-
The Perils of Intervention in Syria
May 7, 2013 | 37 comments
-
America on Welfare
April 25, 2013 | 46 comments
-
Thursday Is Tax Freedom Day
April 17, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Time for Real Federalism
April 8, 2013 | 23 comments
-
Stalin Died 60 Years Too Late
March 29, 2013 | 73 comments
At Large
How Much Longer?
What is the U.S. still doing in Korea?
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently visited Seoul and declared: “We will stand with you in this difficult hour and we will stand with you always.” Always? Whatever for?
North Korea apparently sank a South Korean ship in late March in the Yellow Sea. At first observers heard the distant sound of war drums, as speculation grew about possible military retaliation.
But Seoul reacted with equanimity, even pusillanimity. It cut off all aid, which had mostly ended anyway, and trade, which mattered a little more. The government of President Lee Myung-bak also barred the North’s merchant ships from South Korean waters, an inconvenience but little more.
The South threatened to restart propaganda broadcasts across the demilitarized zone, but then temporized. And President Lee left the joint industrial park in Kaesong — a major source of hard currency for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea — untouched. No military steps were taken,
Yet the South Korean people appeared to think even these measures were excessive. In the recent local elections the ruling party lost ground. The government didn’t get the “rally around the flag” effect that it expected.
So if the government and people of the Republic of Korea don’t care much about the DPRK committing an act of war and killing 46 South Korean sailors, why should the U.S. get involved? And especially pledge eternal solidarity?
After the sinking of a South Korean ship, U.S. officials rushed to support the ROK, demand international penalties against the North, and reaffirm the American defense guarantee. The White House announced: “U.S. support for South Korea’s defense is unequivocal.”
Then Washington promised to bolster the South’s military defense and proposed joint military exercises “to ensure readiness and to deter future aggression.” There were even discussions of an American carrier joining an exercise or being stationed near the peninsula.
It’s been this way for 65 years.
A foreign policy should change to fit international circumstances. And international circumstances in Northeast Asia certainly have changed since 1945.
At the end of World War II in an almost Keystone Cops fashion the U.S. decided to divide the Korean peninsula, then a Japanese colony, with the Soviets. But Washington decided not to defend the new South Korean nation, either by providing it with heavy arms or leaving any U.S. troops. When North Korea predictably invaded, the Truman administration rushed back with American military forces and ended up fighting a bitter war with China as well lasting more than three years.
To prevent a recurrence of conflict, when the armistice was signed in 1953 the U.S. offered a security guarantee and deployed a permanent garrison. At the time only America prevented the DPRK, backed by the Soviet Union and China, from conquering the unstable and impoverished South.
But the balance of power since has shifted dramatically. The ROK took off economically in the 1980s, leaving North Korea far behind. The South now has an economy that ranks in the world’s top 13 and is thought to be 30 or 40 times as large as that of the DPRK. South Korea has become a major industrial power and producer of hi-tech goods.
Seoul also has surpassed the North as a leading diplomatic player. Even North Korea’s old allies, Moscow and Beijing, have recognized the ROK and formed close economic relationships. China has about 70 times as much trade with the South as with the DPRK. No Chinese troops are likely to come streaming forth on behalf of Pyongyang in any future war.
Only in terms of military forces does South Korea arguably lag. But it makes up in quality what it lacks in quantity. Moreover, there is nothing other than lack of will that prevents the ROK from expanding its forces. With a much larger population and industrial base, it can easily outmatch the North. Unfortunately, Seoul appears to have begun shifting its gaze to regional and international military missions, leaving it more vulnerable at home.
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 (85) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Doug Bandow
More Articles From At Large
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/06/25/how-much-longer
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
Melvin| 6.25.10 @ 6:42AM
Same could be said about the European Union. We already have treaties in place that if aggression did take place we would be there, so we don't have to necessarily sit in these Countries front yards.
Besides the next big war won't be over tanks and missiles, the primary weapon will be economic warfare.
Another Country can inflict far more damage economically than any missile could.
Alan Brooks| 6.27.10 @ 1:30AM
Be thankful for small favors:
at least Toddard only quotes Russell Kirk in blogs concerning the Mideast.
Russell Kirk, the Father of His Country.
Alan Brooks| 6.27.10 @ 5:27PM
First in war,
first in peace,
first in the hearts of his countrymen:
Russell Kirk
A. James van Hine| 6.25.10 @ 6:52AM
I'll wager that without a U. S. "occupation" the Chinese and Russians would stabilize the north. With us still there the commies will continue to turn a blind eye to the chia pet of the north. Its a cold war esqe standoff that will not result in a victory ever being declared. Never the less, I'll still be there this fall to do my part in securing the border from an invasion that will never happen.
Kenny| 6.25.10 @ 7:09AM
Yes, get out of Korea.
It is not America's job to defend everyone else.
saleboter| 6.25.10 @ 7:14AM
Why are we in Korea? Why are we in Germany?
Jim Mulcahy| 6.25.10 @ 7:57AM
We should leave. S. Korea is sufficiently prosperous that they can afford to defend themselves. We can enter into an armaments agreement that sells them weaponry. We can also, at our discretion, opt to enter a conflict on their if appropriate. Our troops there today are nothing but cannon fodder. They are not sufficient to stop a N. Korean attack, so why continue to waste the money. If our departure would destabilize the region then that may be a good thing in that Japan and China would have to rethink their actions.
davelnaf| 6.25.10 @ 8:56AM
Each time the US brings up the issue of our military presence in the ROK the South Koreans go into hysterics. When we announced the imminently sensible plan to redeploy US troops south from the DMZ the South Koreans went bonkers and the plan was shelved.
The South Koreans have been playing a game with us. Their outreach to the North was always a DOA proposition from the very first and they knew it, but they have pursued it for internal political reasons using the expense account of the US military presence in their country.
It is past time for the US to demand that the South Koreans pay in full for their own defense and if they do not we should pull out.
Doctor Right| 6.25.10 @ 9:39AM
Gee, I dunno...
To protect a prosperous and democratic ally and trading partner in a decidedly un-prosperous, undemocratic part of the world from communist tyranny, maybe...?
Big picture, folks...
LiveFreeOrDie| 6.25.10 @ 1:52PM
I tend to agree with you but at the same time when does it end? If the situation in Korea merits our continued presence then what must change before we leave? What's the advantage here? If we can't get out of S. Korea how will we ever get out of Iraq or Afghanistan?
Red Phillips | 6.25.10 @ 2:33PM
"To protect a prosperous and democratic ally and trading partner in a decidedly un-prosperous, undemocratic part of the world from communist tyranny, maybe...?"
Where exactly is protecting countries other than our own in the job description of the US we call the Constitution? Just curious.
Alan Brooks| 6.27.10 @ 1:26AM
"Where exactly is protecting countries other than our own"
Glad we agree the South was and is our own. Out of 234 years since 1776 the Confederacy only existed for four years. Hard to think of it as anything but 'our own'.
Occam's Tool| 6.29.10 @ 12:14AM
Ordinarily, I would agree with you. But the ROK has just 1 enemy, which it outnumbers and outproduces. The only reason it doesn't have a good enough military is that it lacks will. Further, protestors in the ROK have attacked American troops.
I think it's time to start gradually standing down and letting the ROK pick up more of its own defense. We subsidize Israel, but NOBODY states that the Israelis don't work superhard for their own defense. I don't see that from the ROK.
Todd| 6.25.10 @ 9:58AM
Many good points here. The U.S. can do a lot, even now with the economy. What we cannot do is protect some one who refuses to protect themselvs. The North has nukes and missles, some time in the next decade or two they will be able to reach the West Coast. I may be wrong but can they reach Alaska now? In a very few short number of years South Korea, the Middle East and Europe will not be the ones on the front lines anymore when it comes to nukes the U.S. will.
Alan Brooks| 6.27.10 @ 5:29PM
"I may be wrong but can they reach Alaska now?"
You asked a question-- how can you be wrong merely asking a question?
neo-libertarian| 6.25.10 @ 9:58AM
“Why are we still in South Korea?” We are defending one of our allies from the most heinous Communist regimes in the world; and in so doing, we are defending democracy, economic viability of the West, and freedom. You have penned the most ignorant question ever to appear in print on these pages since I have been reading and contributing. Bandow, you always say exactly the same thing; the only alteration to your dialog is the geographic location where you chose to surrender everything we stand for.
Red Phillips | 6.25.10 @ 2:48PM
Neo-libertarian, I hate to break it to you but libertarians (large and small l) are non-interventionists, so you really ought to change your name.
neo-libertarian| 6.25.10 @ 4:20PM
"Neo" (new). My former cohorts in personal freedom (none of that criminal behavior with my grandchildren, thank you), less government, and less taxes have gleefully and resoundingly thrown my "Scoop Jackson" ass under the bus years ago. I have explained to them many times (and will do so for you this once) that my creed includes "peace through superior firepower" and "the only "good" threat to democracy is the "threat on the cusp of death to democracy." You are probably ideologically correct within context but that title in this forum ALWAYS separates the wheat from the chaff. Those, such as you, segregate themselves through their knowledge and not their degree of bias. I read most of the responses, as I will read yours from now on (I suspect I already do under another moniker, John Wayne played both the character “Red Phillips” and “Rooter Cogburn”) but it streamlines the process. Example: “Red” you read,” Purple” you don’t.
andy| 6.25.10 @ 8:42PM
Your post is ridiculous.
mike | 6.26.10 @ 12:00PM
you are insane.s korea is using amerika.enough of this insanity
Alan Brooks| 6.27.10 @ 9:31PM
"(none of that criminal behavior with my grandchildren, thank you)"
Cripes.
J.C.Eaton| 6.25.10 @ 10:06AM
Geez neo, calm the hell down. The ROK general population at best doesn't give a s--t about our sacrifice, and secondly, if the ROK Army wants to, it can defend itself. Why not give your country a break!!?? Best,
neo-libertarian| 6.25.10 @ 11:12AM
J. C.
No apologies. Despite your claim, I seriously doubt whether you have any real insight as to opinions of the general population of S.K. Also, any reliance on Bando's opinion should be tempered with a little research as to how he himself establishes “worth.” You are correct, however, as to the readiness of the ROK army, they are amazing soldiers: it is as if they were stamped out of a mould manufactured from a casting of Bruce Lee. Which brings me to conclusion of why you have unwittingly defeated your own premise?
Why are those Koreans such good soldiers? To answerer that, let me address one of the most blatant misconceptions that the ilk of Bandow, and you to some degree, suffer from; the belief that we somehow would be better off (your phrase, given a break) by "standing down." Nothing readies and maintains combat battalions better than eyeballing the enemy across some demarcation. Second, if you brought those troops home they would be disbanded, either from the aspect of combat readiness or actually civilianized. They wouldn't even have access to their weapons. Third, it would probably cost as much or more to maintain them as a “non-fighting” fighting force stateside. While soldiers, airmen, and sailors suffer displacement from their loved ones it keeps them honed. Actual combat on that parallel occurs daily, our troops are ready, they are prepared, and they maintain the mental discipline needed to perform their role, defending our allies stateside exists only in the minds of pacifists such as Bandow. Do not defend him.
Occam's Tool| 6.29.10 @ 12:18AM
Our troops in Afghanistan are stretched and exhausted. Making the Koreans pay for their own defense (the Israelis do) will allow us to rotate troops through Afghanistan more frequently, allowing for more training and reducing combat fatigue. Who said anything about Stateside. We need more boots available to rotate through Afghanistan.
Thomas| 6.25.10 @ 10:14AM
People fail to understand the situation on the Korean Peninsula. The U.S. presence in the ROK is not for defense, but for deterrence.
The leadership of the DPRK is none to stable. Many within it still covet the south and, at the same time, their paranoid minds fear that the ROK would like to seize control of the north. But, the concern that any engagement with US troops would trigger the second US intervention in Korea is sobering, even to them. By the same token, the ROK has concerns that a build-up of their forces to substitute for US troops would trigger the paranoia of the northern leaders and spark an invasion, or a preemptive nuclear strike. In their regular incursions into the DMZ, the DPRK is very careful not to engage US troops. It also is an expression of the intent of the US to honor its defensive treaty commitments in the region. China had been an expanding commercial power for the last thirty years and it has been engaged in a military build-up that is all out of proportion to foreign threats and defense agreements. Its military leaders would like to project that power and, someday, will. It publicly covets Taiwan and refuses to rein in the DPRK, even though it could do so at anytime. The Maintenance of US troops in the region help to maintain the status quo.
Should the US forces be reduced and the ROK required to pay for the expense of staging US troops there? Yes. Is the ROK abusing the services of the US military in Korea? Yes. In 2008, the ROK paid 745 million dollars toward the support of US troops in-country. That was roughly 40% of the total cost of deployment and support of US forces and most of it was earmarked for payment to Korean interests. And, it was less than the ROK paid to the DPRK under the Sunshine Policy [approx. $1 billion].
The ROK should be required to pay the lion's share of deployment and maintenance costs for US personnel and some of those personnel should be redeployed. But, the US can not really afford to withdraw from the peninsula, at the present time, without risking the opening of a potential Pandora's Box of foreign affairs problems. And the leaders of the ROK know that.
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.25.10 @ 11:04AM
Thomas,
Well said, sir.
I could go on at length, but you nailed it pretty well.
Thanks
Doctor Right| 6.25.10 @ 11:09AM
It pains me to admit that I couldn't have said it better, myself.
ChuckD| 6.27.10 @ 4:27PM
Thomas,
Well said.
Occam's tool| 6.29.10 @ 12:20AM
Reasonable to keep our troops there if the ROK pays. Same in Europe. Why defend the French and Germans?
Petronius| 6.25.10 @ 10:33AM
Reduce our DoD footprints? No way. Some people inside the beltway wouldn't get paid. It's not about the troops "over there", but the contracts over here.
The problem with taking out the Norks is that North Korea is a profitless theater populated by savages. They won't quit until they are wiped out.
And no civilized nation has the stomach for that kind of killing. If the ROK's were to defeat them, the liability of reconstruction and supporting the remaining populace of mind numbed starving peasants would be daunting.
Richard Baker| 6.25.10 @ 10:38AM
Was stationed in Germany in the '70s and trained later in Korea. Enough. We need to leave Germany and Korea as soon as possible and let these folks defend themselves. Tired of supporting their economies with US money. We don't need to be the "trip-wire" anymore.
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.25.10 @ 11:10AM
Folks,
My house has never been broken into in the last 40 years...but I still keep a six-gun under the edge of my mattress.
Let's keep pax Americana in the game.
Every time...every time we fail to do that...the world goes to war.
Join SL Toddard at Fortress America at the north pole?
Doctor Right| 6.25.10 @ 11:19AM
And Ken...Isn't it interesting that BIG wars seem to follow extended periods of Democrat-Party rule in the USA?
In other words...When we project weakness, the wolves begin to stir...
...Kind of like today.
Doctor Right| 6.25.10 @ 11:17AM
In my heart, I'm with Jefferson - avoid foreign entanglements as much as possible.
Problem is, we can't just up and leave South Korea or Germany.
Reason: It's the economy, guys!
Our economic viability, and theirs, is co-dependent. We trade with them, and they trade with us. Gone are the days when the USA was a self-contained economic environment. Millions of Americans (myself included) are now employed by foreign companies that operate within our borders - and our own companies in turn employ hundreds of thousands of foreign workers in their own countries.
And that's a GOOD thing, too! I firmly believe that expanding global markets, and increasing access to wealth and prosperity for ALL people will actively prevent wars, not foster them. Even China has begun to realize that the genie is out of the bottle; they have a thriving, quasi-capitalist economy, and to try and stop it now would cause utter chaos. having tasted freedom, even in small doses, the people of China will not quietly allow themselves to be sold back into servitude without a fight.
Sure...Nationalism is always a problem. But again...When governments realize that wars and belligerence risk damaging their economies and angering their citizens, they are less likely to provoke either.
And that's why we're still in Europe, and South Korea. Put simply, we are protecting OUR OWN interests by doing so.
mike | 6.26.10 @ 12:03PM
you are insane.get out of skorea now
Alan Brooks| 6.27.10 @ 9:36PM
"s korea is using amerika"
You spelled America with a 'k', Mike.
You are giving your game away.
Bill from WV| 6.25.10 @ 12:24PM
I have an even larger question. why do we still have forces stationed in Germany, Japan and England?
The threats have changed, as have the responses to those threats.
These forces should be brought home and stationed on the sothern border and protect America and its citizens from the REAL threat to America's security today, Illegal Immigration.
Sovreign countries can now provide for their own defense without "Big Daddy" providing the on site "Big stick"!
This would eliminate the states from having to pass legislation which requires them to do the job that the Federal government should be doing!
As well as saving the United States billions in costs to keep this bases open overseas.
Can I have an "AMEN"???
JS| 6.25.10 @ 1:08PM
No you may not have an amen.
And the reason you can't is because you are as wrong today as a neo-isolationist and the original isolationists were wrong in their day. I'm not going to rehash the points made by contributors Dr. Right, fellow Texan Ken, and Richard Baker. They all hit the nail on the head.
Also, read up on posse comitatus. We can't just put troops on the Mexican border- even though I would like to. Texas is blessed to have a natural border, albeit a small one to help deter some crossing. The other border states have nothing. Read the El Paso paper online to see how many people are killed in Juarez every day. Mexico is imploding and will be a full fledgedd narco-terrorist state in the near future. However, we still can't station troops (as I understand the statute) on the border without some declaration. And that declaration ain't a gonna come from this administration.
I agree our troops in Europe need to be repositionsed to places like Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, etc. for two reasons: to keep the thugs in Russia in check and to defund the idiots that make up Germany, Italy and the rest of Western Europe..
Ray| 6.25.10 @ 4:36PM
"why do we still have forces stationed in Germany, Japan and England?"
Those are NATO bases, remember? It makes sense to station our NATO aligned troop in NATO bases, does it not. The real question is: Why don't our NATO allies have bases HERE?
Red Phillips | 6.25.10 @ 1:59PM
Thank the Good Lord for Mr. Bandow's non-interventionist wisdom among a sea of interventionist foolishness.
Perhaps while I'm congratulating Mr. Bandow for bringing some sense to the foreign policy debate at this website, those who object can thumb through a copy of the Constitution and see if you can find me the part about the American military providing for Pax Americana or securing the freedom of any place other than America. Thanks. Good luck.
ken (Old Texican)| 6.25.10 @ 2:13PM
Red,
How can I 'splain it better? You are so stupid...please stay out of traffic.
Aw, to heck with it...Go play in traffic!
You must be too old to be drafted in the next world war.
Do you have sons to be drafted?
Red Phillips | 6.25.10 @ 2:30PM
I wouldn't be drafted Ken. I would just be called back up. How 'bout you?
I have several boys but only one approaching draft registration age. (That's one thing about us paleocons. We tend to procreate a lot.) One good reason to get the US to quit meddlin' is so he won't get sent off to be cannon fodder in some delusional interventionist's attempt to maintain Pax Americana. Heck, if we elect Ron Paul I might just join the Reserves to get in my 20.
Ray| 6.25.10 @ 5:07PM
"One good reason to get the US to quit meddlin' is so he won't get sent off to be cannon fodder in some delusional interventionist's attempt to maintain Pax Americana. "
That's what's known as "unfounded fear." If your son doesn't want to fight in a :Pax Americana" war, he doesn't have to! We have an all volunteer military, remember? Well, your son doesn't have to volunteer.
When was the last time an American was actually DRAFTED into military service? There hasn't been a draft since Nixon ended it in the early 70's despite the numerous wars and "conflicts" we, as a nation, have engaged in since then. So, what's causing your unfounded fear?
Red Phillips | 6.25.10 @ 5:44PM
Ray, I was responding to Ken's question about if have a son old enough to be drafted.
Occam's Tool| 6.29.10 @ 12:25AM
The problem with Ron paul is that he doesn't realize that withdrawal from the world won't stop the wolves. "Paleo-cons" is usually just a useful synonym for "I miss Adolf and wish we didn't have to fight him."
My concerns about ROK is 1) they're not paying their fair share of the costs, 2) they have demonstrated against our troops and actually injured some, and 3) they should be picking up more of their own defense if they are richer and outnumber their enemy.
If Ron Paul gets elected his weakness will drag us into a cataclysmic war. He votes like Dennis Kucinich on foreign affairs.
Margie| 6.25.10 @ 2:30PM
"Non-interventionist wisodm?" Let me ponder this for just a moment. OK. Done.
Red Phillips | 6.25.10 @ 2:35PM
Wow! Margie made a funny.
Margie| 6.25.10 @ 3:00PM
Nothing funny about the Leftist non-interventionists and their "wisdom." Libertarian, Paleo-Conartists posing as conservatives, now that IS laughable!
Red Phillips | 6.25.10 @ 3:17PM
Margie, I was trying to be nice. Your comment was genuinely humorous instead of your usual know-nothing bile. Learn to accept a compliment.
Margie| 6.25.10 @ 3:47PM
Said the serpent, dripping with hatred from between his clenched teeth.
Red Phillips | 6.25.10 @ 2:44PM
I was stationed in Europe for three years. While I was providing care to our troops and their families, I can assure you that we weren't protecting anybody from anything. Our bases overseas are nothing but big ol' make work projects. How anyone who considers themselves a conservative can support such blatant military welfare is beyond me. Conservatives are against domestic welfare for freeloaders, but support military welfare for foreign freeloaders. Explain that to me please.
Ray| 6.25.10 @ 4:29PM
"I was stationed in Europe for three years."
I was stationed there myself (Germany 1985-1987) as an active member of the military and I can tell you that your conclusions are wrong as I saw the threat firsthand. I saw the terrorists attacks against US and German citizens and military personal and the REAL threat of Soviet invasion in Western Europe
For example: The attempted bombing of the Rhine-Mine Airbase by the Red Amy Faction, who killed an American infantry solder two weeks previously and used his ID to enter that airbase. The Murder of a German banking executive by an IED. The MASSIVE buildup of Soviet armored decisions along the East/West Boarder. Those are just a few of the example of the threats that I personally witnessed.
Ray| 6.25.10 @ 4:32PM
Correction: That should read "Soviet armored divisions" and not "Soviet armored decisions."
Ray| 6.25.10 @ 4:48PM
"Our bases overseas are nothing but big ol' make work projects."
No, you're wrong, as those bases are a DEPLOYMENT points for any NATO military actions that may be required in the Eastern Hemisphere. They are there so we can quickly deploy troops in Europe if, and when, they are needed. They also act as a deterrent to any faction or government who things it would be a good idea to attack one o more of our NATO NATO allies in Europe.
You see, it would take far too long to assemble and deploy our NATO aligned troops if all of our equipment and personnel needed to conduct combat is over 10,000 miles away.
With the history of Europe being one of numerous, extensive warfare, it is a prudent action to station deterrent forces when we need them to protect OUR interests in Europe.
Red Phillips | 6.25.10 @ 5:42PM
"No, you're wrong, as those bases are a DEPLOYMENT points for any NATO military actions that may be required in the Eastern Hemisphere."
I realize that Ray, but we shouldn't be in NATO and shouldn't be protecting Europe. America's military should be protecting America alone. Novel idea I know. And regarding our interests in Europe, do other nations get to station their troops in America to protect their interests here? If not, by your logic why not? We apparently get to station ours there.
Occam's Tool| 6.29.10 @ 12:32AM
There are historical reasons, Red, why we station our troops there and they don't here. Perhaps you have heard of WWII and Hitler and Stalin.
That being said, are they grateful for our defending them? No. Are France and Germany (and the rest of Western Europe) dying, and will they become non-productive economically in about 15 years? Yes. Do we need our troops elsewhere? Perhaps. Our new battle is with Political Islam. Our strike points may no longer be in Europe, whcih due to demographics is about to become dar-es-Islam anyway.
But, Red, it is a hell of a lot better to have a war occur in someone else's country than in your own. That's why I'm open to argument about where our troops should be stationed. If stationing them in Europe or Korea will have war with our enemies fought there than in the US, great. If some want to call that Pax America, fine. I'd rather see Paris blown up than Minneapolis or KC.
mike | 6.26.10 @ 12:05PM
amerika needs to mind its own business. read what washington said in his farewell address to congress.get out of korea NOW
j@w.com| 6.27.10 @ 9:40PM
MiKKKe needs to admit he is a total asshole.
Ray| 6.25.10 @ 4:20PM
"Always? Whatever for?"
To porevent a war that will kill MILLIONS ff people! Duh!
The fact that the Nother never resumed major combat actions against the South is because of our troops acting as a buffer force between those countries. There's no way the North would deliberately attack America forces. That's a battle they know they would lose, period, without causing any major disruption of America itself, just as they did in the past. That's the reason why we're still there and that's the reason why we'll remain until the North STOPS acting aggressive towards the South.
If the North wanted peace, they'd sign a Peace Agreement with the South and not abandon an armistice that has stood for over 60's years, thanks to the American troops that have been stationed between the North and South for over 60 years.
LiveFreeOrDie| 6.25.10 @ 5:31PM
Or maybe it would be like two drunk guys at a bar yelling at each other with a 300 pound bouncer in between them. They're only acting tough because the bouncer can put a halt to any fighting in an instant. At most, one might try get in a sucker punch (ie sink a ship) but only as long as the big USA bouncer sits in between them...maybe not, just saying.
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.25.10 @ 6:56PM
Red,
Thank you for your service to our country.
Thank you for a different perspective on your thoughts.
I was a CeeBee. (Civilian Builder). We built bunkers and overlook radar sites etc etc. often before the troops or Marines even arrived. (heh, got my zippers and button holes.)
I was accepted as a Warrant officer pilot candidate in med-evac choppers...then never got my orders to report. (1969 wind down).
Evidently you feel as if you were sorta' wasted in your service, but I assure you that you were not.
I remember the troops in those overlook bunkers feeling as if they were wasted too..."staring at an empty trail through the woods."
I would always remind them that they were at the sharp end of the stick...and that trail could get very busy just any old moment.
Livefree above nailed it pretty tight. You guys were .......and are....... the "USA bouncer" nobody wants to screw with.
In the many US embassies and consulates I visited over the world, I was always deeply impressed with the Marine guards..."being wasted"...but ever vigilant and alert...protecting State department pukes that were not worth the polish on those Marines' shoes.
Then a local would walk by...and his adams apple started bobbing. Heh! Those were US MARINES, BY ALLAH......FEAR THEM!
I was always in Khakis and an oxford blue shirt and boots overseas. Yeah I was the boss, but I always was ready and happy to roll up my sleeves with my guys....and the troops were always VERY welcome in our camps...and even in our wiskey. heh.
The reason I brought up the draft earlier, is that in the event of a needed FULL war mobilization, every young man might be needed.
This president might stumble us into that need by being either a wimp...or God help us... What if he would be delighted with that....and he is our trojan horse.
Red,
for twenty years I traveled/worked the third world, with a lot of stops in "major capitals".
I got caught in the Indonesian civil war...and the Yemeni civil war. We were actually strafed by a migg in Yemen...heh that is no fun. I have forgotten the caliber, but something like 20 mm rounds dancing all around one is.....tense.
Still, I am proud to have been a part of pax Americana.
In our spare time...We taught folks how to grow beans, and dig outhouses down-stream, and our medicine cabinet was always open.
They at least got a sniff of free men.
I hope you can cherish your own contribution.
Ken
Occam's Tool| 6.29.10 @ 12:34AM
As I've said before, Ken, I always defer to your wisdom.
Northern Rebel| 6.25.10 @ 6:57PM
The deterrence factor is the key, as many preceding posts have made note. Apparently, most people don't grasp the effectiveness of this important tool. It kept the peace through years of cold war, despite idiots like Carter, and Breshnev at leadership posts.
Texas understands deterrence better than most.
It's a proven fact:
Nobody who has been executed for a capital crime in Texas. or anywhere else for that matter, has ever murdered anyone else.
Look it up!
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.25.10 @ 7:20PM
Rebel,
I got a snort out of that post.
A few years ago, the Canadians were giving GOVERNOR Bush a hard time about executing a Canadian in Texas.
Wubya said, "Well, if you dont' want Canadians executed in Texas...tell them not to come down here and murder Texans!"
is that cool or not?
Tom| 6.25.10 @ 7:00PM
Good comments here but Mr. Bandow made a mistake. There was no armistice signed, it was a cease fire. We and South Korea are technically at war with North Korea and China.
neo-libertarian| 6.25.10 @ 7:47PM
Well you know how fickle us interventionist libertaraians can be.
As far as that reading list goes, it has contracted by one. Read Red, no; read purple, also no. Read the old Texican and Northern Reble, more!
J.C.Eaton| 6.25.10 @ 9:16PM
Neo, ok, I'll bite, what's your evidence that the lion's share of
the South Korean populace gives a rat's ass about this country's 60 years of unbroken human and financial sacrifice. Is it in the youth of South Korea who pine and agitate their elders for national reintegration? Is it their full financial support? When is enough enough Neo? Should we be teaching Korean in our high schools so our new enlistees are able to bond better? Your point about the Second Infantry Division being more alert and"honed"[your term] may be true, but you must also grant that our troops in Iraq/Afghanistan are exponentially more sharpely "honed." We have blistered our Active/Reserve components with our chronic deployments. If you want the Second ID "honed" get them into the rotation. Best,
neo-libertarian| 6.26.10 @ 9:43AM
I am the Service Officer of the local VFW post. My duties include transporting those too feeble or disabled to the VA facilities, visiting memebers of our post in the Veterans Homes and elederly facilities to bring special meals, gifts, and needed sundries to the vets. I recieve no compenstion for this service, and I have to "run" and be elected to serve in this capacity. I have performed this service since 1980. In the course of these duties, while waiting in doctors’ offices, rehabilitation facilities, clinics and homes I regularly speak to veterans of all services, all ranks and all era's. I do not question them, I simple listen to what they say and never once have any of them denigrated the populace of the place they served. Hours of these conversations have taken place, real soldiers talking of real experiences, about virtually every geographic location where we protect democracy and allow freedom to exist. Most stories are of the positive aspects of the people they served. I am sure that there are in SK buttheads like you, Red, and Purple but the percentage must be small or I would have heard about it by now. Now if you have served, I thank you for your service but most make the transformation from civilian-soldier- civilian with a consideraly more awarenes of "why" and what it entails. It (service) never ends by the way, you should see some of the 214’s these people submit to me to join our local VFW post. I am constantly reminded of the horrors of war, the suffering it entails, and the in awe of the sacrifices our service people have endured. I know of what I speak, more so than most.
Kenneth| 6.26.10 @ 3:40AM
Exactly how is it in our interest to spend taxpayers' money to defend South Korea? They're affluent enough to defend themselves; if they choose not to do so, then so be it.
To stretch the question further, in what way would it be a disaster if we left and North Korea took over the South? We can live without Hyundai's and whatever else we get from South Korea.
neo-libertarian| 6.26.10 @ 9:54AM
Let’s see. Give up fifty million of our allies (for sixty years) to the horrors of totalitarian starvation and communism then abandon everything our servicemen have sacrificed and America has stood for OR support our troops, preserve democracy in the world, and maintain what is necessary to keep the wolves from our door. Wow, tough call Ken.
joe | 6.26.10 @ 12:15PM
Let prosperous Skorea who has double the population defend themselves. Enough of this insanity.
carl | 6.26.10 @ 12:08PM
S KOREA has become the #1 exporter of Philipina prostitutes to amerika via the 2nd infantry division. get out of korea NOW
Jordynne Olivia Lobo| 6.26.10 @ 2:53PM
The author and the commenters have all overlooked the one huge reason why the North Korean regime can never invade - indeed, will never invade - South Korea: once NoKo troops entered the ROK they'd see instantly how viciously their NoKo leaders had lied to them about how well-off they are in the DPRK compared with the "capitalist-enslaved" people of the ROK. In the ROK invading NoKo troops would see commonplace abundance and well-being totally unkown to themselves and their families in NoKo. Kim Jong-Il and his henchmen know this would happen, and this is why they also know that the only way they can hold onto their power is to keep NoKo as airtight and self-contained as possible, because any exposure of the NoKo people to the abdundance and prosperity enjoyed by the people of the ROK would instantly evaporate Kim's dictatorship's Big Lie about how capitalists enslave the people in the ROK and in the US. For its own safety and continued rule the DPRK regime simply could not afford to allow its deliberately benighted people to see for themselves the regime's Big Lie.
This is why Kim repeatedly stirs up a bit of trouble - not enough to trigger a devastating Rok-US invasion of his DPRK, but only enough to keep his own people toeing his line: Kim and his henchmen know they're the super-privileged beneficiaries of their regime's policy of economic self-plunder, and the only way they can maintain t their super-privileged rule is to make theatening noises, fire a few primitive missiles, murder a few ROK soldiers or sailors from time to time as a means of cadging economic and food bailouts from the West.
Kim's regime depends for its very existence on keeping the NoKo people hermetically sealed-off from exposure to any truths about the West, or even about China's growing prosperity. The kind and degree of exposure that a DPRK invasion of the ROK would entail, would destroy Kim's stranglehold on his own people.
Also, and this is what I believe: NoKo has been useful to Red China as a stalking horse, as a strip of litmus paper to test and gather intelligence on the West's defenses and defense technology, and to gain a grasp on how the West reacts to threats. This usefulness to Peking is why China gladly tolerates the cockamamie NoKo regime, and why China actually has kept the Dear Leader of NoKo on a rather short leash - it will be noted that whenever Kim Jong-Il rattles his brittle saber, Peking does something to undercut him or rein him in - because an actually, rather than the present big-threat-talking, belligerent NoKo would not at all be in China's interests.
Greg| 6.26.10 @ 7:37PM
I believe we are in S Korea, Europe, Afghanistan, and Iraq because of the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about.
Donald A Thomson| 6.26.10 @ 9:03PM
I noted a comment that China's military buildup is disproportionate to the military threat they face. The USA has been interfering militarily in China's internal affairs since 1949 when they provided naval protection to the Nationalist Chinese Armed Forces in Taiwan. The USA has changed it's propaganda from rolling back communism to protecting the country of Taiwan but no Chinese have forgotten where their country is. People only do that when they think they face permanent military inferiority. That's what happened with Mexicans after the USA conquered half their country. The Chinese were very patient with Portugal and the UK after they became more powerful than them and there is no reason to believe they will be impatient with the United States. Nevertheless, they need sufficiently strong forces to make the USA reconsider it's neonazi dream of world domination. I confidently expect replies evenly divided between claims that I'm mad to imagine such a thing and claims that the world's people want US domination (US citizens always split on the response to this question). I note that US citizens who refer to South Korean history never mention the hundreds of thousands of South Koreans the US had to kill to establish its rule in 1945 after the declaration of independence when the Japanese Imperial Army stopped interfering. The Korean Quislings employed by the Japanese collapsed at that time (no pay) but were rehired by the USA. I think that most Koreans in Japan chose North Korean citizenship(with the right of residence in Japan) when they were forced to choose but I may very well be wrong on that.
Donald A Thomson, donthomson1@hotmail.com
Bill| 6.26.10 @ 11:12PM
Nobody has mentioned that many South Koreans have serious doubts about the official story. As do the Chinese and Russians. North Korea had nothing to gain from such an attack. The US most certainly did, and has been attempting to harvest the benefits and lean on North Korea, China, Japanese who want the US military to pack up and go home, and the South Koreans who want the US out, but not everyone is buying it. It could have been a deliberate false-flag attack, or a friendly fire incident spun as a North Korean attack. There were dozens of state-of-the art American and S. Korean ships in the area taking part in war games (operation "Foal Eagle") including four Aegis ships. North Korea with its 1950 technology managed to get past all that? Seems.. unlikely.
OlMcDonald| 6.27.10 @ 11:38AM
False Flag Attack on South Korean Corvette
by Wayne Madsen
http://www.globalresearch.ca/i.....;aid=19433
...the March attack on the South Korean Navy anti-submarine warfare (ASW) corvette, the
Cheonan, was a false flag attack designed to appear as coming from North Korea.
One of the main purposes for increasing tensions on the Korean peninsula was to apply pressure on Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama to reverse course on moving the U.S. Marine Corps base off Okinawa. Hatoyama has admitted that the tensions over the sinking of the Cheonan played a large part in his decision to allow the U.S.
Marines to remain on Okinawa....
The Salvor, a civilian Navy salvage ship, which participated in mine laying activities for the Thai Marines in the Gulf of Thailand in 2006, was present near the time of the blast with a complement of 12 deep sea divers.
Beijing, satisfied with North Korea's Kim Jong Il's claim of innocence after a hurried train trip from Pyongyang to Beijing, suspects the U.S. Navy's role in the Cheonan's sinking, with particular suspicion on the role of the Salvor. The suspicions are as follows:
1. The Salvor engaged in a seabed mine-installation operation, in other words, attaching horizontally fired anti-submarine mines on the sea floor in the channel.
2. The Salvor was doing routine inspection and maintenance on seabed mines, and put them into an electronic active mode (hair trigger release) as part of the inspection program.
3. A SEALS diver attached a magnetic mine to the Cheonan, as part of a covert program aimed at influencing public opinion in South Korea,
Japan and China.
FeralCat| 6.27.10 @ 7:57PM
The South Koreans are like 60 somethings still living with their parents. That would be us. They have twice the population of North Korea and about a qazzillion times the GDP and we are still suppose to protect the spoiled brats.
Occam's Tool| 6.29.10 @ 12:38AM
Unfortunately, the correct answer may be a bad situation. I tend to agree with you---I base my views on what the Israelis do. If the ROK had the degree of conscription the Israelis do with the percentage of GNP that the Israelis put into defense put into their defense, and THEN asked for help---I'd probably give it to them. But they're not.
So, second question---by putting troops there do we keep a war from being fought on US soil? To that, I defer to military men. But the ROK needs to be paying more to the USA.
Occam's Tool| 6.29.10 @ 12:38AM
Unfortunately, the correct answer may be a bad situation. I tend to agree with you---I base my views on what the Israelis do. If the ROK had the degree of conscription the Israelis do with the percentage of GNP that the Israelis put into defense put into their defense, and THEN asked for help---I'd probably give it to them. But they're not.
So, second question---by putting troops there do we keep a war from being fought on US soil? To that, I defer to military men. But the ROK needs to be paying more to the USA.
FeralCat| 6.27.10 @ 7:59PM
Make that spoiled, INGRATE, brats.
Bennet Cecil| 6.28.10 @ 6:01PM
It is way past time for the US to leave Korea, Japan and Germany. Let these nations defend themselves. Take our resources to Afghanistan and then leave the Middle East too. The US military empire is being paid for on a variable interest credit card issued by China. When the interest rate jumps above the 10% the dollar and the US empire will collapse. Pull out now; cut military spending. Balance the budget.