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."

[Cdnexpat]

In 1954, the oldest date I could find Canada spent 16% of it's GDP on defense, in 1991 it spent about 3% of GDP on defense. But the numbers are not really relevant to the discussion. The question is did Canada meet it's NORAD obligations, nothing in your post suggests that it didn't. If you look at a map you will see that their is only one country that could invade Canada and no amount of defense spending could prevent it, short of nuclear deterence. That brings us to the US nuclear umbrella. Do you really want Canada to have nuclear missles?
As to your insult, I am not a socialist nor have I ever supported socialist policies, and I most certainly do not consider the current federal arrangement in Canada a utopia.

[Cdnexpat]

I believe the government has assessed them, I don't believe that the posters who are calling me names but are unable to answer my questions have assessed them. If they had the would be countering my claims with opinions not insults.

[Steel Wolf]

Just to clairify, no one in either government is suggesting that we withdraw U.S. troops from South Korea. Any implication of that is incorrect.

To further clairify, the U.S. spearheaded the counterstrike against communist aggession 50 years ago, and has been holding the line ever since. To imply that we have somehow let the South Koreans down is reprehensible.

Moving our troops further south is smart militarily, and diplomatically. It forces the South to get real about their own defense, steals the North's ability to threaten our forces with artillery obliteration, and allows us to launch a full force counterattack should they move across the border.

[CFC__VRWC]

The treaty (BTW, it's NOT a treaty , it is an armistice) that you keep referring to was signed 50 years ago - much has changed in the world since then. Are we supposed to keep our troops deployed in the same numbers and positions they were in half a century ago, and ignore the sweeping changes in the tactical situation?

South Korea has been able to build an enormous industrial economy in this time, and is now much more capable of taking the lead role in their own defense than they were when the armistice was signed with N. Korea. Their army, even though it is numerically much smaller than N. Korea's army, is very well trained and equipped, from what I've heard. Do you not think that the South Koreans should be the ones primarily responsible for their own defense?

If the North Koreans were foolish enough to launch an attack, I'm sure that President Bush would ensure that the South Koreans had all of the help they requested for pushing Kim's little cannibals back into their pit. Our guys are NOT leaving Korea, but they're not going to sit on the front lines as cannon fodder either.

[Cdnexpat]

I don't think you have read all my posts, my initial post was to a person who said all US troops should be withdrawn. I have argued that to do so is not a wise policy and those who have recomended it have not thought it through. I have made no comment about the troop movements.

[Jumper]

Yea, I read your posts. And maybe my insight is skewed by having worked in the Regional Studies Detachment at Bragg where Foreign Area Officers are trained as political analysts or complimentary trianing for Psych Ops Officers to use 16 POLMIL factors for breaking down a region or situation.... I have a degree in Korean Studies, another in Asian Studies, I used to both read and write Korean. Am I opinionated... heck yes!

Treaties are made and amended over time. Don't get stuck on last year's version, or those from prior years. Every treaty is constantly revised and sometimes those revisions reflect one side determining that the other side can now lift herself (Korea) up and defend he place as a democracy... for no where is written or assumed that the US would always stand to defend Korea - we put in place over 200 third country military sales contracts and manufacturing agreements allowing intergration with the US defense industry.

I've read the complete set of history written by the Mission Chief in Korea between 1961-1982.... I know the behind the scenes context for the entire relationship in SE Asia.

And you get wrapped around the wheel on the changing relationship. The US has provided Yomen's duty to this particular ally. It bite our hand - plain and simple. But more importantly, it is long past time for Korea to shoulder responsibility for its own military-political-economical situation based on 50-years of past favorable US trade/security arrangements. The time table is past for Korea to have stepped up to the plate - but they did that social engineering thing like Europe and now want someone to both kick around and pull them up (again time past).

[Cdnexpat]

Let's try this for common ground. The US has to see the current crisis through to it's completion. To fail to do so sends a bad message to present and potential allies. Pulling out the troops means that Korea is no longer under the US nuclear umbrella. The US government would have to be willing to see the ROK be a nuclear power, a tough sell after you strip the north of it's weapons, but almost a necessity given how close SK is to China. It is possible they would choose not to be but in my opinion that would be a foolish choice. Can we agree on that?

[optimistically_conservative]

[NORAD] now seems to exist for no apparent reason.

NORAD will continue to exist and adapt it's role under NORTHCOM. It makes more sense to continue this defense arrangement to protect our borders today, than it does to protect SK's borders halfway across the globe.

I do not accept that Canada or the other NATO countries have fulfilled their obligations under the defense treaties for more than a decade. They have underfunded their military, pushing more of the burden on the US, while at the same time promoting anti-Americanism against troop presence for political purposes. They have used the tax revenue saved from underfunding their defense programs to buttress socialistic structures that would have been unaffordable otherwise. By the way, Canada has not spent 3% GDP on their military in a LONG LONG time.

If you are not adult, then you are no different than the student protestors that you are so angry about.

I'm not angry about the student protestors. I wasn't angry about the inconvenience or threat to myself and my family the many differnt types and groups of protestors presented every week demonstrating outside the gates of our military bases. I find it completely unacceptable that the MAJORITY of Korean people have allowed themselves to become so arrogant and ungrateful. And no, it's not just because America has risked and sacrificed her blood in defense of the Korean people's freedom, but because we have also invested our time, money and friendship in her success. So the consequences become insignificant (especially given their limit) while a majority of the Korean people think more of themselves than their American partners.

As far as Roh's support for our efforts in Iraq. Roh made a deal to send 700 non-combatant troops from medical and construction units to Iraq, in exchange for greater influence in the US approach to North Korea. Know how many have arrived? SK did not support us. An opinion poll conducted by the presidential Blue House, released on Wednesday (2 April, 2003), indicated 86.3% of the public was opposed to the war. It had little to do with the number of North Korean military on the DMZ. The fact that Roh might be hurt by the same the same anti-Americanism that got him elected doesn't bother me. Blair's not being hurt the same way, his is political opposition, not popular opposition.

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.

There is an important difference between being right, being popular and being influential. The liberal lefties always want to be popular, whether or not what they are doing is right or that makes them influential. But the US is influential, whether we are popular or right. So it is more important to be using our influence for what is right, regardless if that makes us popular with those that already mistrust, dislike or despise us. I personally wear as a badge of honor the fact that we are fighting against people who trust Usama Bin Laden to do the right thing more than any other world leader. Credibility is a commodity that is proven over time. We are angry with France and Germany because they accused us of motivations and actions that contradicted our proven credibility over time - in their own countries!!!! We were not liked in continental Europe or Asia after WWII. I doubt we will be liked in much of the world as we confront Kim Jung Il and the leaders of Islamic zealotry around the world. That doesn't make us less credible, or less right - and I'm not too concerned about how popular we are because we are too influential.

So, you have a choice. Hate us while you live under our protection and accept our money, or protect yourselves and live without taking our money. I think that's what the North Korean government promotes to its people. I personally think the South Korean people should be ashamed, and the world will need to find a way to carry more of the burden and responsibility for what's wrong in the world and their own countries - instead of conveniently blaming US for it.

[Cdnexpat]

This is the site I accessed for Cdn defence spending, http://www.cda-cdai.ca/library/Fincomsubcharts.htm the last date it shows is 1999. The time frame you gave me was 1946 to 1991.

"I do not accept that Canada or the other NATO countries have fulfilled their obligations under the defense treaties for more than a decade".

I would suggest that Canada has maintained it's defense obligations until the end of the Mulroney years and after the collapse of the Soviet Union. If your position is that they have not met their commitments after that time, the last decade, I agree that you are correct. However the Canadian Government met it's commitments while the USSR posed a threat, that was the orginal purpose of NORAD and NATO. In my opinion these organizations should have been disbanded after the end of the Cold War.
NORTHCOM is a strictly US show where Canadians are occasionally allowed to have a look around. I realize it can become a chicken and egg arguement but if Canada has no say in the decision makeing process it is hard to expect us to be enthusiastic about spending money on it.

"I find it completely unacceptable that the MAJORITY of Korean people have allowed themselves to become so arrogant and ungrateful."

If you are lamenting the lack of respect from foriegn countries you have helped out join the club. All Canada got for bleeding itself white in France in the First and Second World Wars was "vive Quebec libre" from Charles DeGalle. I do have a question though, do you think the Iraqis are going to appreciate you forty years from now?

"As far as Roh's support for our efforts in Iraq. Roh made a deal to send 700 non-combatant troops from medical and construction units to Iraq, in exchange for greater influence in the US approach to North Korea."

That is how he justified the move to the press. Do you think he has recieved greater influence, in everything that I read he is moving closer to the US "hardline" position. One would think if he recieved greater influence it would have resulted in a softening of the US position.

"SK did not support us."

I seem to remember Pres. Bush thanking those counties who sent no people at all but who spoke out in support of the US' right to take action. I believe we are in agreement that the ROK has done more than this.
Has Japan sent troops, they have the second highest defense expenditures in the world, they are an island and don't have hundreds of thousands of enemy soldiers camped a few miles from there capital. Are you going to pull out of Japan too?
As for the poll, I have very little faith in them, they tend to show what the person asking the question wants them to show. Look at the polls on "a woman's right to choose", I don't believe that these feminista polls accurately reflect the views of most people on abortion.

"There is an important difference between being right, being popular and being influential."

I agree with your statements on being right, popular and influential for the most part. I am certainly in favor of the war on terror because I believe it is right. I believe that leaders lead and if they are right often enough they will become popular.

"Credibility is a commodity that is proven over time."

I think that this statement is incomplete, I believe that it is possible to throw way hard earned credibility with a single careless act. Look at what has happened to Canada's credibility because a few people voted for Cretin. When GHW decided that it was necessary to go to war in the gulf the first foriegn leader he contacted was the Canadian PM Brian Mulroney; he and Mulroney still meet and are close friends. I doubt GW even take Cretins phone calls. GW has credibility because he has always done what he says he is going to do and he has always stood by his allies. The suggestions that have been made earlier posters that cuting and running in the middle of the nuclear crisis will not hurt his credibility are in my opinion not well thought out.

I do not believe that I have expressed hated for the US in any of my posts. If you feel that their will be no costs associated with bailing out of Korea then by all means do so. I think you will find that GW and his advisors will see costs where you see none.

[optimistically_conservative]

You stated in a previous post above: In 1954, the oldest date I could find Canada spent 16% of it's GDP on defense, in 1991 it spent about 3% of GDP on defense.

That is incorrect, the figures you quote are percentages of government spending, not GDP, as shown by the link you provided. Additionally, the period covered by the report I linked covered the period 1946-2001.

I would suggest that Canada has maintained it's defense obligations until the end of the Mulroney years and after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I would suggest that Mulroney returned Canada to a posture which met its obligations between 1984-93, and Canada has now returned to its 1960-80s posture (when it was also strongly anti-American) and it has little to do with the collapse of the USSR.

In my opinion these organizations should have been disbanded after the end of the Cold War.

Yes, everyone back to their corners and let's all enjoy the peace dividend. The big bad bear is dead. I'm a big fan of getting the US out of the UN, and the UN out of the US. I think the Europeans need to come to terms on our role in their military planning and defense. NATO should reflect that. And you are right, I'm not interested in joining in the chicken and egg argument of what Canada brings to the table to give it a credible voice in the decision making process.

do you think the Iraqis are going to appreciate you forty years from now?

No, I don't. But if I'm still making my opinions heard then I'll be telling those ungrateful, economically improved, freedom enjoying pukes to kiss my butt as it walks out the door as well.

The suggestions that have been made earlier posters that cuting and running in the middle of the nuclear crisis will not hurt his credibility are in my opinion not well thought out....If you feel that their will be no costs associated with bailing out of Korea then by all means do so. I think you will find that GW and his advisors will see costs where you see none.

I think the "sunshine policy" has been a dangerous, and nearly disasterous policy. I think it empowered and emboldened the NK regime. I think the SK's have made it clear that current arrangement is unacceptable for a while now. Do you really think planning for reducing, and eventually eliminating our troop prescence in Korea is just taking place now - either as a result of Roh's election or NK's covert nuclear program or Iraq? Those events only accelerate the process and strengthen the positions of those who want us out of Korea.

[Cdnexpat]

"That is incorrect, the figures you quote are percentages of government spending, not GDP, as shown by the link you provided."

It is GDP, the percentage of government spending is 40%. Look again. When those were the numbers for Canada's defense spending we recieved no respect and we had no say, why should we spend more?

I don't believe that I said anything about a peace dividend, I said that NATO and NORAD should have been disbanded at the end of the Cold War. As much as I dislike Trudeau I think he met the NATO and NORAD obligations. He allowed cruise missle testing for example. I am however willing to just disagree here.

Was the sunshine policy a bad idea, only because it did not work. If everyone agrees it's a bad idea in principle why not cut off ties with China? They are really no better than NK.

[optimistically_conservative]

It is GDP, the percentage of government spending is 40%. Look again.

Ok, I looked again. Canada's defense spending in 1991 was less than 2%. Want another link? Canada earns the respect it receives from the US.

Was the sunshine policy a bad idea, only because it did not work. No, it was a bad idea because it was ill conceived to deal with a paranoid, closed off, personality driven dictatorship using juche (chaju, chalip, chawi) to maintain their "army first" social and economic structure.

If everyone agrees it's a bad idea in principle why not cut off ties with China? They are really no better than NK.

Better or not, they are VERY different.

[Cdnexpat]

You keep keying on the 91 spending. Lets try this again. When Canada's defence spending was 16% of GDP we were given the same amount of input as we were when it was 2%. Token representation and no say. Your argueing we should spend more to have no say. Canada met it's NORAD and NATO commitments. We met the Soviet planes that entered our airspace. Allowed you to build basis in our country, and test weapons systems here as well. We kept troops in Europe for 50 years and I believe I mention already how much thanks we have recieved for that. Are you saying we could have helped out more, sure we could have, but we go right back to same amount of input at 2% as at 16%.

As for China being different. Are we talking about the same China, the secretive, closed society that just gave us SARS. The one where foriegners are only allowed to enter some places. The country that kills political prisoners and then sells their body parts for transplant. The country where being a Christian is a crime and you can go to jail for owning a bible. The country that has been buying influence in US government with illegal campaign donations. The country that continually pressures Taiwan. I could go on.

Oh you never answered my question about Japan, all they offered you for Iraq were words of encouragement and they protest like hell when US warships enter their ports. Are you going to leave there too, or is leaving Korea supposed to be a warning to Japan.

[optimistically_conservative]

Fine. Canada met her obligations and despite her valuable and near parity contributions, America denied her an equitable say in the defense of North America.

Yes, China is bad. Now compare China's political party system and social/economic institutions with North Korea's. Then explain to me why we should have identical policies for the two.

You want to compare Korea and Japan? Fine, Korea is significantly more anti-American than Japan. Japan does not work against us diplomatically in the region, Korea does. Japan doesn't whine as much as Korea does. And yes, despite a majority of Japanese who do want US troops, we will probably see troop reallocations there as well. Of course, we could always offer to put Korea under the protection of the Japanese, how about it?

[WoofDog123]

"Moving the troops south out of zeroed artillery range is an agressive move. They will be alive and ready to kill all that enter the DMZ. "

Most posters (and USA today) aren't seeming to get this angle. This is a statement of intent to deploy our forces in a manner much more suitable to onset of hostilities.

[Cdnexpat]

I have thought about this exchange of posts and I will let you have the last word after this post. I think we are both getting angry and we are not really getting anywhere.

I agree that America has the right to move it's troops, I took offence at the casual manner in which some posters demand that US troops be moved around without any thought to the consequences. These knee jerk reactions anger me because I feel they undermine the people conservatives (should) want to help (in this case conservatives in SK) and support those on the left of the political spectrum (the fools running around tramping on US flags). I am convinced that this does not apply to you, or to Jumper.

I will agree that SK should be able to deal with NK. Sk does need real guarantees against China. It is hard for me to see a stand alone SK military that does not have nuclear missles to deter the Chinese.

I think that their is much less difference between Japan and SK than you do. I live in SK and have been to Japan many times and that is what I think.

I also don't see any real difference between China and NK. China is NK's keeper and protector; the things NK does are done with China's knowledge and blessing. I realize that this is an old example but, Kim Il-sung met with Mao Tse-tung in May of 1950 to get permission to invade the South. I don't believe that in the last fifty years, as NK becomes more and more dependant on China, that China's influence has lessoned. I also believe that China is cut way to much slack for it's misdeeds and it is past time for China to be called on them. I'll site the Chinese holding the US spy plane's aircrew hostage (April 2002 if memory serves) as an example. What country other than China would be allowed to get away with that crap.

[optimistically_conservative]

I respect your position, and am not angered to find at the end that we agree to disagree.

You are right that knee jerk reactions are poor instruments of policy. I don't view our actions in SK as such. But depending on how they are portrayed by the different sides, you are right to point out that SK conservatives could be undercut by the moves.

Until the early 90s we had nukes in SK. Bush I pulled them out, with SK's emphatic blessing. I think our strategic nuke umbrella should suffice for deterring China, but if SK wants nukes - especially if NK pursues them - then they can pursue getting them (on their own or from us).

You may be right about the distinction between Korea and Japan. My view is based on living in Korea for only a couple of years.

China does influence NK, but I stand by my view that our policy should be very different given their very different political, social and economic structures.

I thank you for the exchange. I do hope that our allies that are currently led by "blame America first" liberals come back to their senses. But I do think in the mean time reminding them that their animosity doesn't give them a vote in our policies or actions is "a good thing."

[biblewonk]

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.

And their attitude toward our being there is not very good either from what I hear. Time to spend our billions elsewhere, like Africa Aids or something.

[newgeezer]

(from the article) 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.

Sounds like So. Korea's public education system is just as effective at teaching history as ours is.

Someone once said something like, "What this country needs is a good war." I wonder if these are the sort of people he had in mind.

[q_an_a]

You make many good points, especially about the quality of the Korean army. During Viet Nam they had a very good reputation.

But taking our troops out of a country where the newly elected president has been for less american involvement seems to be very much in line with the wishes of the people and would hardly be a violation of trust. It is what the elected people wanted and they ran on it. Give them what they asked for. Let Japan and China fight over how to contain the crazy leader.