Donald Trump Calls for South Korea to Pay 100% of US Troop Costs
I am not sure why Trump continues to go after South Korea on this issue, when it comes to freeloading US allies South Korea is not the best example to use in my opinion:
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said Wednesday that South Korea should pay for all costs related to U.S. troop presence in the country. Trump made the remark in an interview with CNN, reiterating his long-running argument that the U.S. should be prepared to let allies defend themselves unless they pay more for American defense support. “Why not a 100 percent?” Trump said as the interviewer pointed out that Seoul already shoulders about 50 percent of the cost.
Asked if he meant that countries like South Korea, Japan and Germany should pick up all the expenses, Trump said, “Of course they should pick up all the expense. Why are we paying for this?” Trump also said the U.S. should be “prepared to walk” unless allies pay more, referring apparently to the potential troop withdrawal. In that case, the countries should defend themselves “against North Korea (where) we have a maniac.” “If they don’t take care of us properly, if they don’t respect us enough to take care of us properly, then you know what will have to happen? Very simple, they’re going to have to defend themselves,” he said. [Yonhap]
You can read the rest at the link.
“If they don’t take care of us properly, if they don’t respect us enough to take care of us properly, then you know what will have to happen? Very simple, they’re going to have to defend themselves,”
—– end quote —–
Folks, is this really the man you want as our Commander-in-Chief?
Bringing back all the GI’s from Asia and Europe… hmm…. what’s going to happen to all the GI’s? There’s hundreds of thousands of them. Where are they going to be housed? Or are they going to lose their jobs?
The art of the deal? If Trump becomes President, one thing you can bet on is that negotiations with the ROKs over cost sharing won’t be the same. They will, of course, want to keep the 50% deal they currently have. But with Trump now putting them on notice that it will no longer be business as usual if he is President ~ they will probably be much more inclined to accept a 75/25 or 80/20 arrangement.
@guitard, even if Trump was to get a cost sharing deal worked out more favorable to the US it would likely come at the expense of less fighter jets or other weapon systems being bought from US manufacturers. Does anyone think a ROK politician could survive an election by cutting domestic programs to give another billion to the US?
GUITARD asked:
While Mr. Trump may have had some success with closed door inter-company negotiations and deal making, I don’t think he’s ever had to figure on the impact of nationalistic responses when you appear to bully, demean and insult entire countries in public while trying to have things your way.
There’s a reason most diplomatic successes come from private meetings and are classified.
He’ll have as much luck getting Korea to contribute more for our troop presence as he will getting Mexico to pay for that “f*cking wall.”
I wish we stiil had numbered comments.
Mexico WILL pay for the wall… and they don’t even see it coming.
There is so much money leaving America and going to Mexico that there are plenty of ways to make Mexico “pay”.
Cutting off half billion dollars in yearly foreign aid would be a tiny start.
A 15% tax on the 26 billion dollars that illegal Mexicans send back to Mexico each year would pay for The Wall within one term… even at the intentionally-inflated highest estimates.
While raising minimum wage has a lot of unintended (or fully intended) consequences for small business, it might save a ton of money on reduced welfare when Americans find they WILL do those Jobs Americans Won’t Do when they pay above third world wages.
There are a number of other directions to look into as well… from reinterpreting aspects of NAFTA more favorable to America to changing aspects of the drug war so less cash goes to Mexico to recognizing the constant violations of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and then bombing Mexico City until they call off their sappers and pay reparations.
Also…
While Trump is likely laying the groundwork for good negotiations…
“What? Trump wants us to pay 100%? Oh, he will settle for 70%? We better shut up and take it while domestically bragging about our good negotiation skills.”
…if a country is foolish enough to kick America out and go back to paying 100% of the cost of vastly inferior defense, those surplus American soldiers could do some real-world live-fire training in the deserts of America’s southern border.
Side note: Trump will likely have bean counters making excellent studies of what American defense is worth to each country in terms of defense quality and savings in building and maintaining their own first-class military… and will base his cost sharing demands off of this rather than an arbitrary 50%. The other countries will do the same… and recognize paying more is still a good deal… and will market it internally to their own dumbed-down populations as is necessary.
This all seems so simple from a business/accounting/logic point if view.
It is amazing how many people deny these things are possible and rationalize away current systems based on corruption, crony capitalism, corporate welfare, tradition biased on outdated notions, etc.
Trump isn’t going to solve every problem or accomplish every goal… but he may get a few things pointed in the right directions… which is better than anyone else is proposing.
With luck, his successes will bring about a trend of expectations to put American interests over those of foreign countries, loud special interest groups, and multinational corporations.
Trump’s promising to default on US Treasury bills. That’s going to go well with world’s trust in US economy which will come crumbling down as soon as Trump undermines US credibility.
It’s time for ya’ll to get a REAL job you gov’t leeches because S. Korea ain’t going to pay 100% and why should they when the “service” you provide is low grade/PATHETIC? Now, even though Trump is spot on here I’ll be waiting for him to give a commencement speech next May at a university like Howard as your President Barack Obama did today(I’ll provide the link somewhere later).
FYI Dumbhead, the “wall” will not be built in Texas(land owners don’t want it and laws won’t allow it) nor would it serve its supposed purpose as it will not keep your hatred for Mexicans etc…out and for you to try and justify it is nonsense unless your Drumpf makes you pay for another one along the Canada border. 🙄
I would be in favor of a Canada border wall if illegally immigrating Canadians were a big problem.
Then again, a mass invasion of people from an overpolite, compatible, successful culture might not be such a bad thing for the U.S. Maybe just a border wall with French Canada would do in that case.
The Drumpf Wall is dumber than an electric waffle iron for every American citizen(for your wall lovers little mind)…
John Oliver/HBO
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vU8dCYocuyI
What’s that smell? Fear? I smell it from a lot of folks who bend into all sorts of contortions to excuse Hillary’s illegal server and the Obama admin covering up for her–and then accuse the GOP of lesser sins…
There are two types of Americans now…
…those who are sick of all the shyt and those too stupid to recognize all the shyt.
…well… three types… the ones perpetuating all the shyt.
…and 10 more… those who understand binary and those who do not.
@GIKorea
“even if Trump was to get a cost sharing deal worked out more favorable to the US it would likely come at the expense of less fighter jets or other weapon systems being bought from US manufacturers.”
For a second I thought you were talking about the $1.33 billion Airbus A330 MRTT deal the ROK signed last year … but then I remembered that they snubbed the US and Boeing and went with Europe and the Airbus aircraft instead – something that the ROK has been doing more and more in recent years. Not to mention, the ROK is now also in the weapons manufacturing business and is now a competitor to the US in that sector.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/international/asia-pacific/2015/06/30/south-korea-selects-airbus-military-contract/29519825/
@GIKorea
“Does anyone think a ROK politician could survive an election by cutting domestic programs to give another billion to the US?”
That politician can approach this two ways …
Korean politician: “Fellow citizens of Korea – what do you think we should do. Cough up another half billion – or go it all on our own?”
Or this …
Korean politician: “Phuck the Americans! We’re going it on our own! But just keep in mind … that sucking sound that will follow the pullout of US troops will be the billions in foreign investment leaving our country out of fear of a lack of stability on the peninsula. So don’t say I didn’t forewarn you.”
And if the ROK balks, shouldn’t an American President have to answer to the American people – millions of whom drive Hyundai and Kia cars, talk on South Korean made smart phones, and watch Korean made big screen TVs – why is a country with a $19 trillion national debt like the US paying hundreds of millions of dollars a year defending a country with a national debt that’s less than a $.5 trillion? And just to keep this in perspective – per capita the debt in the US is $59.4K – compared to $9.7K in the ROK.
http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/unitedstates
http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/southkorea
Korea is over four decades removed from being a 3rd world country. It has the 11th largest GDP in the world and can easily afford to pay a bigger chunk. Why so many people think we need to continue to coddle ‘poor little ol’ Korea’ just baffles me.
@Guitard, I am not for coddling South Korea and have been a firm advocate for South Korea paying more for their defense for years. However, I think splitting the cost 50/50 combined with the ROK buying capabilities to replace US forces is the way to go. For example they are purchasing Apaches and Patriot PAC-3 missiles. IMO, we need to get them to buy even more of this equipment to replace the USFK units also providing this capability.
We, the USA, also benefits financially from having regional stability.
If we were to pull out, it would create a vacuum, an arms race, likely nuclear proliferation and increased risk of hostilities between countries that have historically been at odds.
Not good for global markets or us economically.
@JoeC: All the more reason for the ROK to be amenable to paying a higher portion of the cost sharing.
Guitard seems to be an intelligent voice of reason here.
The region needs America maintaining local stability more than America needs the stability…
…and a good argument could be made that an unstable region would lower exports and export prices… which would help the trade deficit while allowing American industry to fill in supply gaps caused by regional instability.
An unstable region us an irritant for America. It is disaster for the region…
…and they certainly will pay a bit more for that stabilty.
In fact, they must.
It’s time to start running foreign policy like a business rather than a charity.
If we run military aid like a business maybe the US should have fixed fees for each unit it provides to a foreign country? This would get rid of cost sharing negotiations and let countries know up front what they need to pay.
Ah. A mercenary military for hire? A nationalized form of Blackwater? Countries that can afford our “services”, like Saudi Arabia can have us on station whenever they wish. Those that can afford our services have to fend for themselves.
Treaties replaced by contracts.
Next, the troops will probably have to unionize and renegotiate their share of the profits since they are the ones making most of the sacrifices.
typo: Those that can’t afford …
“If we run military aid like a business maybe the US should have fixed fees for each unit it provides to a foreign country? ”
That would be a typical bureaucratic blanket-solution knee-jerk reaction instead of clever targeted negotiation which would tailor the situation to the abilities of the nation and the interests of America.
While putting it into practice requires serious research and honest thinking, the theory is rather simple.
Figure out what a nation can pay, what it will pay, and what higher-order benefits and disadvantages there are for American interests.
Send in negotiators with a clear offer and with clear limits… and the ability and willingness to walk away if American interests are not satisfactorily served.
None of this would have to be a secret or a trick… just an offer based on the cold hard numbers of a calculator and the informed opinions of analysts free of political and corporate influence.
As it is, all of the “but the other country pays blah blah blah” is nonsense… as the actual costs to America (and benefits) can be manipulated to demonstrate whatever preconceived notion supports whatever the agenda-of-the-day is.
America needs to stop spending on the (mostly ungrateful) world and start looking after Americans… especially the productive ones.
“why is a country with a $19 trillion national debt like the US paying hundreds of millions of dollars a year defending a country with a national debt that’s less than a $.5 trillion?”
Why should ROK be punished for being fiscally responsible and not squandering trillions in wars such as Iraq?
I am curious what KJU would do if we pulled our troops out.
He’d lose everything the entire DPRK propaganda campaign has been based on for decades.
China would probably continue to use them as a screen for their hacking activities.
Liz, read Red Phoenix Burning…
@JoeC, to further expand upon Chickenhead’s idea we could also start selling corporate sponsorships for each unit. Instead of the 2nd Infantry Division in Korea it could be the Hyundai Division. We could even sell naming rights to our camps! For example instead of Camp Casey we could have Camp Samsung. 😉
@Chickenhead, by tailoring military aid based on what a nation can pay is no longer running things like business. This is basically the way things are right now with military cost sharing negotiations that determines how much a country should pay for US military aid. Right now the US government has determined that a 50/50 split with the ROK is fair and meets both countries interests.
Just for the record I don’t think military assistance should be run as a for profit business. It should be run for what is in the best interest of the United States.
@Liz, the removal of USFK and the ending of the US-ROK alliance is exactly what KJU wants. As long as the alliance is in place the Kim regime has no chance of reunification. If the ROK is left to defend for themselves the Kim regime actually has a chance of winning a conflict which makes war even more likely. That is why USFK is so critical to maintaining regional stability.
GI… i believe if the beans were counted accurately, Korea could pay more… and Korea would pay more… and Korea should pay more.
50/50 is obviously an arbitrary number.
I have said nothing of for-profit… but I believe America can get a better deal and cut the loss.
Again, part of the calculus is to consider American interests as well as American finances… but consider it a bit more honestly without the corporate welfare and foreign lobbiests involved.
While a country can’t pay more than it can pay, it is likely many countries aren’t paying as much as they can pay.
Maybe regional stability to insure cheap products flood the American market and kill American factories is the plan. Maybe satisfying the Walmart lobbiests is the plan.
Hard to know.
Unless America is going to inflate it away or war it away, the current financial situation can’t go on forever… and there does not seem to be a clever plan in the works.
Every value-added revenue stream and every global resource needs to be identified and exploited…
…much as the Chinese are doing from the mines of Africa to man-made islands in the South China Sea.
I’m not sure why all the resistance to this concept… be it childish Trump Said It So I Believe the Opposite… to the lack of Sun Tsu negotiating skills where good research and planning has won the battle before it has started.
There is nothing wrong with trying to get a better deal… closer to what it would take a country to develop and maintain an American-quality military.
…unless you lack faith in the quality of the American military.
@Denny
“Why should ROK be punished for being fiscally responsible and not squandering trillions in wars such as Iraq?”
non se·qui·tur
/ˌnän ˈsekwədər/
noun
noun: non sequitur; plural noun: non sequiturs; noun: nonsequitur; plural noun: nonsequiturs
a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.