer to this question but it still is worth repeating.  How is it that the Korean government can get an entire city built on what was once ocean faster than the US can expand a military base for a few thousand soldiers?  I also wonder if the Korean government will use any possible Camp Humphreys delays as further justification for further delaying the hand over of operational control as well?

You can read and see before and after photos about this facility in this PDF document.

It seems like an odd choice of location for this facility.  Maybe someone can shed some light on why this facility was built in the small town of APO, 25 kilometers North of Camp Carroll.

With all the base closures in recent years, is anyone surprised to see a new U.S. facility in Korea built from the ground up?

U.S. and South Korean officials are in a key stage of negotiations that would see a portion of land at the Camp Walker heliport returned to South Korea, the Army said Wednesday.Negotiators for the U.S. military, South Korea’s Ministry of National Defense and Daegu city are meeting this week to work out details for the eventual handover of about 17 acres at the Walker Army Heliport, also known as H-805, in Daegu, said Philip A. Molter, spokesman for the U.S. Army Garrison-Daegu. The heliport occupies 27 acres.

Daegu city authorities have been eager for years to regain control of a portion of the heliport so they can lay a road through the area, a measure called for in the city’s master plan, said James C. Hamilton, who is representing U.S. Forces Korea in the negotiations.

“So we are aggressively negotiating the details,” said Hamilton, who is also the garrison’s director of public works.

The United States agreed to return part of the heliport as part of its 2002 Land Partnership Plan with South Korea, Hamilton said, The plan calls for the United States to gradually close dozens of its installations and return them to South Korea.

Eventually, the U.S. military will consolidate its forces into two enduring hubs, one anchored at Camp Humphreys in Pyeongtaek, the other in the Daegu region, said David Oten, spokesman for U.S. Forces Korea.

The Army will first hand back about 5.5 acres of the heliport, probably by early next year, Hamilton said.  [Stars & Stripes]

You can read the rest at the link, but this reminds me quite a bit of when Camp Red Cloud handed over a portion of the front of the camp to the Uijongbu government to build a new highway overpass that was of great benefit to the city.

Seoul American Middle School may need more than $600,000 in renovations if U.S. Army Garrison-Yongsan stays open more than a few years, according to the outgoing garrison commander.

“It’s a step in the right direction,” Col. David Hall said during an interview last week about his three years at Yongsan. “Do I think this is going to get us through the next five years? Absolutely not.”

The Department of Defense Education Activity-Pacific is renovating six free-standing structures at the middle school following complaints from parents and teachers last spring that the buildings were plagued by problems including mold, poor air and heating system, and rats.

The repairs, which are supposed to be completed by the start of the 2010-2011 school year, will include upgraded bathroom facilities, repaired sidewalks, new heat pumps, and floor tiles to replace carpeting.  [Stars & Stripes]

You can read the rest at the link, but considering the Koreans were able to get the Operational Control hand over delayed, I wonder if they will be able to get the Yongsan relocation delayed as well?  Hopefully for the future students that would be stuck in these substandard buildings this move happens on time.

Because South Korea, now one the world’s wealthiest nations, expects up to 600,000 American soldiers to arrive protect it from any security contingency, successive South Korean governments actually cut their nation’s defense rather than modernizing it and building an effective independent defense. Consequently, South Korea still has a 1970-vintage force structure, designed to repel a 1970-vintage threat, equipped with 1970-vintage weapons. This is partly the legacy of ten years of leftist administrations, but it’s also the legacy of military welfare that allowed South Korea to defer upgrading its equipment, building a professional volunteer army, and organizing an effective reserve force to deal with security contingencies. Worst of all, South Korea diverted billions of dollars that should have been spent on modernizing its military into regime-sustaining aid to Kim Jong Il, to be used, as far as anyone knows, for nukes, missiles, artillery, and pretty much anything but infant formula. To this day, South Korea continues to resist accepting operational control over its own forces in the event of war.

The U.S. Army presence in Korea is an anachronism, defending against the extinct threat of a conventional North Korean invasion. The far greater danger is that if Kim Jong Il assesses our current president as weak, he will choose more limited or less conventional means to strike at our soldiers and their families. Given the reported presence of Taliban operatives in Seoul, he might even plausibly deny responsibility for an attack.

Thus, while I don’t go so far as to accept the Princess Bride Doctrine (”never get involved in a land war in Asia”), I do not believe it is wise for us to have our forces within easy artillery range of Kim Jong Il, such that he may freely choose the time, place, and manner of our involvement.  [The New Ledger]

Click the link to read the rest of Joshua’s recommendations, but this topic has been getting increasing attention lately for whatever reason.  As I have stated consistently, I do not advocate for the removal of US forces in Korea.  The US military presence on the peninsula is too important for maintaining regional stability.  The region has seen 60 years of stability for a reason and that is the US military presence.  However, do we really need 28,000+ servicemembers on the peninsula? 

The most obvious unit that I can think of that could best be used elsewhere is the remnants of the 2nd Infantry Division that remain in Korea.  The division once had the mission of the being the tripwire that ensured US involvement in a 2nd Korean War.  With the division scheduled to move to Camp Humphreys that will no longer be their mission, which begs the question; what is their mission then?  The fire power the 2nd Infantry Division commands is miniscule compared to the size of the ROK Army; so the division will not make any difference in the outcome of a 2nd Korean War.  What will make a difference in a 2nd Korean War is the United States’ air, naval, intel, and command & control assets.  This is what needs to remain in Korea to keep a strong deterent in place to prevent any North Korean agression. 

I think the US Army should take the approach of the US Marines and rotate soldiers to the peninsula for training exercises to maintain training cohesion with the ROK Army without having to leave a big force footprint.  They could be housed at a small camp set up near the Korea Training Center for example.  I think at some point it should also be explored closing Kunsan AFB once the ROK Air Force has reached a capability to off set what the US Air Force currently provides from Kunsan.  There should be other capabilities looked at as well that the ROK military could take over in the future.  That would leave the future KORCOM with military hubs around Camp Humphreys and Osan AFB with a force structure probably under 15,000.  It just seems to me the cost savings would be huge not to mention the freeing up of thousands of soldiers to support other US military missions. 

Maybe there is a sound reason for keeping 28,000+ troops on the peninsula but I haven’t seen it articulated yet.  You can read more about the current USFK transformation plan here. 

Please feel free to discuss your views on the future of USFK in the comments section. 

Over at the Marmot’s Hole and One Free Korea there are already some pretty good discussion going on about the article as well.

The Eighth U.S. Army (EUSA) will be transformed into a combat unit after the transition of wartime operational control of the Korean army changes from the U.S. to South Korea in 2012, the top American commander here said Monday.

Gen. Walter Sharp, commander of the U.S. Forces Korea (USFK), also said the command transfer will not lead to the decrease in the number of U.S. troops in South Korea.

About 28,000 U.S. forces are stationed here as a deterrent against North Korean aggression.

Sharp made the remarks at a security forum in Seoul, hosted by South Korean and U.S. defense institutes.

The EUSA will be reformed into a field command unit to support a new U.S. theater command in Korea, Korea Command (KORCOM), to be created after disbanding the ROK-U.S. Combined Forces Command (CFC), said the general. Sharp concurrently serves as chief of the CFC and the United Nations Command (UNC).  [Korea Times]

This is what the new downtown area being constructed at Camp Humphreys is eventually going to look like.