Korean Job Discussion Forums

Ya-ta Boy · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994

The US has troops in more than 100 countries. To single out South Korea to leave after 14 years of a nuclear 'crisis' would send a message of weakness. To whose benefit?

The North is backed (enthusiastically or not) by the Chinese. Let's say the US does pull out. Can SK stand up to both the Norks and the Chinese? No, they can't. Not both of them. Who do they turn to? History tells us they can't turn to the Japanese. That leaves the Russians who are not really interested. The result: SK surrenders to the North and Japan goes nuclear, spurring the Chinese to ramp up their nuke capability in an arms race. This is not to the US's advantage.

By keeping troops in SK the US has a say in what happens in NE Asia. More, it has a moderating impact on what happens in NE Asia.

Something that hasn't been mentioned in this thread so far: There is a massive South Korean reaction to Roh Moo-Hyun's request/demand for a turn-over for the Combined Forces Command. At present, most of the former foreign ministers, retired Joint Chiefs of Staff and retired generals have put out a petition, now signed by 9 MILLION adult South Koreans to delay the dissolution of this mechanism that most see as the guarantor of South Korean security for the last 60 years.

While it may not be to the benefit of the world for one country to have troops based in 100+ countries, there is no one to replace it. Is international anarchy an advance?

T-J · Joined: 10 Oct 2008 Location: Seoul EunpyungGu Yeonsinnae

Tiger Beer · Joined: 07 Feb 2003

For better or worse, it is an American characteristic to once decide someone is worthy dying for, to actually do so.

Americans, by and large, even though they know the guy might not be right, will back him til the end everytime.

I think this individual characteristic is carried out to the extreme here in international affairs. The South Korean is a bit of douchebag not knowing what he wants and speaking half out of his ass half of the time. Yet, by and large, the American will loom over as a protectorate ready to pounce on any opposition, solely because he's American, and under the assumption that that is what Americans and friends do (despite anyone else observing might realize that South Korea is a quasi-friend at best).

On the other hand · Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Location: I walk along the avenue

Summer Wine · Joined: 20 Mar 2005 Location: Next to a River

mises · Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Location: retired

I attended a conference on NE Asian political economy and security a few years back. This exact question was asked and the panel (which wasn't a small time group by any measure) agreed that the primary reason the US had not left was inertia. It is difficult to do.

I'm a broken record on this topic but America can't afford these bases around the world anymore.

Summer Wine · Joined: 20 Mar 2005 Location: Next to a River

Palladium · Joined: 26 Apr 2009 Location: Korea

The reason that the USA has troops all over the world was because the US$ is a reserve currency and allows the US to stupid things with it's currency like run up insane deficits. The US is close to going over the cliff in that regard. When it happens, they won't be able to afford to have all those troops everywhere. They'll start to bring them home, Korea included.

That low 6% tax you currently pay will go to 10% or higher as Korea has to pay for it all out of it's pocket. Troops and equipment are EXPENSIVE! Several years ago the US pulled out a brigade and it cost the Korean government over $5 billion to replace it.

A brigade is only about 500-700 people, depending on the type of unit it is. Imagine replacing about 25k people and equipment!

Ya-ta Boy · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994

I was talking to a former Minister of Defense yesterday. He added another reason for the US to keep troops here. With KJI sick with pancreatic cancer, there is the added danger of instability in the North. There is legitimate concern that the Chinese would use North Korean instability as a reason to occupy it. In addition, the presence of US troops acts as a guarantee of US interest in East Asia--thus giving Taiwan security.

The pull out of US troops would create a power vacuum in all of East Asia. The filling of that vacuum could be very destabilizing.

Steelrails · Joined: 12 Mar 2009 Location: Earth, Solar System

Anyone who thinks
A)China would invade South Korea if the U.S. left or
B)North Korea would win a war against South Korea is mistaken.

If China were to conquer a sovereign nation it would be allowed to idly pass in the International diplomatic or economic community. Folks, this isn't RISK 1944.

As for the North Korean invasion, please stop looking at mere numbers such as 'Million Man Army' and look at the logistical, financial, and technological base of both countries. North Korea would get flattened.
No, there won't be any stealth wave of Norks blitzkrieging through Korea. That is for novels.

I suspect the reason that the troops are there is politics and money. Some General dosen't wnat to lose his command. Some company has a base upgrade construction contract, some IT firm is supposed to put in new wiring, Boeing and Hyundai or Raytheon or whoever has some sort of joint development project and needs a place to test it, blah blah blah.

Basically any number of reasons besides deterring NK invasion/ PC Wargame reasons.

Heck even the 'chess piece'/humanitarian crises rapid deployment can be accomplished with Saudi-esque base building manned by a skeleton crew.

Japan makes sense as a place to keep a sizeable naval contingent. Hawaii is to far away, the Philippines are a no go now. Taiwan is too sensitive. Korea dosen't have the ease of access to ports.

itaewonguy · Joined: 25 Mar 2003

tention on the borders creates unrest! unrests creats paranoia, paranoia creates fear! and fear sells weapons!
south Korea are the largest buyers of weapons in the world! more than any other country in the world! I don't have a figure but its in the BILLIONS every year! so the hands which controls this tention for pure evil and profitable gain certainly don't want the US to leave! and certainly don't want any reunification!

IRAQ war could of ended years ago! it could have ended in the first 6 months, think about! American war technology!! come on!!
fact is its more profitable to keep the war going..
well profitable for a group of people who control all the chit anyways...

CA-NA-DA-ABC · Joined: 20 Jun 2006

pkang0202 · Joined: 09 Mar 2007

The US having a presence in South Korea is strategic. You do realize that the US AND the SK armed forces do JOINT exercises.

Here's a likely scenario if US pulls out of Korea:

US pulls out of SK. A few years later NK invades. US goes to back SK.

Who's in command? US generals? SK Generals? Are Koreans familiar with US operating procedures and vice versa? Who executes missions? Who defends? Who attacks?

Having the US here allows the US and SK military command work with each other so that they keep confusion to a minimum.

Besides Strategic benefits, having a base in SK provides MANY advantages. First off, SK is a much better base of operations than Japan in a war against China. Almost all males in SK has had military training. SK has the ports, infrastructure, and the capabilities to support a large US military presence.

SK would be a base of forward operations, where Japan would act as a base for rear positions (hospitals, supplies, etc...)

SK is easily defensable. No navy in the world can come close to matching the US, so the only real threat to SK would be from the north. You can't ask for a more fortified border than the DMZ. Its not like the NK's can just walk across the DMZ. There are minefield, fences, trenches, and all sorts of bad things separating the north and south.