Another Perspective
Letting Go
Who is responsible for South Korea’s defense?
South Korean defense minister Kim Tae-young wants his nation to initiate a pre-emptive assault if it appears that the North is preparing a nuclear attack. The Republic of Korea “should immediately launch a strike,” said Kim.
Such a policy makes obvious sense. However, it leads to the question: if the ROK is strong enough to initiate war, why does the U.S. continue to defend the South?
The U.S.-South Korean mutual defense treaty dates back to 1953, after the Korean War ended in stalemate. Only American military support then preserved the ROK’s independence in the face of the heavily militarized Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, backed by China and the Soviet Union.
However, that world long ago disappeared. There is no more Soviet Union. Today’s China would not support North Korean aggression. And South Korea vastly outmatches the decrepit DPRK on virtually every measure of national power. Pyongyang has a bigger military, but the South’s quality counterbalances the North’s quantity.
Moreover, Seoul is capable of doing far more. With an economy ranked in the world’s top 15, South Korea has roughly 40 times the GDP of the North, strong high-tech industries, and ample international credit; the South also possesses twice the population of its northern antagonist. In short, Seoul can easily outmatch Pyongyang.
Why are nearly 30,000 U.S. troops still on station?
The DPRK recently proposed signing a peace treaty with the U.S. to replace the existing armistice agreement. Washington demurred, explaining that normal relations were impossible until Pyongyang abandoned its nuclear program. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley stated: “We’re not going to pay North Korea to come back to the six-party process.”
But a peace treaty should not be seen as a reward for the North. Rather, it would simply formalize the end of hostilities 57 years late. Whether Washington should open diplomatic relations or end economic sanctions are different questions.
Agreeing to discuss terms of peace would offer two benefits. The first would be to place the U.S. and the DPRK, and perhaps also Seoul, in a simple negotiation where the outcome could benefit all sides. The issue is mostly symbolic — the North obviously would remain a danger even if it signed such a treaty. But eliminating today’s formal state of war might advance talks with Pyongyang.
Admittedly, the odds of reaching an enforceable denuclearization agreement are slim. Nuclear weapons provide the North with numerous benefits. The best hope is pushing for a “grand bargain” backed by China. Even then the odds that the Kim regime, facing a leadership transition, would give up its most potent weapon are slim at best. But given the lack of good alternatives — military strikes could trigger a full-scale war while enhanced sanctions would require Beijing’s consent — the diplomatic effort is worth pursuing, despite the scant chance of success.
The second benefit of such an agreement is more particular to the U.S. There’s no reason, even during a formal state of war, for America to defend the South. The argument for a U.S. defense guarantee looks even weaker if the parties officially end today’s state of hostilities.
Washington already is reducing its role. U.S. troop levels have fallen from 36,000 to 28,500 over the last decade. In 2012 the Pentagon will turn over wartime operational command (OPCON) of Korean forces to Seoul.
It’s time to finish the process, pulling out the rest of America’s troops and ending Washington’s security guarantee. Despite efforts to refashion and “strengthen” the alliance, its raison d’être has disappeared.
The protection of the ROK always was vital to the ROK. With the Cold War over, South Korea’s security no longer is of great concern to Washington. There is no international communist menace behind a potential North Korean attack.
Moreover, threats against the South are fading: a decrepit North increasingly is incapable of winning a war. Neither Japan nor China has any interest in conflict; even a more aggressive and powerful Beijing is not likely to resort to arms against the ROK. And Seoul is capable of creating a potent defense.
About the Author
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author and editor of several books, including The Politics of Plunder: Misgovernment in Washington (Transaction).
Letter to the Editor View all comments (67) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Doug Bandow
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/01/25/letting-go
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Ray| 1.25.10 @ 7:21AM
"The U.S.-South Korean mutual defense treaty dates back to 1953, after the Korean War ended in stalemate"
The Korean war never ended. There was never a peace agreement, an official end to that war. There was only an armistice, a temporary cease fire that can change at any time. You do understand that both countries maintain an armed military presence alone the demilitarized zone, right? That's not a mutually recognized international border. That's a mutually agreed "no fire" zone. There's a BIG difference between the two.
Since the war isn't actually over, it is our responsibility to insure that North Korea abides by the armistice, They're not going to do that if they believe that America will not uphold it's agreement in that armistice and leave. After all, The North already proven their hostility towards the South when they invaded in the 50's. The armistice didn't end that hostility, it just stopped the killing.
Ray| 1.25.10 @ 7:41AM
By the way, it is interesting to note that North Korea has officially withdrawn from that armistice. They announced the withdrawal on May 27, 2009. Do you REALLY believe now is a good time for America to remove it's military forces from the DMZ?
Right now there is NO AGREEMENT t all between North and South Korea. No Peace Agreement, no Armistice, Nothing! Our troops, and our military might, is the ONLY thing keeping the two sides from shooting at each other and preventing tens, or hundreds, of thousands of people from dying in war. Now is the WORST time to be leaving Korea..
TIm| 1.25.10 @ 8:48AM
The point of the article is that the South can defend themselves. Why should we garrison the penninsula eternally and at great expense?
Ray| 1.25.10 @ 11:11AM
It not a question of being able to defend themselves, it's a question of PREVENTING the resumption of war altogether.
Len| 1.25.10 @ 6:34PM
Ray, you and the author (though he meanders close to it) both miss the important point; Congress is authorized to declare in order to defend the states that compose the USA. To act outside of that authority is to make us their subjects, dependent on their whims, rather than our our agents acting in our interests. You, nor any other individual wishing us to be some international police force have the right to usurp my consent to do other than what has been granted.
At no time was North Korea a threat to us, and certainly not even poised to attack us, thus there was never cause to send our military over there in the first place. It is our liberty that the federal government is to preserve and protect, but when those entrusted with power for such act outside their grants of powers, then our liberty is taken away, and we exist to enable those ruling over us.
Bill| 1.25.10 @ 9:26AM
The same holds true for Europe. Why do we also need to be there? Let the socialists protect their precious Euro. I believe the greens would like us to go along with the communists. The group that doesn’t want us to go are the bankers in Brussels.
Tim| 1.25.10 @ 9:50AM
It seems like madness to periodically have rounds of base closing in our own country when we maintain massive garrisons in Germany. I agree with you that the Germans want our bases for economic value, not because they fear the Russians.
Nato, remember?| 1.25.10 @ 11:17AM
Those bases in Germany, and in other European countries, are NATO bases, remember? They are here to prevent Europe from starting another war. We DIDN'T garrison any troops after WWI, and look what happened over 50 million people died. There hasn't been another war any place in Europe where we have stated out troops after WWII. Based upon Europe's history, do you think that's just a coincidence? After serving in Germany in the 80's, I can tell you that it's not.
Bill| 1.25.10 @ 5:06PM
Nato, remember. Thank you for your service. However, NATO was formed to defend the European states from the Soviet block. It wasn't there to keep the Europeans from fighting with one another.
Unfortunately, the European socialists have accomplished everything that Hitler wanted, one country, one currency and, eventually, one leader. And all without a shot being fired. Our fallen countrymen from WWII are rolling over in their graves.
Tom| 1.25.10 @ 5:26PM
"Unfortunately, the European socialists have accomplished everything that Hitler wanted, one country, one currency and, eventually, one leader. "
I am assuming this is hyperbole. I am no fan of most of Europe but to compare modern Europe with Nazi Germany is a wee bit much.
Bill| 1.25.10 @ 7:35PM
Tom, apparently you miss "And all without a shot being fired. " Hitler murdered and maimed so he could institute his vision of socialism. The modern day progressives did it their way.
Tom| 1.26.10 @ 5:08AM
Bob,
No, what I missed was the racial purity inherent inNazi Fascism. It is hardly present in modern Europe. Nor are death camps, forced labor, and scads of other aspects of Nazi germany. The modern Euro-Socialist 'utopia' is stifling but it is hardly Nazi Germany.
Tom| 1.26.10 @ 7:56AM
Bill,
Sorry about mixing up your name. I should never post pre-first cup of coffee.
victor| 1.25.10 @ 7:52PM
Bill:
" However, NATO was formed to defend the European states from the Soviet block. It wasn't there to keep the Europeans from fighting with one another."
Aren't you forgetting just who comprised the Warsaw Pact nations?
From Russia to East Germany, weren't they called Europeans?
By US, the US, backing Nato, we prevented the Warsaw Pact, backed by the Soviet Union, from attacking the western nations.
Yes, Bill, war WAS prevented. Until such time as Ronald Reagan precipitated the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, otherwise, the West would be fighting the East.
Maximumrandb| 1.25.10 @ 11:02AM
Ray is corrcet, for the reasons he cites.
Some other points:
S. Korea, as do Japan and Germany, pay much of the cost of our troops in those countries.
Our troops are a "tripwire." If North Korea, almost invariably with Chinese support, attacks S. Korea they will be attacking us as well. That may have been a major reason they have not attacked over the past decades.
Also, I would not grant China's intentions as benign as Mr. Bandow might. There is a good possibility of an internal upheaval in China (and North Korea, for that matter). Dictatorships have a habit of creaing external threats to cement their hold on power, e.g. Galtieri in Argentina in '82, Chavez today against Colombia, China's own periodic threats to invade Taiwan. I do not trust China.
Ray| 1.25.10 @ 11:22AM
"Our troops are a "tripwire." "
That is correct. Our troops are known as a "buffer force" which is used to keep the opposing sides from attacking each other. Since it is enevitable that we will have to intervene in any war that may erupt, is wise to keep those wars from occurring.
It's far better to spend a billions dollars a year preventing a war than to lose tens of thousands of Americans dying in a war.
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.25.10 @ 11:16AM
Doug,
Maximumrand has it right above. Please don't give Obama ideas.
We need "American skin in the game" around the globe if we want to continuing pax Americana.
I do NOT want to depend on the UN for squat.
"Tripwire" American military forces are the "security blankets" around the world. I shall gladly pay my share (taxes) to keep them healthy.
William R| 1.25.10 @ 2:37PM
Spoken like a true Neocon. We are broke and can no longer afford to defend nations that can do it themselves. Are we going to be a Republic or an Empire? A strong defense that defends the United States.
victor| 1.25.10 @ 8:13PM
Were you saying that in the 80's when Reagan was bankrupting the Soviet Union?
We are not broke, we have too many unnecessary obligations and Foreign Policy is not one of them.
We aren't supposed to be nursemaids, but rather big brothers to those who need our help.
Norman Rogers | 1.25.10 @ 12:09PM
Mr. Bandow,
U.S. troops could be in South Korea solely to keep the South Koreans from starting a war with the North. Have you ever considered that possibility?
Dai Alanye | 1.25.10 @ 2:39PM
The article simply reflects realities. US troops are needed in many other places than Korea, Germany and the Balkans. We need not, in fact, bother with peace treaties or formal agreements but simply inform the host nations we are pulling out. After all, not only South Korea but Japan, Taiwan, China, Russia, the Philippines, etc, etc should be more concerned about a nuclear North Korea than us. Not that nuclear proliferation is ever a matter of no concern, but that has little or nothing to do with our small force remaining in the South.
Should a tripwire be thought necessary (and I fail to see why it should) a corporal's guard could perform the function as well as a brigade.
With regard to Europe, NATO as presently constituted appears less and less helpful to the US. We should depend more on the Eastern European nations who have a greater appreciation for the dangers of an aggressive Russia than the Western Europeans. Indeed, our present concern should be more with Ukraine and the Caucasus than protecting Germany and France.
And there are, of course, those pesky Islamites to worry about. It'd be nice to have a few more resources available to deal with them.
Red Phillips | 1.25.10 @ 2:49PM
I knew this article would bring out the interventionist bitter-enders. Conservatives oppose welfare for the able bodied at home, but "conservative" interventionist are all for defense welfare for far off countries that ought to be providing for their own defense. What a joke. We will NEVER have limited government until we quit thinking it is our responsibility to police the world.
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.25.10 @ 3:38PM
Red, William R, Toddard, et al.
PRESIDENT GEORGE WASHINGTON WAS A NEOCON! GET OVER IT.
George Washington Farewell address http://www.earlyamerica.com/ea...../text.html
So many people pull Washington’s thoughts out of context, sorta’ like some people pull “proof scriptures” out of the Bible. Both are stupid.
I have linked President Washington’s entire speech here for those among us who care to know the full meaning of his last public speech. (Heh), which would never, ever, get past the TV sound-bite speeches we hear today.
Margie,
thank you so much for moving me to write this essay, and taking our sincere brothers and sisters to the source of the words that some here would distort for their own twisted
egos’ sake.
As any of you who actually read the entire speech will recognize, President Washington was speaking to the citizens of a very young, still very weak, nation. He was terrified that we would get involved in the endless European wars, and he explained precisely why here. His points are numbered here below.
37 Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
Then Mr. Washington made a very rational observation about our circumstances as a “detached and distant situation”…..
38 Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off, when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality, we may at any time resolve upon, to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel."
Each honest reader here who is educated enough to understand a compound sentence, will see Washington’s vision of a future powerful nation… a day to come for our nation…”when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.”
Finally, he wrapped up his discussion of international affairs thusly:
49 The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me, a predominant motive has been to endeavour to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency, which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes. "
In closing, please read the article 49 above caaaarefully. Never again will you be misled by some idiot using Washington’s brilliant words to deny our nation, “the command of its own fortunes”…that we have achieved and he so prayed for and envisioned.
We do police the world...we are the "peace officers" on the corner.
Somebody is going to do it. Who would you bozos rather have do it?
Red Phillips | 1.25.10 @ 4:32PM
Ken, you are so reaching it is pathetic. I BEG people to read the whole speech. It OBVIOUSLY supports the non-interventionist position. Absolutely no proof texting needed. You would really have us believe that what Washington was counseling was that we lie low in our time of weakness so we could become muscle flexing Empire builders once we were stronger. Put down the pipe and back away. He wanted America to be able to act in her own best interest out of a position of strength. This is precisely what an America First foreign policy means. It means we act in our own best interests, not as the spreaders of democracy and the keepers of world peace like some crazed ideological crusaders.
Everyone PLEASE do read the whole address and judge for yourself who is manipulating it to their own ends.
victor| 1.25.10 @ 9:14PM
Hey Red, Washington never said anything about staying home and hiding behind the curtains.
Red:
"It means we act in our own best interests, not as the spreaders of democracy and the keepers of world peace like some crazed ideological crusaders."
Washington never said anything of the sort.
What he did say was that we should avoid "permanent Alliances" and "artificial ties".
Nothing about "ideological crusaders", but everything about all encompassing alliances that were common in Europe then, the events that led to WW I and those to this day in the EU.
Washington was a keen student of History as well as a Great General, which lead him to realize where America stood in the grand scheme of things.
Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries was more than just "entangling alliances" in politics. They were entangled in heredity as well. Europe was made up of interchanging and interchangable monarchies and that is why Washington never wanted to be a king as some of his countrymen wanted.
Washington knew that the european model of "community" was all encompassing as everyone knew everyone else's business. That is why he said what he said about getting involved with their problems. Washington wanted America to stand up by itself and not owe anyone anything or expect favors in return.
BTW what would Washington say about the current state of affairs, eh? We are the greatest power on earth and not taken over the whole place?
We should preserve, protect and promote the democratic nations, no matter who they are, shan't we?
BTW all you Neo-Libs seem to have a thing for Israel, why is that?
Flee| 1.25.10 @ 3:57PM
South Korea is fully capable of defending its territory wherever it begins. The US has no vested interest in a continued presence in the DMZ. That is the point of the discussion. NK will not respect any treaty so why should we continue to abide by the armistice? The only reason they remain in their area is fear of reprisal. SK is the one they should fear not the US. I say more power to SK for asserting independence and a willingness to control their space.
Bram| 1.25.10 @ 4:01PM
"why does the U.S. continue to defend the South?"
You almost had the answer. Behind the decay of North Korea is China with a huge and fairly modern military.
If it was just North and South Korea - the south could quickly overwhelm the north and re-unify the penninusla if they wanted. The technology gap is so huge it wouldn't be much of a fight. (We had this discussion before). However, they won't because it would possibly draw China into a war.
China won't goad the North into an invasion of the south with their support becuase it would start a war with the U.S. So there the American troops will stay.
Stalemate.
Margie| 1.25.10 @ 5:12PM
Red Phillips, Toddard, et al are Ron Paul-the-Paranoid Blame America First Crowd followers.
They actually proclaim~ "The terrorists are terrorists because of the United States of America!"
Enough said!
William R| 1.25.10 @ 6:09PM
Our CIA, Paul Wolfowitz and the bipartisan 9/11 report all said our foreign policy in the region is one of the reasons we were attacked. It's so very obvious Margie doesn't have a clue.
victor| 1.25.10 @ 9:19PM
You need to cite some sources.
Blame America First and Throw Israel under the Bus!
Red Phillips | 1.25.10 @ 11:05PM
Right victor, because defending Israel is right there in the enumerated powers of the Constitution. You REALLY need to read Washington's speech. Pay particular attention to the avoiding entangling alliances and passionate attachments parts.
victor| 1.26.10 @ 10:18AM
I knew as soon as I mentioned Israel the rats would start to come out.
We already went through this, Red, we do not have the same relationship with Israel that the Europeans had in the time of Washington or even the time leading up to the First World War.
We do not exchange government leaders or anything else that GW warned about.
We are aiding and assisting an ally in the Middle East.
The real problem you have is that it is Israel and not Bulgaria, perhaps?
Richard Baker| 1.25.10 @ 6:05PM
To Hell with all this Con-nonsense/silliness. WWII is over. Naziism isn't likely to return and the Soviets are gone. Everyone back from Europe. We've supported the German economy, as an example, long enough. I enjoyed my service in Germany but enough is enough.
Regardless whether the Korean War is over on a piece of paper or not, 8th Army is no longer needed. Bring them home and stop supporting the Korean economy. I enjoyed my service in Korea but enough is enough. I trained with the ROK Army and wouldn't want to get in a fight with them unless I had to. They can more than adequately defend themselves. It's time to rid ourselves of Moslem killers and not support two healthy regions of the world anymore.
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.25.10 @ 7:41PM
Richard,
thank you for your service, sir.
Sometimes in a grumpy mood...I sorta' feel the same as you do. heh, but I hope you will read my post above again.
You did enumerate the historical threats pretty well, but I hope you will consider the new threats, (in your words, "Moslem killers") more carefully.
In the simplest terms, consider a checkers game, or a little more complex, a chess game. When you get a checker all the way across the board..."King me"
(you have a powerful piece added).
In chess, if you can move a pawn across the board, you can designate it another Queen...perhaps the most powerful piece on a chess board.
(With two queens you can kick butt in a hurry, heh)
Well go with me just a couple of more steps, please.
We have a "Queen" on the board in the evolving "Eurabia" we have been hearing about.
I like that. We have a powerful force in the Moslem flank there in Europe where they are invading......again.
ROKS? You bet they are fine men! I employed thousands of them in the middle east.
Troops in Iraq? Again, a powerful "queen" right on the doorstep of Iran...and it's "Moslem killers".
Please don't be influenced by the "Reds, and Toddards" in our life. They haven't "been there " like you and I have. They have no "zippers" to show for it like you and I have.
You fine men deterred so much agony and grief, (wars), by your very presence, most Americans can never understand.
Red,
Your stupidity and willingness to lie in our teeth is the precise reason I linked to Washington's entire speech. Yes, I highlighted and copy/pasted relevant paragraphs...and they speak for themselves, as does the entire speech.
You are obviously lying, and anyone who can read can know it now.
No, George wasn't interested...in his day...in going to Europe. Nope.
But he was intimately involved in "interventionism" looking westward (to what became the louisiana Purchase....from France) .....Duh! to assure our western flank.
One thing...you and Mr. Obama agree on. "Let's bring the troops home."
So yes, folks, do read the speech, and make your own judgements.
Cower in your holes like Red and Toddard, or be part of a "force for freedom".
Again, Red, I ask the question more simply... Who would you bozos rather have in the global power vacuum instead of us?
Pingback| 1.25.10 @ 8:58PM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Letting Go [spectator.org] on Topsy. links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Norman Rogers | 1.25.10 @ 10:07PM
"Again, Red, I ask the question more simply... Who would you bozos rather have in the global power vacuum instead of us?"
Brazil is certainly interested in the job, and if China continues to build a blue water navy, Korea will be a moot discussion.
Red Phillips | 1.25.10 @ 10:54PM
Impoverished Brazil wants to fill a "global power vacuum." Your kidding right? What are they going to do, whip out the jiu-jitsu and arm bar us all into submission? You are in fear monger fantasy land.
victor| 1.26.10 @ 10:13AM
I think you need to pay attention to what Lula is doing and who is he aligning himself with.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01.....82730.html
Red Phillips | 1.25.10 @ 10:48PM
"Red, I ask the question more simply... Who would you bozos rather have in the global power vacuum instead of us?"
Ken, I reject your premise. Your premise is inherently internationalist/globalist, and hence liberal. I want America to mind its own business and not feel some compulsion to meddle all over the world. No other country is in a position to fill some global power vacuum. Most are interested in their sphere of influence (China, Russia, India) and don’t have global megalomaniac pretensions. If they did they wouldn't spend a tiny fraction of what the US does on the military. (Economic maybe, but not militarily stationing troops all over the world. Where are Chinese troops stationed other than China, for example?)
Ken(Old Texican)| 1.25.10 @ 11:26PM
Red Phillips,
No China troops all over the globe? Precisely!
dumbbunny.
Red Phillips | 1.26.10 @ 12:38AM
Ken, perhaps you should do a little research and see how much China spends on defense vs. the US. It is a tiny amount by comparison. Why do you live in such fear Ken? Relax, I liked Red Dawn also, but it was fiction. The Russians/Chinese/Indians/Brazilians really aren't coming to get us.
victor| 1.26.10 @ 10:07AM
Better Red than Dead?
Yes, my dear Ken, Communism is actually good for you.
They are only coming here to help us.
m| 1.26.10 @ 1:33AM
it is amazing to see an article like, written on an out of context quote based on an four words( a is not a word) completely taken out of context. go to the dailynk and read defense minister Kim Tae-young complete remarks when ask about south korean security or nytimes will probably have an occidental verison for us americans. this is some sad shit passed off as journalism
Pingback| 2.10.10 @ 11:18AM
Doug Bandow » Blog Archive » Yet Again, Why are We Defending South Korea? links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Converse | 8.12.11 @ 3:25AM
is good