Condolences to his friends and family:
A 2nd Infantry Division soldier who worked as a mortuary affairs specialist was found dead Sunday in his barracks room, the Army said Thursday. The cause of death is under investigation.
Staff Sgt. Deontae D. Allen, 27, of Kansas City, Mo., was found unresponsive and pronounced dead at the scene on Camp Humphreys by emergency medical personnel on Sunday, according to a press release.
Stars & Stripes
You can read more at the link.
The Stars & Stripes has an article about the curfew ending and here is a quote from the Provost Marshall on Osan Airbase I found interesting:
“We continue to be disappointed with the actions of a few individuals, mainly soldiers going out and getting into fights at night,” provost marshal Col. John Fivian told Stars and Stripes on Monday at USFK headquarters on Camp Humphreys.
He said problems were more noticeable in South Korea because troops who get into trouble are usually turned over to their commands; in the U.S., they would be dealt with by local authorities.
Stars & Stripes
I am sure the Provost understands this, but if servicemembers are arrested off base it is more nuanced than stating they are just handed over to their commands. Here is what the SOFA says:
The US retained custody until the completion of all judicial proceedings, including appeals prior to 2001. Under the revised SOFA, the ROK may now receive custody upon indictment if it requests in any one of twelve categories of serious cases. Such cases include murder, rape, kidnapping, arson, drug trafficking or manufacturing, robbery with a dangerous weapon, and cases of assaults, drunk driving or fleeing the scene of an accident that result in death. In very serious cases of murder or rape, if the Korean police arrest a SOFA accused in the act, in hot pursuit, or before he or she returns to military control, they may retain custody.
US-ROK SOFA Pamphlet
For minor crimes, yes servicemembers are usually handed over back to their commands, but for major crimes the Korean authorities can keep them in custody.
As I have been saying the U.S. was never going to get $5 billion from the ROK and they likely knew this, to pressure them in other areas such as increased weapons purchases and environmental clean up costs:
The top U.S. negotiator in defense cost-sharing talks with South Korea said Wednesday that his team is “not focused on” its initial demand for a five-fold increase to US$5 billion in Seoul’s financial contributions to the upkeep of American troops here.
In an interview with the Korean press corps, James DeHart also pointed out that South Korea’s weapons purchases from the United States are an “important consideration for us in the burden-sharing context.”
DeHart and his South Korean counterpart, Jeong Eun-bo, held the latest round of two-day negotiations in Seoul this week but failed to narrow the gaps over how much Seoul should pay next year and beyond for the stationing of the 28,500-strong U.S. Forces Korea (USFK).
“I do want to say, very importantly, there have been some big figures that have been repeated many times in the Korean media, and those figures do not reflect where we are in our discussions with the ROK today,” he said. ROK stands for South Korea’s official name, the Republic of Korea.
Yonhap
You can read more at the link, but if the Trump administration gets a $1 billion extra in weapons purchases and Seoul to fold on environmental clean up demands of closed out US bases will the critics give credit to Trump?
It is pretty clear that Seoul is going to end up paying more, it is just a matter of how much more are they willing to pay:
South Korea’s top negotiator in defense cost-sharing talks with the United States has said the allies have failed to produce a concrete result in this week’s negotiations as Washington’s demand for a sharp increase in Seoul’s share remains unchanged.
Jeong Eun-bo made the remarks Thursday following the fourth round of talks in Washington on Tuesday and Wednesday over how to share the cost of stationing the 28,500-strong U.S. Forces Korea under the cost-sharing accord, called the Special Measures Agreement (SMA).
“At this point, we are in a situation where we need to continue to narrow our differences. It is not that we have reached a concrete result,” Jeong told reporters at Dulles International Airport.
“It is right to say that the U.S. maintains its position,” he added.
Yonhap
You can read more at the link.
Here is the latest on the US-ROK cost sharing negotiations:
South Korea’s chief negotiator for the defense cost-sharing issue with the United States dismissed speculations of a possible withdrawal of the United States Forces Korea (USFK) from South Korea.
Korea Times
“The possible USFK withdrawal from South Korea wasn’t an issue,” South Korean official Jeong Eun-bo told reporters after closing the fourth round of defense cost negotiations with his U.S counterpart at the State Department, Washington D.C., Wednesday morning (KST).
Jeong added he and his U.S. counterpart didn’t delve into the specifics of recent remarks made by U.S. President Donald Trump in London regarding the fate of the USFK. About 28,500 U.S. troops are currently stationed in South Korea.
Here is what President Trump had to say recently about the US-ROK alliance:
In London, Trump, who attended an event to mark the 70th anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), said it’s up for debate whether maintaining the USFK is in Washington’s national security interest. “It can be debated and I can go either way and make arguments both ways,” Trump told reporters.
Korea Times
Not surprisingly, the U.S. president asked South Korea to make fairer financial contributions and claimed he was able to extract an additional $500 million from Seoul last year for U.S. “protection,” adding Washington wants additional commitments.
You can read more at the link.
An anonymous presidential aide from the Blue House is criticizing the Trump administration’s attempt to get South Korea to pay more for the upkeep of USFK:
Political analysts said the exit of Mattis, who had once been described as one of the “adults in the room,” meant there were no people in the administration protecting the country from Trump’s worst impulses.
Korea Times
“South Korea was ready to pay more; however, Trump was asking too much. Also, Washington seemed to pay less attention to the U.S.-South Korea alliance, from Seoul’s standpoint, because South Korea wanted it to play some role in resolving the ongoing feud with japan. Trump has been treating its key allies as a piggy bank with his demands, which I believe is not a good thing,” a presidential aide told The Korea Times, last week.
The aide said the South Korea-U.S. alliance was at a major crossroads as Trump’s continued insistence that Seoul should pay more for the U.S. military presence as a key deterrent to North Korea has “tested Seoul’s confidence” in the U.S.
Some civic groups are calling for a drastic shift in the alliance with the United States including a possible withdrawal or a drastic reduction of the USFK.
A recent survey by the Korea Institute for National Unification released last week showed 96 percent of South Koreans were against paying more for the U.S. military presence.
You can read more at the link, but the civic groups calling for the withdrawal of USFK are the usual leftist groups. These groups want USFK to withdraw because that is part of the master strategy they seek of a confederation with North Korea. This won’t happen as long as the US-ROK alliance exists.
Via a reader tip comes this news that Itaewon is experiencing major economic problems in the aftermath of the relocation of Yongsan Garrison:
Retail businesses in Itaewon area are struggling due to soaring rent and the economic slowdown. Youngsters and foreigners still visit the area for drinks and partying at night, but activity is completely different during the daytime.
Korea Times
“A tenant store owner asked for the rent to be lowered several months ago. He said his brunch store was losing customers so he couldn’t pay the current rent,” said a Gyeongnidan building landlord surnamed Lee. Gyeongnidan is one of Itaewon’s neighborhoods, known for its cafes, bakeries and restaurants.
“He and I agreed to keep the rent at the current level for now. However, he is likely to shut down his business soon if it fails to attract more customers.”
According to the Korea Appraisal Board, the vacancy rate of medium- and large-sized stores in Itaewon area stood at 26.5 percent as of the second quarter of this year.
Medium- and large-sized stores here refer to business venues with a gross floor area larger than 330 square meters, and the vacancy rate in Itaewon is the highest among Seoul’s major business districts.
Experts said the Yongsan Relocation Plan to redeploy U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) personnel south to Camp Humphreys in Pyeongtaek, Gyeonggi Province, was another reason behind the soaring vacancies in the area.
You can read more at the link, but first of all USFK has nothing to do with the poor economic conditions overall in South Korea. Additionally the way I look at this is that the local government and shop owners in Itaewon have known for years the relocation was coming. If they did not adjust their business models and practices to prepare for that day that is their problem, not USFK’s.
We all know that President Trump wants South Korea to pay more for the US-ROK alliance upkeep. This is nothing new, however this guy needs to sell a book which of course means coming up with a quote that make Trump look crazy. When are people going to learn not to take President Trump’s outbursts literally as he wanting $60 billion a year from South Korea. From the quote, I read it as he wants South Korea to pay much more for US-ROK alliance upkeep fees and just threw out a big number to make his point:
U.S. President Donald Trump called South Korea a “major abuser” and claimed the U.S. ally should pay US$60 billion a year for the stationing of American troops in the country, according to a memoir published Tuesday.
Guy Snodgrass, former chief speechwriter and communications director to former U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis, made the revelation in his new book, “Holding the Line: Inside Trump’s Pentagon with Secretary Mattis,” as he recounted two meetings between Trump and his national security team at the Pentagon in July 2017 and January 2018.
According to Snodgrass, Trump repeatedly questioned the value of stationing U.S. troops overseas and asked top officials, including then-Defense Secretary Mattis and then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, whether the troops could be withdrawn from countries such as South Korea, Japan and Germany.
“It’s a losing deal!” Trump was quoted as saying in January 2018. “If (South Korea) paid us $60 billion a year to keep our troops overseas, then it’s an okay deal.”
Yonhap
You can read more at the link.
Here is an editorial in the Korea Times about the USFK curfew issue written by someone named Andrea Plate who describes herself as a clinical social worker. There is a lot to break down in this editorial which I attempt to do:
“We are Ambassadors who represent our country on and off duty,” General Robert Abrams, commander of U.S. Forces Korea (USFK), tweeted over the summer about his decision to continue the curfew suspension for further review of troop behavior and morale, rather than permanently revoke it.
The good general was referring to a sordid news story ― one that was bad for Abrams’ reputation, for the 28,500 American troops stationed on the Korean Peninsula and for the South Korean citizenry. Just five weeks earlier, the 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. curfew had been lifted for a 90-day trial run.
But then an intoxicated soldier attempted to steal a taxi and assault a Korean police officer. He was tasered, turned over to the U.S. military and charged with assault. Procedurally, everything went as it should have, according to the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the host country and the U.S. military.
Korea Times via a reader tip
As I have always said to expect no crime out of a population of 28,500 people is not realistic. Crime is going to happen especially when you are dealing with a population of young males that statistically get in more trouble than other demographics. What matters is how they are dealt with and USFK handled the case as they should of.
“A majority of our service members do the right thing,” a seemingly defensive Gen. Abrams remarked. But the majority does not rule when it comes to the USFK. Why didn’t Abrams rescind the curfew for good, as the troops had hoped? “To ensure we are making the correct decision,” he demurred.
Provost Col. Marshall Fivian tried to further explain: The number of violent and disruptive crimes perpetrated by USFK troops had not changed significantly since the curfew had been lifted. Meaning, it hadn’t dropped.
General Abrams in my opinion is just being prudent to gather data before making a final decision one way or another on this issue.
Where there is hysteria, there is history. The curfew was imposed on the USFK, following the 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. First billed as a “readiness recall, the message was clear: Attention, soldiers! Protect and defend! (plus, the unspoken, implied threat: Quit getting drunk! Leave the locals alone!).
It is not true that there wasn’t a curfew before the 9/11 attacks. There was a curfew in place for the 2nd Infantry Division before 9/11. However, each unit did have a limited number of Warrior Passes that could be given out to high performing soldiers. So there were still soldiers outside the gate passed curfew who had these passes.
No one likes a curfew. The word itself has a tortured etymological history, from Old French (“cuevrefeu” meant “to cover” and “fire”) to Middle English (“a regulation requiring people to extinguish fires at a fixed hour in the evening, or a bell rung at a particular hour”) to today’s troops’ interpretation: “Unfair,” and “Wish I’d been sent to Japan.”
I guess she is not aware that US troops in Japan have their own version of a curfew and troops on Okinawa are routinely hit with even more restrictions after incidents happen.
Nevertheless, the initial curfew held for nine years, was suspended for one, then slapped back a year later in 2011, when news broke that two intoxicated soldiers had committed two high-profile rapes of two very young girls.
The public was enraged, of course. Attacked by their supposed protectors! By comparison, South Korean troops are more disciplined.
Of course she offers no evidence that ROK military troops commit less crime than USFK personnel. I hope she realizes that ROK military troops commit crimes as well. Once again there is going to be crime that occurs with a large population of personnel. How it is handled is what matters.
One might wonder whether the June announcement that the Combined Forces Command (CFC) would relocate to Camp Humphreys ― a safer 77.4 kilometers from the central city ― might temporarily calm some citizens’ nerves (although some U.S. military personnel have expressed concern regarding USFK military readiness and effectiveness).
In theory with more troops PCSing to Korea with their families instead of on one year unaccompanied tours this should further reduce incidents and is maybe why General Abrams is continuing to gather information before making a final curfew decision.
But the move would not happen overnight. Leave it to the U.S. military and the Department of Defense to come up with a quick interim fix: a four-hour curfew (1 a.m. to 5 a.m.). Leave it to the U.S. federal government to make an already slippery slope more slippery, even slipshod.
Curfew penalties can lead to verbal warnings at the very least ― if caught, of course. But while “courtesy patrols” ― duos of U.S. military and Korean National Police ― readily roam the streets of hotspot Itaewon, they do far less at less alluring locations. Is that fair to the troops, or to the hard-working businesspersons whose livelihoods depend on thrill-seeking military men?
In my experience I have never seen anyone picked up for a curfew violation by the military police get a simple verbal reprimand. It has always been an Article 15 action.
It was all so confusing! Can Korean-born spouses of American soldiers roam free? (Yes, although there’s no such written rule). Can individual commanders impose unit curfews at will? (Yes, despite the overall rule). Can exceptions be made? Yes, no and it depends on the case. What’s a Rubik’s cube compared to a giant ball of government red tape?
Truth is, American soldiers are unstoppable. They sneak past restrictions by hiding out in cars and bathrooms at 24-hour coffee shops.
Or, as an exasperated contributor wrote on Rally Point, the American online professional network dubbed “LinkedIn for the military,” some are “compulsive curfew violators,” like the private first class who was demoted for human trafficking but somehow kept his convoy going: “No amount of time spent with the military police deterred him.”
DoD civilian personnel are not subject to the curfew so what does it matter if the spouse is Korean or not? Also I don’t doubt some soldiers hideout after curfew but what evidence does she have this is a widespread practice?
Because you can fight crime, but you can’t fight military culture. Alcohol runs thicker than blood among the troops. Group binges breed feelings of brotherhood, manhood, machismo.
In time, military culture will change ― when more women step up to serve and are promoted; when more military occupation specialties (MOS) are opened to women; when substance abuse and military sexual trauma treatments are integrated into military training. But that will take decades.
The Army’s MOSs are already open to women and US troops receive repeated sexual assault and substance abuse training. Units have to track by name who has attended this training to ensure compliance.
In the meantime, our Armed Forces must remain strong and cannot afford further shrinkage. Fewer opportunities for fun could prompt fewer men to enlist (word gets around). A total 8.3 million served during World War II; roughly 1,055,600 (active duty and reserves) serve today.
During World War II the US military was fighting a global war against multiple enemies that required conscription. There is now no longer a need for such a large military or conscription.
What will happen Dec. 17, when the trial suspension period ends? Will the curfew be permanently levied, or lifted?
We know what the soldiers want. And their families. And the contract workers. And even some officers who take great pride in the troops, for all their human imperfections.
Maybe General Abrams will lift the curfew in time for Christmas or maybe he won’t. We will see, with that said is anyone else confused on what the overall point of this editorial is because it seems to ramble all over the place?
