[kabar]

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.

[Stag_Man]

I never argued against reducing our presence. Maintaining skeleton bases capable of being beefed up in an emergency is exactly what I advocate. My senior thesis argued just that point. I am arguing against those in this thread who want us to totally pull out of South Korea. Yes we have 30,000 people in S.A. (we have troops in S.A. anyway), but they are not threatened by a conventional military threat but terrorists. This requires a completely different security strategy (re: the National Security Strategy and the Quadrennial Defense Review Report of 2001) than the one in Korea (which essentially a remnant of the Cold War). Our troops in South Korea help to deter conventional attack. No place in the world is threatened like Seoul is.

Regardless, your arguing with someone who basically agrees with you. Our presence in South Korea desperately needs to be rethought and rennovated--South Korea is no longer a helpless nation we're keeping on life support and the USFK should reflect this. This, however, in no way means we pull out entirely. By renovating our USFK we will strengthen our alliance with South Korea, not weaken it.

Re Taiwan: We're the only ones who care about them. That's the way it is. Neither South Korea nor Japan would help us in a war over the island. No one in the world would fight with us for Taiwan. That's just the sad truth. Which is a reason we need troops in Korea and the surrounding region. If we need to save Taiwan by ourselves, we need every military resource in the region we can get.