Korean Job Discussion Forums

[mc_jc]

I just finished attending a high-level meeting with the rest of the senior department and agency heads onbase and Admiral Mullen- the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the US military.
Unlike his meeting with soldiers and officers of the military, this meeting is more frank and to the point since he had no reason to appease anyone there.
He said starting next year, as more soldiers started to come to Korea on 2- and 3-year stabilization tours, units stationed in South Korea will join units from Japan, Italy and Germany as well as other places that deploy to both Iraq and Afghanistan. Although the mission in Iraq is winding down and US forces will be withdrawn completely by 2012, the war in Afghanistan is just heating up.
With new calls for more troops to help with the war effort, there is increasing pressure on the Pentagon to release USFK from its sole commitment to South Korea and deploy them to Afghanistan, citing troop commitments from Japan and Germany.
When asked if every unit and every member of the unit is up for deployment, he said, "Every member of a particular unit will be deployed if the unit is called upon to deploy to Afghanistan, including Korean soldiers augmenting US units within Eight US Army and USFK as a whole".
When also asked what could or would be done if the South Korean government refuses to endorse USFK troops to be deployed from the peninsula, he said that President Lee has been made aware of the pending issue of deployment and that it would not affect the combined US/ROK deterrent against North Korea. When someone asked if he had addressed the National Assembly, he said that was the responsibility of President Lee and not his or USFK's responsibility, especially if a decision is made by President Obama, his cabinet and the Congressional Armed Forces Subcommittee.
The reason for the meeting was that some non-essential agencies would see a severe cut in funding while others will receive more funding as USFK goes on a more active war footing starting in December. My agency is considered a non-essential agency, but funded through Non-Appropriated Funds, so funding for my office will not be directly affected.

[cdninkorea]

Sounds like some interesting work you're doing! But I have a question:

[roadwork]

In a nutshell: When the Korean troops are deployed with the US troops, expect more violent anti-US demonstrations and sentiment in the public school system.

[mc_jc]

The question was asked back in 2004 when a proposal to send troops from Korea to Iraq. The biggest for the former government was that if USFK was cleared to leave Korea to go anywhere else, it would mean that US troops might deploy from Korea if (or should I say, when) China decides to invade Taiwan.
If troops from Korea were to be involved in any conflict between China-Taiwan, it would mean that US military facilities in Korea would become legitimate military targets (and please remember that many Korean facilities are also used by Americans troops too). This scares many Korean military officials.
In late-2004, the US and Korea signed a "gentleman's agreement" that ended nearly two years of anti-American sentiment with a clause that stated that American troops in Korea were meant to protect Korea only.

BUT- remember that President Obama is going back on many agreements signed during the Bush administration, including this one because of the dire situation in Afghanistan that require additional troops (thanks to Bush putting the Afghan conflict on the back burner for his adventure in Iraq).

Off the record, Defense Secretary Gates is going to Beijing in the next couple of weeks to reassure the Chinese that any troop deployment off the peninsula is only to alleviate the strain on state-side units in the Afghan War. Right now, almost every unit in the US Army, Reserves and National Guard has seen at least one tour of duty in either Iraq or Afghanistan, most are on their fourth or fifth combat tour. The only units not touched are the units in Korea. Many commanders are pressuring Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen to have all units do their duty equally.

Remember, some units in Korea were also deployed to Vietnam as well.

[CentralCali]

Here is the Stars & Stripes article on Admiral Mullen's visit. Read the article and you'll see that a) there's no lessening of the US's commitment to the US/ROK alliance and b) it will take at least seven years to implement the new tour normalization policy.

[mc_jc]

We met with him AFTER that meeting with the rank and file.
Those GS-11 and above (and O-5 and above in the officer ranks) knows whats coming down. They won't publish the official word until President Obama states his strategy publicly in the next couple of weeks.

Also, the reinforcements to replace the deployed troops are the aircraft coming in to Osan and Kunsan from Hawaii and Guam.

[CentralCali]

So we only have your word that contradicts what's published. Why should I believe your version absent actual evidence?

And this little bit

[Sleepy in Seoul]

[mc_jc]

Political bias? How?

When a person from the G3 looks at unit strength reports, it says how many soldiers are present with a unit- there is no distinction between who is Korean or who is American. These are what Admiral Mullen looked through during his visit.
The only time a high-ranking officer sees who is who in a unit is when they view manpower data at the Brigade-level.
He made it clear that every member of a deployable unit (both American and KATUSA) would be deployed if they slated to do so by Q3-FY10 (off the record).

A good example of this was when a communications unit from CP Humphreys went on TDY to the Philippines during a training exercise with the AFP, all soldiers assigned to the unit participated with in the 2-week training cycle as well as a unit from Yongsan did during Cobra Gold 09 in Thailand.

As I said, unless a MOU or a Exemption to Policy is sent down from HQ-USFK/CFC/UNC or from HQDA or any other MACOM, it is safe to assume every member of a particular unit will be deployed.

[Joe666]

Quote:

[mc_jc]

Well then- why did their parents pay good money to have their sons assigned to a US unit? To learn English- ha!
That kind of thinking is very old fashioned and doesn't fit the OPTEMPO of the US military right now, especially with the war effort and the problems it will cause most bases in the coming months.

They might be Korean, but by being assigned to a US unit within USFK, they take on the understanding that they will do their job and go where their unit goes-simple as that. Again, when an official at Corps.-level reads strength reports, they only see units and numbers, which doesn't distinguish between who is a KATUSA or who is American.

Whether that will be the case next year is anyone's guess.
I didn't make the decision, I am just passing on what I was told during a briefing that I attended with other department and agency chiefs with the Chairman- JCofC~ he is one who makes the final decisions on these matters.

If you and other Koreans don't like it- you need to make your feelings known to the members of the National Assembly. Then they could press President Lee to talk to President Obama about his proposal to send troops from Korea to Afghanistan.

Debating something that is somewhat decided upon seems kind of pointless.

[CentralCali]

Care to prove that the strenghth reports do not list the number of KATUSA assigned to the unit? My experience in a Battalion PAC, an aircraft carrrier's personnel section, and an air wing commander's staff would all indicate otherwise.

And I'm retired PO1, USN (My first enlistment was in the US Army), and a natural born American citizen of Scottish and German heritage.

[Joe666]

mc_jc wrote:

[mc_jc]

[CentralCali]