Plan to Pull Troops Off DMZ Causes Stir

AP | 6/07/03 | SANG-HUN CHOE

[kattracks]

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — The Pentagon's announcement this week that American forces will pull back from the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea after 50 years of duty threatens to change the dynamic along the boundary.

Since the Korean War ended in 1953, South Korea has viewed U.S. troops guarding the zone as a "tripwire" — a guarantee that the United States would intervene immediately if the communist North attacked.

Now, the Pentagon says it can better deter North Korea by moving U.S. troops farther south. But while the allies have yet to say when the relocation will occur, many South Koreans are already wondering about the repercussions.

"When people hear the news, their immediate reaction often is, 'What? Who's going to defend the border? Are the Americans moving south so that they can leave our country fast when the war breaks out?'" said Song Young-sun, an analyst in Seoul's Korea Institute of Defense Analysis.

South Korea's military could fill in the border security role when the Americans pull back.

In Manila on Friday, Adm. Thomas Fargo, U.S. military commander for the Pacific, said South Korea's military is "much more capable than it was 10 or 15 years ago ... They have made dramatic improvements in their own capability."

Elderly South Koreans have vivid memories of the 1950-53 Korean War, when communist invaders from the North swept over most of the South within weeks. Eventually, the Northern forces were pushed back by American-led U.N. forces, but allied forces suffered heavy losses in the fighting, including 33,700 U.S. troops.

A half-century after the war ended in an armistice, not a peace treaty, tensions remain high today over Pyongyang's suspected development of nuclear weapons.

North Korea keeps two-thirds of its 1.1 million-strong military, the world's fifth largest, near the border. In a moment's notice, its artillery and rocket launchers can showers thousands of shells on Seoul, turning the capital, only 37 miles south of the border, into what North Korea says would be a "sea of fire."

From a military standpoint, keeping so many American ground troops within the range of artillery doesn't make much sense, strategists say. Large numbers of U.S. troops would likely die in the first hours of a North Korean attack, or would have to retreat and regroup.

Younger South Koreans, growing up amid economic comforts and a mood of reconciliation with North Korea, are less grateful for the American military presence and more confident of peace.

Some radicals even see the foreign military presence as a slight to national pride. The death of two girls hit by a U.S. military vehicle triggered massive anti-American rallies late last year.

President Bush and South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun believe South Korea's economy, the world's 11th largest, allows it to play a bigger role defending itself.

"This is a time to move beyond outmoded concepts or catch phrases such as the term 'tripwire,'" Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy U.S. defense secretary, said in Seoul on Monday.

In the Pentagon's view, moving U.S. troops away from the DMZ and consolidating them at perhaps two main "hub" bases south of Seoul will still enable them to respond quickly. It believes the relocations will give the U.S. forces the flexibility to train for missions elsewhere in the region.

But "the redeployment can also be a direct message to North Korea that the United States is now readier than ever to launch a pre-emptive strike if Pyongyang does not behave," said Park June-young, a political scientist at Seoul's Ewha Woman's University.

Bush has said he prefers diplomacy in trying to persuade Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons programs, but has not ruled out military options. Pyongyang says Washington plans to invade following its victory in Iraq.

Prime Minister Koh Gun had urged the U.S. military to delay talk of redeployment until after the North Korean nuclear crisis has been resolved.

Some South Koreans worry the removal of U.S. forces from the border could raise the potential for hostilities on the peninsula. "The U.S. troop presence near the DMZ meant they wouldn't do anything dangerous because they were so close to North Korea. Now when they are far away, they will feel more comfortable to attack North Korea and start a war," said Kim Jong-soo, 42, a textile dealer in Seoul.

South Korean Foreign Minister Yoon Young-kwan told Seoul's SBS radio Friday that the redeployment would take "a significant amount of time," probably five to six years.

The realignment will force South Korea to boost its defense spending to help finance part of the relocations and make up for equipment lost by the withdrawal.

"The concept of tripwire is a selfish concept for South Koreans," said Park. "It's time to change that. It doesn't really matter where the U.S. troops are stationed, as long as they are in South Korea."

But many here don't buy that explanation.

"We could sleep in comfort, with our legs stretched, because of those American soldiers between us and North Korea," said Park Joong-kwon, 65, who attended a recent rally in Seoul supporting U.S. military presence.

With the troops farther south, he said, "I will feel more vulnerable."

[#3Fan]

Hmmmm....Enticing an overconfident attack from North Korea so we can to do Kim Jong Il what we did to Saddam? Sounds good.

[VOA]

Plan to Pull Troops Off DMZ Causes Stir

Once again, my lucky amateur proiling of Dubya as a "tongue-tied Ronald Reagan"
holds true.

This is just a chapter from Reagan's playbook...when he said "let's pull out
our missle umbrella over Western Europe, if all those anti-nuke protestors in the
streets actually speak for Europe".

I'll never forget our European allies peeing their pants on the front page
of their newspapers at that prospect.

[1rudeboy]

When the going gets tough, cut and run. /sarc

[COBOL2Java]

Give S.K. exactly one H bomb and leave.

I had the same thoughts. Seems like we need to establish a M.A.D. (Mutual Assured Destruction) policy here with regard to the two Koreas. It worked with the USSR, and with Reagan's leadership, it eventually bankrupted the Soviets.

[blam]

"The South Koren demostrators should have thought about this when they demostrated against us, over and over and over again. I say bring our troops home."

Toby, I agree 100%.

[Bernard Marx]

Excellent post! I agree 10,000%. It's far past time for anti-U.S. countries whose prosperity was created under our protectorship to fend for themselves. And I mean ALL of them, not just S.K.

[jpsb]

Exactly right.

[cabbieguy]

Now is the time for South Korea to move all their college's up to the DMZ, let the students be the first line of defense.

[optimistically_conservative]

I see, so you're expecting the US to be adult about your growing anti-American public, government and choice for President. This pull-back reflects military reality and proper response to our willingness to accept the day to day risks (and liabilities) of protecting a country with limited national importance to US. Really, how much assistance do you think S. Korea should provide in the war on terror and their own defense without expectations of quid pro quo's of America's generosity?

Roh wins S Korean elections Many South Koreans believe that Mr Bush, who has ruled out talks with Pyongyang unless it abandons its nuclear development, is an obstacle to reconciliation with North Korea.

Mr Roh, who wants South Korea to be less dependent on Washington, had been expected to benefit from growing unhappiness with the 37,000 US soldiers stationed in the South.

"Bush is a trigger-happy man," said Kim Han Sik, a 32-year-old voter. "We need a leader who can say no when we think we should say no. Our country has been too subservient to the United States."

Favorable View of US (per cent)

	1999-	Summer	March	May
	2000	2002	2003	2003
South Korea	58	53		46

[optimistically_conservative]

Well for starters my family lives in Canada so I guess they are not in any real need of protection.

Can you say NORAD?

America has been living up to it's international obligations and must continue to do so or be willing to face the consequences of not doing so.

Funny, I've read the mutual defense treaty with South Korea and there's no requirement for the stationing of troops in Korea, how many or where.

Article 4

The Republic of Korea grants, and the United States of America accepts, the right to dispose United States land, air and sea forces in and about the territory of the Republic of Korea as determined by mutual agreement.

But I would suggest S. Koreans read about the:

Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States of America and the Republic of China

Signed at Washington 2 December 1954
Entered into Force 3 March 1955 by the exchange of instruments of ratification at Taipei
Terminated by the United States of America 1980

[binreadin]

That was a good post--ignore the reflexive, superficial, one-track BS from people not capable of a two-way discussion or original thought. They don't speak for all of us. I spent several years in SK, and the loudmouth anti-US students and politicians do not speak for the S Koreans in general. We aren't about to pull our troops out--we're just re-arranging them.

[Jumper]

Our word will be better than the word of your president who ran on an anti-american campaign, constantly ushering masses of young politically energized students to candle light vigils, demanding justice be melted out to Americans for harming Koreas, and then demanding American withdraw. My, my how the economic reality is the pretext used by the US for redeployment becomes another reason for Koreans to demand something, now to stay. I had the privilige to work for two 4-stars in Korea and then just under the Ambassador - I met Chun Do Hwan and understand what Koreans will never understand in knowing that he willingly (with some arm twisting) gave into early elections at great personal risk that was later justified; As a student of Korean history (5000 years?) I do not know of any previous case in which a leader was alive and willingly stepped down from running the country; therefore, Chun is the father of democracy whether you like it or not.

What worth will be America's word... this one American might ask what the word of your Korean leader is currently worth, as compared to Germany's Schroader and Chiraq of France - about the same; but at least the US is willing to negotiate a soft landing for your rather than a French style cut-and-run.

[Cdnexpat]

You mean Prime Minister, your President's word is worth more than my Prime Minister's. Yes it is and that is my point. Have you people even read my posts? Your government has signed treaties and international agreeements on behalf of the American people, if you don't keep them then you will have no credibility. You sign treaties with governments, not students, not professors, not professional protestors, with governments. The Korean government supported the US wars in Afganistan and in Iraq politically and they sent troops to both conflicts. That is supporting you. I am suggesting that if you remove your troops from a country that has supported you (recently) politically and militarily during a crisis that threatens that country, it will hurt your credibility. I don't see how you can dispute this.
If you are refering to the Korean President, during his election campaign he ran a platform of ending corruption, reducing the influence of chabel (big companies) and renegotiating the Status of Forces Agreement to bring it more in line with the ones you have in Germany, or Japan. President Roh did not run an anti-US campaign because he knew he had a chance to win, consequently he knew he would have to deal with GW. He publically went on record as saying that he wanted US troops to remain in Korea during the election campaign.
You made reference to the trial of Sgt. Nino and Sgt. Walker; while the investigation and trial clearly show that Sgt. Walker was not negligent in anyway, conflicting testimony makes things much less clear cut in Sgt. Nino's case. Would you be so casual about the deaths if it were a French soldier who accidentally drove over some American children, how about a German soldier? Candlelight vigils. Hundreds of US soldiers from the 2nd Infantry Division attended them, would make those soldiers anti-American?
We will try again for the hard of hearing. You can do what you want with your troops. But any action has consequences, recomending a course of action without considering the consequences is foolish. None of the people who have replied has addressed any of the possible consequences I have outlined.

[Cdnexpat]

Sorry I missed your posts when I replied to the last post.
NORAD, a mutual defence agreement to provide protection for North America (Canada and the US) from the former USSR. It was made up chains of radar stations that watched for planes and missles coming from the USSR. Soviet planes coming down the Canadian east cost were intercepted by Canadian fighters stationed in Chatam NB, the role of shadowing these planes was later taken over by interceptors from (?) in the US. The Soviet planes landed in Cuba, the Canadian/American roles were reversed when the planes returned to the USSR. The system became largely unnecessary when satilites replaced the radar stations and the USSR collapsed. It now seems to exist for no apparent reason. I would suggest that Canada fulfilled it's obligations under NORAD and that I could just as easily suggest that you are ungrateful for not appreciating all that the Canadian Military has done in support of the US under NORAD. Neither of these views is accurate however, Canada and the US acted jointly because of a shared need (protection from the USSR).
As for the presence of US troops in the ROK I will say it one more time. I have not said you have to keep troops in Korea, I have said that removing them has consequences. I do not think that it is reasonable to recomend withdrawing the troops without considering the consequences. So yes I am asking you to be adult in the face of anti-American sentiment. If you are not adult, then you are no different than the student protestors that you are so angry about. As for support in the war on terror, how much to you want? The SK President spoke publically in support of the US on Iraq and sent some troops. The number of troops they can send is limited by the fact that the SK military is tied up by the presence of one million NK soldiers on their Northern border. Think in terms of a seven million man army on the Mexico/US border that can rain artillery down on seventy million Americans. That would be a fairly accurate comparision with the SK situation.
In general Americans are angry because the French and German governments did not support you in Iraq. The SK government did, and like the British government is paying a price for it. Dispite these facts you are saying f*ck'em anyway. I am suggesting that this is not a position that will win you support in the war on terror. I have also suggested that it will hurt your crediblity on the international stage. No one has put foreward an arguement that demonstrates that I am mistaken in my belief.

[Malichi]

Just a stupid question but what percentage of GDP did Canada spend on defense from 1946 to 1991? I honestly don't know but I would assume that you Canadians were able to build your socialist utopia because you were living under the US Nuclear Umbrella.

[garbanzo]

Give S.K. exactly one H bomb and leave.

Unfortunately, it's only a half a threat. The Korean peninsula is not a big place - and the prevailing winds blow south. There is no way it could be used by the South even if it had one without contaminating itself.

[LibKill]

South Korea's military could fill in the border security role when the Americans pull back.

They would be well advised to back up and get out of the impact zone.

Something bad is about to happen to N.K.

[Feiny]

Thanks for your service & the insight. I have been saying for years that we need to bring out troops home....

[RightWhale]

You know if N Kor pulled their troops back a few miles from the DMZ it would be for only one reason.

[Feiny]

What makes you assume the consequences have not been assessed?