To: Paul Ross
Anyone who thinks we should pull out of South Korea just doesn't understand the situation.
We are not there just to defend South Korea. - South Korea has long been able to win a conventional war with the North. Their defense budget dwarfs the the North's. Though the North out numbers the South 2 to 1 in term of standing army, the are much more poorly trained and equipped than the South. A lot of the North's tanks are immobile and much of their air force is in disrepair. It would take a heavy toll on the South, but few doubt that South Korea would win a conventional war with the North. Therefore, our main contribution to South Korea's defense is our nuclear umbrella, not ground troops.
The reason we are there is to oppose the North. North Korea would be a threat to our security even without the South. South Korea is the perfect place to keep troops to oppose the North and make sure that our interests in the region are protected and represented physically on the ground. The USFK give us credibility (i.e. it is a visible sign of our commitment--you can't see a nuclear umbrella) in a region vital to our economy and security though geographically remote from us.
Having forces on the Korean peninsula is also crucial to security strategy in the Far East as a whole. The peninsula has always been the lynch pin to the region. It borders Japan, China and Russia. All three of the countries are hugely important to our national interests. Out forces in South Korea put us right in the middle of the region. If China becomes hostile, we have military bases a very short air flight away from their industrial region. Bases in South Korea give us options and leverage in the Far East as a whole.
When you throw in our large economic ties with South Korea (anyone own a Samsung cell phone?) and the fact that there are usually 50,000 American civilians in South Korea--most of them in Seoul--the picture is clear that we cannot leave South Korea. It would be tantamount to shirking our nation's duty to protect our citizens lives and livelihoods.
140 posted on
07/08/2005 1:24:35 PM PDT by
Stag_Man
(Hamilton is my Hero)
To: Stag_Man
One more point, we should keep troop in Korea if if/when the two are reunified. China knows we may do this and therefore bring us even closer to their borders. This is why they want the peninsula to stay divided and don't want the North to have nukes. They don't want anything to happen that might trigger reunification.p>
141 posted on
07/08/2005 1:30:36 PM PDT by
Stag_Man
(Hamilton is my Hero)
To: Stag_Man
145 posted on
07/08/2005 1:51:00 PM PDT by
moog
To: Stag_Man
When you throw in our large economic ties with South Korea (anyone own a Samsung cell phone?) and the fact that there are usually 50,000 American civilians in South Korea--most of them in Seoul--the picture is clear that we cannot leave South Korea. It would be tantamount to shirking our nation's duty to protect our citizens lives and livelihoods.H'mmm. Funny no one talked about "shirking our nations duty to protect our citizens lives and livelihoods." when the industries were allowed to be set up over there with our tech. Maybe we better get those jobs and manufacturing plants we undoubtedly paid for BACK here pronto....
148 posted on
07/08/2005 2:12:40 PM PDT by
Paul Ross
(George Patton: "I hate to have to fight for the same ground twice.")
To: Stag_Man
The reason we are there is to oppose the North. North Korea would be a threat to our security even without the South. South Korea is the perfect place to keep troops to oppose the North and make sure that our interests in the region are protected and represented physically on the ground. The USFK give us credibility (i.e. it is a visible sign of our commitment--you can't see a nuclear umbrella) in a region vital to our economy and security though geographically remote from us.,/i>
How many troops are enough to represent our commitment? No one is advocating a total pullout. Rumsfeld wanted to reduce the level from 37,000 to 25,000 now and perhaps down to 12,000 to 13,000 down the road. We need the bare minimum there so we can address real needs elsewhere. Commitment is a euphemism for trip wire troops.
Having forces on the Korean peninsula is also crucial to security strategy in the Far East as a whole. The peninsula has always been the lynch pin to the region. It borders Japan, China and Russia. All three of the countries are hugely important to our national interests. Out forces in South Korea put us right in the middle of the region. If China becomes hostile, we have military bases a very short air flight away from their industrial region. Bases in South Korea give us options and leverage in the Far East as a whole.
We have bases in Japan. If we were in a big time shooting war with China, our bases in Korea (with 37,000 troops) would not be of any real use and our air bases would come under attack. I wonder if the Koreans would want to be drawn into a shooting war between the US and China, if for example, China were to attack Taiwan.
We could always set up skeleton bases in Korea that could be rapidly built up in time of crisis. Tying down forces needlessly doesn't contribute to our overall defense posture. We need to look at our force levels around the globe in terms of our overall strategy and threat assessment. Flexibility is key.
When you throw in our large economic ties with South Korea (anyone own a Samsung cell phone?) and the fact that there are usually 50,000 American civilians in South Korea--most of them in Seoul--the picture is clear that we cannot leave South Korea. It would be tantamount to shirking our nation's duty to protect our citizens lives and livelihoods.
You don't station large numbers of troops to protect American citizens working overseas. We have 30,000 Americans working in Saudi Arabia. The number of Americans working overseas is well over a million.
156 posted on
07/08/2005 3:09:28 PM PDT by
kabar
To: Stag_Man; kabar; wtc911
However all of these "options" presuppose a South Korea that is willing to be an American air base. Such a South Korea no longer exists.
It is true that South Korea is well able to outfight the North conventionally. I would be surprised if the North Koreans could field 100 running tanks or 50 flyable planes. A North Korean attack on the south makes me think of the German stormtroop offensive in the spring of 1918 where the advancing German troops, men who had spent the last three years eating sawdust bread, turnips, and some horsemeat stopped to pig out in British rear area depots with real food. In fact, during the Vietnam War the North Koreans sent a 'volunteer' unit of pilots to North Vietnam in 'fraternal solidarity'. They were so incompetent and crashed so many planes that the North Vietnamese 'thanked' them and sent them home.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson