Should the US Military Withdraw from South Korea?
Via the Marmot’s Hole comes this article posted on War is Boring by Kyle Mizokami who advocates for the removal of US troops from the Korean peninsula:
Imagine you possess the 15th-largest economy in the world. You have world-class cars and consumer goods, glittering streets and a lifestyle as good as any in the industrialized world.
Now, imagine you are being threatened by a hostile country one third as wealthy as Ethiopia.
Ethiopia.
In order to protect yourself from this economic juggernaut, you require the presence of nearly 30,000 American troops, the overpowering might of the U.S. nuclear arsenal and an American general to take charge in case this mighty opponent attacks
Laughable, right? Not at all. Welcome to South Korea.It’s time for the United States to leave the Korean peninsula. South Korea can defend itself. [War is Boring]
You can read the rest at the link, but the removal of US troops from Korea is an issue that has been discussed repeatedly and will not happen as long as keeping USFK in place is in each country’s national interest. I have posted about this issue long ago and these points are still valid:
- Korean economic impact
- Impact on foreign investment
- Korean defense spending
- Loss of Korean political influence in Washington
- Moderating American reactions to North Korea
- Political apathy
- Power of the status quo
As far as the US military goes the North Korean threat justifies maintaining certain budget levels in the Pacific and an additional four-star command. For the US government USFK provides political influence with South Korea which prevents China from dominating South Korea’s foreign policy which has been the case for most of Korea’s history.
Then there is the nuclear weapons question. If the US military withdraws it suddenly becomes in the national interest of the ROK to develop nuclear weapons to counter-North Korea. If the ROK develops nuclear weapons would Japan do so as well? To further compound this issue is that China would have to increase the amount of nuclear weapons they currently have to counter the US to also counter the ROK and possibly Japan. A withdrawal of USFK could lead to a large nuclear arms race in the region.
Finally and most importantly people need to remember there hasn’t been a war on the Korean peninsula in over 60 years and there is a reason for that, USFK. The US military is the strategic balancer in the region that is preventing one of the other three great powers from seeking hegemony over the region which has historically been the case. Keeping a few thousand US troops on the Korean peninsula to maintain this balance is worth the cost to keep stability in such an economically important area of the world. If someone wants to argue we have too many or not the right amount of troops in Korea I am open to that argument, but to completely remove USFK I do not see the benefit to the US or South Korea.
Anyone else have any other points they want to share on why the US military should or should not stay in South Korea?
Yes…this 1950s fiasco has went on for long enough. Sure, still maintain a robust exercise & training agenda with the S. Koreans, maybe even some pre-positioned equipment, but it is time for them to stand on their own, the same with ALL Asian nations that we have continued to artificially prop up for decades…
Very thoughtful analysis. He explains the South Korean stance perfectly: “The alternative is that South Korea believes North Korea is still a threat, but with Americans defending the South, Seoul can risk turning its attention outward. That amounts to United States subsidizing South Korea’s foreign policy, potentially at the cost of American lives.”
Meaning, the US is being used so that South Korea doesn’t have to spend that same money the US does on it’s defense.
The only US Army forces that should be there is the artillery brigade, CBRN battalion, the rotating helicopter battalion, and the token company at the DMZ. Everyone else should leave. The amount of grunts and armor is insignificant in a war against the North. The South has that capability, and I would like to see them stand up a tanker, cav scout and infantryman for every one we pull out.
The real concern here is China. The nations will align (Japan, Vietnam, Korea, Australia, Thailand, etc. versus China and such, and of course there is Russia). We are “pivoting towards” Asia for a reason, and it is not beause of North Korea, although it is ONE convenient reason.
@GI Joe, you seem to be making my point that USFK should stay, but the mix of troops currently there should change. Yes you are right that the combat brigades rotating to Korea are not significant compared to the ROK’s overwhelming amount of combat units, but they serve the purpose of allowing the US Army to show they are still doing deployments. Remember the Army has been big on forward deploying soldiers now likely to show that the Army is still busy and relevant. So it is arguable that the rotating brigades are there in Korea more for the US Army’s purposes than the ROK’s.
As far as other military capabilities things like C2, Intel, and missile defense that the US provides Korea are extremely expensive and even if they did buy them over night it would take many years to field, train, and ready their forces to use them. From the ROK perspective it is cheaper just to have the US provide that capability. The bottom line is that the current state of the US-ROK alliance is in the interest of both countries. As interests change the alliance will change to, but at this point I do not see the alliance ending anytime soon. Heck the US-ROK alliance survived Roh Moo-hyun, so I doubt there will be any Korean leader worse than him any time soon.
@ DrgnTtties, yes I would agree that China is the biggest regional concern, but not for USFK. USFK is there to deter North Korea and the ROKs over the years have made it very clear that USFK bases will not be used for contingency operations against China. So if something should flare up in the South China Sea or Taiwan I do not foresee assets from USFK being used. I think it would have to be full scale war with China, which no one wants before Korea would get drawn into the conflict.
US will never leave South Korea for self interests.
You are right, GI. And there is a common-sense thread in the majority of the responses. We (USFK) are in ROK for US interests which were initiated and now maintained for over 60 years by treaty PAUSING a war (Ceasefire).
I was somewhat amused by the hypothetical posed by the author of the article– “Imagine you possess the 15th-largest economy in the world. You have world-class cars and consumer goods, glittering streets and a lifestyle as good as any in the industrialized world.
Now, imagine you are being threatened by a hostile country one third as wealthy as Ethiopia.
Ethiopia.”
Cutely spectacular chatter when you omit the fact that the hypothetical aggressor has four nuclear weapons, missiles, and fledgling space tech, probably hates Japan as much as it hates ROK, and can destroy the majority of the ROK and Japanese populations in less than a quarter hour.
It is interesting, while puzzling, that the US maintains much greater forces–and expenditures–in Japan without the self-serving American doubts and grumbles.
Finally, Korea provides, in Asia, the same training and readiness platforms that we had established and maintained in Europe and Hawaii–and are now extending into Eastern Europe.
ANY troops sent home –reductions.withdrawals–will be slashed from US defense strength. Politicians cannot abide troops being
stationed in the States “doing nothing.” LTD