Korean Job Discussion Forums

The Bobster · Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Forgive me for responding before reading all 5 pages, and I promise I'll do so later. Here's a quick thought or two about some things that seemed a bit off on page one. I probably should apologize in advance if others have said similar things to what I'm about to add. Promise I'll catch up with the convo in progress later on.

First off, I think the real question is something else than what the OP is asking - that question is : "Why doesn't S Korea ask the US to leave?"

Two things are definitely true - the US military has been asked to be here, and there has never been any official request or even discussion about them leaving.

Seoul_Star · Joined: 04 May 2007

I wish the US Military would leave Korea too (I have nothing against the USA or the Military), I just feel they are wasting money here. But strategically, I think they need this location to maintain stability in the region.

Another factor could be that the hot-headed and often irrational Korean people and government could possibly piss off one of their neighbors and get colonized again if the US were to leave. Pulling out would be kind of like leaving kids to watch the candy store. Still though, I fully support the USA pulling out of Korea, and putting those funds and soldiers to use somewhere else, like Africa.

Gwangjuboy · Joined: 08 Jul 2003 Location: England

Jesus, I never thought I would say this, but it's nice to see Bob come in on a thread Wink

.

caniff · Joined: 03 Feb 2004 Location: All over the map

The Bobster · Joined: 15 Jan 2003

lastat06513 · Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 12:43 am Post subject:

Actually, toward the end of General Park Chung Hee's administration, there was some talk of requesting the withdrawal of US troops and that was also the time South Korea was experimenting with nuclear technology with the intention of building their own nuclear arsenal. The US ambassador at the time, William H. Gleysteen, Jr., bulked at the idea and senior US military leadership became alarmed at the notion that they would lose their most-forwardly deployed base against the former USSR and PRC at the height of the Cold War and the end of the Vietnam Conflict.......After the death of Gen. Park, there were some rumors going around the MoD that the US was somewhat involved in the killing of Park Chung Hee, but that accusation was never substantiated.....although the next General in charge, Chun Doo-hwan, signed a treaty with the US extending their stay on the peninsula and agreeing to end all work on the development of nuclear weaponry...........

Zenas · Joined: 17 May 2008

CentralCali · Joined: 17 May 2007

newton kabiddles · Joined: 31 Mar 2007

poet13 · Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 6:04 am Post subject:

"Now, who's the douche?"

You are for dragging god-men into this conversation.

And whoever was going on about air superiority in vietnam hasn't got a friggin' clue. The US bombed the crap out of a jungle. They did not destroy anyones capacity to wage guerilla war. The US got their butts handed to them by refusing to fight the VC using guerilla warfare. They might have had a chance if they had. I said might have.

Afghanistan is also not over and definitely was not over in a week. US SF guys were there several months before ground troops invaded, had recruited dozens of warlords, and in the days and weeks prior to the actual invasion took care of maybe 70% of the resistance in the country.
In Iraq, yes, US air superiority decimated the Iraqi military. The terrain is condusive to all types of ordnance, and the Iraqis very courteously stayed put in convenient groups, and predictably moved about using division level tactics 101.

As far a North Korea is concerned. Read "Hawk and Dove" theory. It gives several perfectly legitimate reasons why N Korea might invade S Korea. One of the main tenets of the paper is that N Korea knows that while it could run amok in S Korea during the initial invasion phase, they know that they would eventually lose, but note that there are still several valid reasons for them to be there.

700 bases around the world? Well, up until about 2003, I had visited about 40 of the sixty or so Army bases just in S Korea. Then there's airforce, navy... 700? I dont think so, but there's still a large number of them.

Clarke AFB. There is an economic free trade zone there, but the base is still in use. I used to go to work through there up until about 2003.

aka Dave · Joined: 02 May 2008 Location: Down by the river

The thing about Afghanistan is, what, exactly, is the warfare that is being conducted there?

There is NO WAR in Afghanistan. There is no army to conquer, no hill to hold, no field to occupy. When you say that we're "losing" Afghanistan you're redefining warfare.

The job of the US army in Afghanistan is essentially to turn a third world backwards country into a semi-functioning democracy.

*That is not war fighting. That is military-politico-social reconstrunction of a broken society. And hell knows if it's possible or even workable.

Afghanistan will take decades to rebuild, whether or not the US stays there.

But the whole "Afghan war" rhetoric is absurd. There isn't a war in Afghanistan. There's a broken society that needs to be rebuilt. Asking the US Army to do it is asking a bit much.