I have always said that Trump’s claims that South Korea is getting a free ride is inaccurate and Ambassador Lippert is calling him out on it as well. Trump should specify what he thinks South Korea should pay if he wants to criticize like this because South Korea pays a lot more than many other nations getting a free ride off of the US defense umbrella. With that said Trump probably fully knows that South Korea pays a lot already and is just repeating the claim that resonates with low information voters:
Amb. Mark Lippert speaks to members of the American Chamber of Commerce in Korea at a Seoul hotel on March 28, 2016. (Yonhap)
U.S. Ambassador to Seoul Mark Lippert on Monday dismissed accusations by Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump that South Korea is paying little to keep American troops on its soil.
Without naming Trump, Lippert cited various reasons why the allegations aren’t true, including the fact that South Korea shoulders 55 percent of all non-personnel costs and increases its defense spending by 3 to 5 percent annually.
“We feel very good about the resource sharing that we and the Republic of Korea do together as an alliance,” the ambassador said during a meeting with members of the American Chamber of Commerce in Korea. “It is remarkable.”
Lippert was responding to a request for comments on a “U.S. political candidate’s” contentions that the country receives little from South Korea in exchange for its support.
Trump has made repeated claims that South Korea is getting a free ride on defense, saying recently that the U.S. is “constantly sending our ships, sending our planes, doing our war games” but being “reimbursed a fraction of what this is all costing.” He also told The New York Times he would withdraw American troops from South Korea and Japan unless they boost their financial contributions to the upkeep of the U.S. military presence. [Yonhap]
Mr. Trump probably thinks that it’s cheaper just to buy North Korea outright, like a big real estate deal.
ChickenHead
8 years ago
Depending on how you represent the numbers and how big of picture you want to consider, Trump may he more correct than what he is being credited for.
South Korea pays 55 percent of America’s expenses in keeping them secure… seems legit… though that security could arguably be more than 55 percent important to Korea than America.
…but in a larger picture, this does not include payroll for 28,500 people. It does not include expenses under stateside budgets such as AAFES, parts of joint excercises, etc. And it does not include a portion of development and depreciation costs for all that fancy hardware. There are likely many more second and third order expenses that are involved with keeping security in Korea.
Trump likely sees a bigger picture in any situation that looks like a business deal and is intuitively aware that 55 percent is a bullshyt politically-inspired number that doesn’t truly reflect Amerca’s expenses in Korea.
There is nothing wrong with spreading a larger percentage of development costs, manufacturing costs, training costs, etc., to allies who take full advantage of a larger system than just a bit of hardware parked in their yard.
Everybody wants to cut the deficit. Everybody wants to reduce defense spending. Everybody bitches when a businessman looks at ways to do it from a business perspective…
…likely because most people are encouraged to think small and are incapable of seeing anything beyond that. It makes their opinion easy to manipulate.
Trump became a politician 9 months ago… and he does not have all the answers… but he is very smart, a very quick study, surrounds himself with sharp people rather than political hacks…
…and has a clever record of saying thing that draw media attention with outrage and denial that later turn out to he true. This is likely very calculated.
If this ever becomes a real issue, it is likely very easy to show that of all the money that America spends to protect Korea on a global scale, Korea spends a far smaller percentage than the political class would like the American taxpayer to believe.
Denny
8 years ago
Trump ans Sanders are embracing the liberal position, to decrease US troop presence overseas. The traditional conservative position is to increase US troops overseas.
@Chickenhead, what is not being taken into account is if the troops were not stationed in the ROK they would be stationed in CONUS where the US is picking up 100% of the tab. Also the US-ROK alliance has allowed US companies to have arguably preferential treatment in Korea especially in the defense industry. How many jobs back in the US is this sustaining? In my opinion the ROK is a poor choice to go after if he is trying to make a point about do nothing allies. He might want to look elsewhere.
Ah… good old Lippert. No matter how you slice it, he is taking a stab at Trump. He should cut that out and come up with some new rhetorical chops or he will be labled a political hack. It would be great if he could do it in the nick of time; otherwise, no dice.
@GI… your points are valid… but however you wish to do the math, a good part of the world takes advantage of a large back-end of American military research, manufacture, training, and experience… but only wants to pay a PORTION of the front-end that directly benefits them… while still getting all the benefits of the back-end.
Meanwhile, the American taxpayer is 17 trillion dollars in debt with a crumbling infrastructure, cuts in a lot of (non-security state-related) services, crappy trade deals with most of these countries, etc.
The American military is a valuable product that provides a service which costs money to develop and maintain. It really appears America is not getting compensation worthy of the value for this service…
…which can be calculated by figuring out what it would take for an ally to develop their own 5th generation fighter, float a network of satellites, set up a carrier group, etc., Etc., ETC.. all which would benefit them in a time of need… but which they would rather have American taxpayers foot the bill for… which is fine with heavily-lobbied politicians looking for short-term regional gain rather than a larger American picture.
Trump appears to know both the price and the value of things… and he is pointing this all out.
America CAN get a better deal. There is nothing wrong with wanting that.
Ole Tanker
8 years ago
Trump is doing the standard Demagoguery, looking for the knee jerk reaction from the typical self righteous American, that we do everything for all the other countries. Those of us with personal interaction,hate the obvious situations we have personally seen of the abuse of American tax $$$. Black Market, Kickbacks, LQA Fraud etc..ad nauseam. DUH!! Let’s break it down Fred and Barney style!
The truth lies somewhere in between.
johnnyboy
8 years ago
Knee jerk reactions aren’t always incorrect.
It might not be true in the way the average American thinks it is, but it is probably still true.
Obviously we shouldn’t pull out of our alliances with ROK, NATO, and others, but we should still angle for better deals when possible.
I’m a big fan of helping folks become self-sufficient and while I need to forgive those who harm me, I expect my government to take decisive action against folks who want to kill or enslave us.
And by that I do not mean strongly-worded #hashtags, I mean put ’em in a hole and put dirt on ’em.
From a distance by ICBMs is okay. Up close with A-10s is okay as long as we have the folks willing to do that.
And as a non-GOP voter, I want to see who’s running before I settle for Cruz… 😉
johnnyboy
8 years ago
Speaking of strongly worded hashtags, check out #TheChalkening.
It’s a shame that college kids are running out of safe spaces.
Mr. Trump probably thinks that it’s cheaper just to buy North Korea outright, like a big real estate deal.
Depending on how you represent the numbers and how big of picture you want to consider, Trump may he more correct than what he is being credited for.
South Korea pays 55 percent of America’s expenses in keeping them secure… seems legit… though that security could arguably be more than 55 percent important to Korea than America.
…but in a larger picture, this does not include payroll for 28,500 people. It does not include expenses under stateside budgets such as AAFES, parts of joint excercises, etc. And it does not include a portion of development and depreciation costs for all that fancy hardware. There are likely many more second and third order expenses that are involved with keeping security in Korea.
Trump likely sees a bigger picture in any situation that looks like a business deal and is intuitively aware that 55 percent is a bullshyt politically-inspired number that doesn’t truly reflect Amerca’s expenses in Korea.
There is nothing wrong with spreading a larger percentage of development costs, manufacturing costs, training costs, etc., to allies who take full advantage of a larger system than just a bit of hardware parked in their yard.
Everybody wants to cut the deficit. Everybody wants to reduce defense spending. Everybody bitches when a businessman looks at ways to do it from a business perspective…
…likely because most people are encouraged to think small and are incapable of seeing anything beyond that. It makes their opinion easy to manipulate.
Trump became a politician 9 months ago… and he does not have all the answers… but he is very smart, a very quick study, surrounds himself with sharp people rather than political hacks…
…and has a clever record of saying thing that draw media attention with outrage and denial that later turn out to he true. This is likely very calculated.
If this ever becomes a real issue, it is likely very easy to show that of all the money that America spends to protect Korea on a global scale, Korea spends a far smaller percentage than the political class would like the American taxpayer to believe.
Trump ans Sanders are embracing the liberal position, to decrease US troop presence overseas. The traditional conservative position is to increase US troops overseas.
@Chickenhead, what is not being taken into account is if the troops were not stationed in the ROK they would be stationed in CONUS where the US is picking up 100% of the tab. Also the US-ROK alliance has allowed US companies to have arguably preferential treatment in Korea especially in the defense industry. How many jobs back in the US is this sustaining? In my opinion the ROK is a poor choice to go after if he is trying to make a point about do nothing allies. He might want to look elsewhere.
@Denny, judging by history I think the traditional position for both Democrats and Republicans is to increase US troop presence overseas.
Of course the current Ambassador opposes Trump. He saw what happened to another Ambassador when Hillary was in charge…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack
Ah… good old Lippert. No matter how you slice it, he is taking a stab at Trump. He should cut that out and come up with some new rhetorical chops or he will be labled a political hack. It would be great if he could do it in the nick of time; otherwise, no dice.
@GI… your points are valid… but however you wish to do the math, a good part of the world takes advantage of a large back-end of American military research, manufacture, training, and experience… but only wants to pay a PORTION of the front-end that directly benefits them… while still getting all the benefits of the back-end.
Meanwhile, the American taxpayer is 17 trillion dollars in debt with a crumbling infrastructure, cuts in a lot of (non-security state-related) services, crappy trade deals with most of these countries, etc.
The American military is a valuable product that provides a service which costs money to develop and maintain. It really appears America is not getting compensation worthy of the value for this service…
…which can be calculated by figuring out what it would take for an ally to develop their own 5th generation fighter, float a network of satellites, set up a carrier group, etc., Etc., ETC.. all which would benefit them in a time of need… but which they would rather have American taxpayers foot the bill for… which is fine with heavily-lobbied politicians looking for short-term regional gain rather than a larger American picture.
Trump appears to know both the price and the value of things… and he is pointing this all out.
America CAN get a better deal. There is nothing wrong with wanting that.
Trump is doing the standard Demagoguery, looking for the knee jerk reaction from the typical self righteous American, that we do everything for all the other countries. Those of us with personal interaction,hate the obvious situations we have personally seen of the abuse of American tax $$$. Black Market, Kickbacks, LQA Fraud etc..ad nauseam. DUH!! Let’s break it down Fred and Barney style!
The truth lies somewhere in between.
Knee jerk reactions aren’t always incorrect.
It might not be true in the way the average American thinks it is, but it is probably still true.
Obviously we shouldn’t pull out of our alliances with ROK, NATO, and others, but we should still angle for better deals when possible.
Whatever happened to that “…teach a man to fish…” stuff we were supposed to believe?
Setnaffa, “teach a man to fish” is not really good policy when it comes to making war.
You might find yourself becoming a fish.
…but selling fish at market price is a good business decision.
Selling fish at half price while your family goes hungry is foolishness.
But a lot of people are foolish… either because their hate for Trump blinds them, they get a fish for free on the side, or they are just foolish.
I’m a big fan of helping folks become self-sufficient and while I need to forgive those who harm me, I expect my government to take decisive action against folks who want to kill or enslave us.
And by that I do not mean strongly-worded #hashtags, I mean put ’em in a hole and put dirt on ’em.
From a distance by ICBMs is okay. Up close with A-10s is okay as long as we have the folks willing to do that.
And as a non-GOP voter, I want to see who’s running before I settle for Cruz… 😉
Speaking of strongly worded hashtags, check out #TheChalkening.
It’s a shame that college kids are running out of safe spaces.