-
Restrain the Abusive Administative State
May 22, 2013 | 23 comments
-
Delivering Serbs to the Wolves
May 21, 2013 | 27 comments
-
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
A Further Perspective
Sixty Years Is Enough
It’s time for South Korea to defend itself.
In recent years South Korea has begun to develop regional ambitions. Seoul is creating a blue-water navy and deploying international peacekeeping troops. The Republic of Korea increasingly sees itself sitting alongside the world’s most powerful nations.
Unfortunately, the ROK government appears to have neglected its most important duty: defending its people. Last March North Korea sank a South Korean warship. Days ago Pyongyang unleashed a deadly artillery barrage against a South Korean island.
On both occasions all the ROK did was fulminate.
Granted, in the first case Seoul cut off what little bilateral trade remained between the two countries and demanded an apology. In the second instance the ROK fired back. It also changed the rules of engagement for the future and planned to bolster its island garrisons. Still, the effect was about the same as just talking. Pyongyang responded predictably, blaming the South and threatening to rain destruction down upon its enemies.
Worse, as ROK President Lee Myung-bak publicly worried lest South Koreans “let our guard down in preparation for another possible North Korean provocation,” his nation again hid behind Miss America’s skirt. President Barack Obama sent an aircraft carrier strike group to demonstrate “resolve” and professed America’s usual determination to stand by its helpless ally — “shoulder to shoulder,” as he put it.
It is a shocking situation.
Not North Korea’s misbehavior. The Stalinist dictatorship has morphed into the world’s only communist monarchy. Just two men, father and son, have ruled since the so-called Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was formed in 1948. Now “Dear Leader” Kim Jong-il is attempting to pass power on to his youngest son, “Brilliant Comrade” Kim Jong-un.
The Kim family’s crimes are many: starting the Korean War, suppressing political, civil, and religious liberties, establishing a brutal gulag system, starving millions through imposition of an incompetent socialist state, and maintaining a permanent state of war. Firing off some artillery shells and killing four South Koreans is minor compared to the DPRK’s other activities.
Slightly more outrageous is China’s willingness to abet the North’s aggressions. After the latest incident, Beijing did not criticize Pyongyang. Instead, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao called for all sides to show “maximum restraint.” That was a bit like urging the Germans, Soviets, and Poles to act responsibly in September 1939 after the Nazis and Communists invaded Poland. Still, while China’s conduct is disappointing, it hardly is surprising.
What is truly shocking is the ROK’s continuing dependence on America.
The Korean War ended in 1953. Since then the South has won the intra-Korea contest. The ROK raced past the North economically and now has upwards of 40 times the latter’s GDP. South Korea has succeeded in hi-tech production, benefits from twice the population, and possesses global diplomatic clout. In fact, Seoul even has stolen away North Korea’s allies, trading far more with China and Russia. In contrast to 1950, the latter two countries would not likely back Pyongyang in a fight.
Yet the DPRK possesses a bigger military. Although the North’s soldiers are ill-trained and its equipment is antiquated, the Kim government obviously still is capable of striking with deadly effect. Why hasn’t the South put its resources to better military effect? Because it doesn’t have to.
So long as America offers a security guarantee, maintains a tripwire troop presence on the peninsula, and promises to do whatever is necessary to protect the ROK, the South Koreans have little incentive to take over their own defense. Granted, it’s a bit humiliating to constantly beg Washington for aid: it would be a bit like the U.S. going hat-in-hand around the world asking for help to defend against Mexico. Still, better for Seoul to get the gullible Americans to pay its defense bill than to have to cover the cost itself.
Making the ROK’s behavior even more outrageous has been Seoul’s attempt to buy off Pyongyang while relying on American military support. For nearly a decade the so-called “Sunshine Policy” emphasized aid to and investment in the North. Seoul even effectively bought a summit between the late President Kim Dae-jung and the North’s Kim Jong-il. Although the Lee government has cut back on subsidies for the North, Seoul has not closed the Kaesong industrial park, an important source of hard currency for Pyongyang. Nothing changes even as North Korea kills the South’s citizens. Should war break out, some of the weapons fired at U.S. soldiers would have been effectively paid for by America’s allies in the South.
North Korea’s presumed nuclear capabilities add a more dangerous dimension to tensions on the peninsula, but America’s troop presence only worsens the problem by conveniently giving the Kim regime 27,500 nuclear hostages within easy reach. Moreover, the best way to get Beijing’s attention would be to suggest that Washington might eventually decide to respond to the North’s provocations by standing aside if South Korea and Japan want to build corresponding nuclear arsenals. That would give the residents of Beijing’s Zhongnanhai an incentive to clamp down on the DPRK.
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 (191) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Doug Bandow
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/11/29/sixty-years-is-enough
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
Booger | 11.29.10 @ 6:15AM
Dear Mr. Bandow,
Perhaps there is another option besides leaving a long-time ally and tens of million of free people in the lurch? After all, South Korea's true problem is China, not North Korea. All the bluster about how the South is bigger and stronger than the North is pitifully obtuse. Thus, my suggestion:
What can the United States do about North Korea? Military options seem to be a non-starter, with 10,000 artillery pieces overlooking Seoul and Barak Obama as President. It appears that Kim Jong Il is free to sporadically murder and terrorize the freedom-loving population to his south, with no more consequences than hand-wringing and calls for “restraint” from the West. Western leaders seem more intent on determining the reason for North Korea’s belligerence, whether issues of succession, handouts or respect, than they do on stopping Kim Jong Il. Quite frankly this is understandable when one is dealing with an apparent homicidal maniac with access to a small nuclear arsenal, but in the long and short runs alike it accomplishes nothing.
There is, however, one approach that can and will bring North Korea to heel. That approach is not to deal with North Korea, however, but rather to deal with the Chinese government that enables and uses North Korea’s military as a surrogate for its own ambitions. China employs Kim Jong Il in much the same way that a trailer-park redneck employs an ill-tempered pit bull. He warns his neighbors that he can’t really control that dog, so they had better watch their step around his place so they don’t get mauled. Likewise, China relies on North Korea’s sporadic terror attacks to intimidate its neighbors while attempting to retain the ability to deny responsibility for the lilliputian dictator’s actions.
If the United States truly desires to put a stop to this extortion scheme it needs to strike at the source of the problem. Without Chinese backing North Korea would not last a month. China provides North Korea with the military hardware, including missile and nuclear technology, with which it harasses its neighbor. While it is true that a military confrontation with China, direct or indirect, is undesirable, it is also unnecessary. The United States has a better card to play in this game, one which would be appealing even to our current pacifistic minded President.
There’s an old saying that if you owe the bank $10,000 then you’re in trouble, but if you owe the bank $10 million then the bank is in trouble. The Chinese currently hold nearly $850 billion in U.S. debt, mostly in the form of U.S. Treasury notes. These funds are one of the key parts of the Chinese economy’s foundation, the other key part being exports to the United States. While the lives of innocent Koreans are of no consequence to the Chinese government, money is a matter of great importance to them. This is leverage, and the U.S. should use it.
It is entirely possible for President Obama to announce that each attack by North Korea on any of its neighbors will result in the U.S. charging off a portion of the debt held by the Chinese government. This action would be legal, popular and a genuine deterrent. It is entirely within the bounds of international law to assess reparation payments for war crime, including the unprovoked acts of aggression which are Pyonyang’s hallmark. The only question is how much to assess, and how to make the announcement.
A “reasonable” amount (as these things go) might well be anywhere from $10-100 million per North Korean artillery shell that lands on South Korean territory, and an additional penalty of $100 million to $1 billion per South Korean citizen murdered. It would very quickly become apparent to the Chinese that allowing North Korean aggression to continue would result in China’s financial ruin, which would in turn lead the Chinese to apply pressure to North Korea of a type that no other country is currently capable.
While the Chinese would fume and bluster over this action, there is little that they could actually do about it. Attacking the United States would be even more of a non-starter for the Chinese than attacking the North Koreans is for President Obama. China could perhaps threaten to quit buying United States debt, but this would be damaging to its own economy as well since they rely on the U.S. as a consumer of last resort to prop up their own manufacturing sector. In the end it would be cheapest and safest to simply bring their dog to heel.
Of course, if the U.S. were to take this course of action, it would be absolutely necessary to spell out that this is solely as a response to unprovoked acts of war by an aggressive and lawless power, and that all U.S. securities held by law-abiding powers would remain unaffected. It would also be necessary to spell out just how much would be charged for each attack, and to enforce such actions without fail. Additionally, it would be possible to introduce a carrot to this equation along with the stick. China could be offered the partial or complete restoration of the debt obligation in question in return for North Korea abandoning its illegal weapons programs and opening all sites to U.S. inspectors for verification. While it is unlikely that North Korea would comply, Kim’s refusal could possibly create a rift between his regime and its Chinese masters, to the benefit of the world as a whole.
Cordially,
Booger
http://beautifulletters-bls.blogspot.com/
greghawk| 11.29.10 @ 6:56AM
Brilliant Booger - however, if I may play the Red Side.... how much would U.S. pay per hostage in the unfortunate situation that 'guests' of the PRC were invited to stay 'in situ' - as it were?
Just no end to it - well, one end... but let's not go there.
Spartan | 12.3.10 @ 1:56AM
Excellent points from you both ...... however, there is another old saying, that goes something like this:
"fish or cut bait".
Personally, gentlemen, if I were in China's shoes, or, North Korea's, I wouldn't particularly have a burning desire to directly confront the United States military. Everyone knows what will happen if the North decides to do something really stupid.
This is not 1950 ..... and this ain't your grandfather's (or mine) battle group. The shark is in the water and it's a Great White.
Tom| 11.29.10 @ 7:18AM
Booger,
I am no expert in international law but my guess is it would be illegal to unilaterally assess reparations on a third party by another third party. What exactly is the connection to artillery attacks in South Korea and debts owed to China by America?
Furthermore, how do you think other entities buying US debt are going to feel when America makes a precedent of unilaterally cancelling debt? We still need to sell Treasury notes and at the very least your proposed actions will drastically influence interest rates on those bonds.
Booger| 11.29.10 @ 8:54AM
Sorry if I was obtuse. The point is that China is NOT a 3rd party in this matter. China and North Korea should be viewed as one entity in regards to the Norks aggressive behaviors.
Reparations for war crimes have a long history in international law, this would simply be a novel way of implementing them.
As to the bonds themselves, that's a risk we would have to take. It simply strikes me as a smaller risk than a military confrontation with the Norks (and a less expensive one, considering how much Iraq and Afghanistan are costing us). Once we demonstrate that this is not a matter of default, but a matter of deterring aggression the interest rates should stabilize.
Tom| 11.29.10 @ 9:18AM
Booger,
I would agree that the Chinese are not a third party but as a matter of law they are. Beyond that you miss the more important point: if reparations are to paid they would be paid to the South Koreans not the US. Why would we have rights to reparations - assuming we could pull of the enormous sell of China as the responsible party - when it is not America but South Korea that is harmed?
Robert| 11.29.10 @ 5:29PM
An excellent column and splendid rebuttal Booger, though I suspect by the elegance of your script and the acuity of your knowledge that your associates address you by another name and with considerable respect. Thank you.
The author makes an excellent point. Japan, Europe and South Korea have relied on the U.S. to underwrite a defense now unequivocally their responsibility. While that was a good idea in the cold war years following WWII, that the US. should subsidize the defense of wealthy nations is absurd---- particularly vis a vis Europe which has developed the habit of daily reminding America of her "shortcomings" to which daily I give the bird.
The north korean government has created a political imbalance much as the division of Germany did post war. All aid of any kind whatsoever must be terminated; and while, it is terribly true that South Korea is susceptible to bombardment from North Korea, still, sooner or later, North Korea has to go, even at the cost of human sacrifice. That China has used North Korean state as a junk yard dog and looked the other way as millions of North Koreans starved to death or were condemned to gulags that made the Russian gulags look like Club Med, inclines me to believe that the Chinese Communist party cares nothing for the sanctity of life and is motivated as always by the will to power.
As Americans we should not forget that China rebuilt in new images of panda bears and conservatively dressed leaders all of whom speak always in terms of restraint, that China is in fact our implacable enemy, that the Chinese Communist Party is that same party not too long ago owned by Mao Zedong who in four years 1958-1962, this in a time of peace, commenced in "The Great Leap Forward" the single greatest famine in history, and the immolation, conservatively speaking of no less then 46 million chinese men, women and children, by starvation, torture, beating and murder, by working them to death or exposing them naked to the Chinese winter. A Party capable of this unspeakable violence cannot be all that good and should not be represented by a smiling panda bear, or thought of as civilized simply because presently they are doing well financially and wearing a mask of restraint.
I suggest that all Americans read Mao's Great Famine, The History of China's Most Devastating Catastrophe. 1958-1962 by Frank Dikotter, (Walker and Co. 2010)
Donna| 11.29.10 @ 9:13AM
They are going to feel just like the bond holders of GM's debt-don't do business with Obama. Why collapse the US for a 27 year old dirt bag.
Jeff| 12.2.10 @ 1:19PM
who obeys international law anyway? Venezuela confiscated oil fields leased by US oil companies and the oil companies still haven't been compensated. International courts aren't doing a damn thing about it.
Sean| 12.3.10 @ 8:42AM
Sixty years? Sorry gentlemen, if you want to invest your son's life in this strange theater go ahead. But enough of my tax and time (25 years USMC) has been spent on/in the ROK. Let Korean men defend KIA, LG and the rest. Bring US troops home. This is long past insane.
JimH| 11.29.10 @ 6:40AM
Certainly we can supply intelligence, logistics, air support and ultimately it should be made clear that South Korea is under our nuclear umbrella. That being said I don't think keeping American combat forces stationed there does much good. In fact judging by the success of recent provocations and the rather sloppy reactions to them from the South Korean military it may be that a military force once considered one of the best, man for man has gotten slack relying on the US.
KIenny| 11.29.10 @ 6:52AM
Cut the hot air, Booger.
The point is that it's not our responsibility to defend Korea -- or Tiawan or Poland or France or any where else.
Our responsibility is, however, to defend AZ, New Mexico, Texas, and the U.S. proper from the invasion of literally millions of illiterate & illegal aliens coming from the south of the Rio Grande.
So it seems to me that what we should do, we don't, and what we shouldn't do, we do. No wonder the country is going bankrupt.
Kevin Riley O'Keeffe | 11.29.10 @ 4:43PM
This guy gets it. Bravo, sir!
"If we can defend the borders of Kuwait, what is wrong with defending the borders of the United States of America?"
Enzo| 11.29.10 @ 6:13PM
The US loves to protect Europe, Israel, South Korea, Japan, Iraq, Afghanistan and others, yet ignores our own border. Those countries all get to spend less on defense and more on social programs while we go bankrupt. The US is truly stupid. The status quo cannot be maintained and I wish we would get a president with the balls to end this nonsense. People are whining about bringing our troops home from Iraq & Afghanistan, but we haven't brought home the troops from WWII or the Korean War yet.
Sean| 12.3.10 @ 8:49AM
Especially at this time, this is insanity. Nevertheless, follow the money and the reasons we are still in Europe/Japan/Okinawa/Korea all come into focus.
Melvin| 11.29.10 @ 7:13AM
South Korean President to North Korea Tin Pot, pot bellied Dictator.
"Boy you guys really mad me mad, one more time and your butt's mine." North Korea steps over the line.
"!I'm burning up now, now way am I going to let you do that again." North Korea steps over the line again.
"This is it, I can't take it anymore, I've had enough of your crap, just try stepping over the line again." North Korea steps over the line again.
"OK, OK, what the hell, why are me feet wet?" "Mr. President we've backed up so far, we're standing in the East China Sea, there is no more South Korea to stand on. Hillary Clinton is offering a rubber raft, should I accept? "
JLKrueger| 11.29.10 @ 7:34AM
Ignorance is bliss, Mr. Bandow. Makes one able to make sweeping generalizations without factual basis.
What the author and some commenters seem to miss is that the US has but a single combat brigade on the Korean peninsula. That's roughly 6,000 troops, but actual "shooters" are even fewer since more than half of a "combat brigade" includes logistic and support personnel. Adding in all the theater support "ash and trash," as combat arms guys say, we have roughly 37,000 military personnel in Korea. That's hardly enough to be more than a speed bump without the added muscle of the 655,000 active duty Korean military along with their 3,000,000 man reserve.
Our presence on the peninsula is more a show of commitment than functional defense (apart from any nuclear capability). Or, as we soldiers say, we are a tripwire. Our presence is simply a guarantee that we will be true to our pledge to back up ROK if needed.
BTW - ROK sent a combat brigade to Iraq and they have special forces troops in Afghanistan. So it's not like they don't reciprocate and support us either.
Old Soldier| 11.29.10 @ 1:42PM
Thank you - you beat me to it. Only one Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division is left in South Korea (and 2 U.S. Air Force Fighter Wings). The author makes it sound like we have a half-dozen divisions on the Korean border like we did in Germany during the Cold War.
The only reason any American troops are there is China - they are still reluctant to provoke us directly.
We had this debate here a year or two ago - South Korea could easily handle the NK's themselves inside a month (albeit with a lot of civilian casualties and damage along the border) if China stayed out. With full-blown American conventional involvement (Navy, Army 2nd and 82nd Divisions, and a couple of Marine Divisions) another Korean War would look much like Desert Storm.
Sean| 12.3.10 @ 8:56AM
True and accurate. Our few soldiers and Marines will be sacrificed as a small speedbump during an insane NK assault. We have nothing to gain by being there. Our responsibilites ended to the Koreans decades ago. The ROK has never fully accepted the responsibilities for their own destiny. Enough is enough.
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.29.10 @ 7:41AM
Doug,
We have to get through the next two years, and get this administration OUT.
This is not the time to send a signal around the world that we are actually in retreat.
Right now, the bad guys around the world can't be actually "sure" that our military would run and hide regardless of our CinC's orders.
The idiot isolationists that drop in here have never left mommies basement. Please do not encourage them.
Kevin Riley O'Keeffe | 11.29.10 @ 4:46PM
Neo-"conservative" war mongering pigs used to be just be an inaesthetic aspect of life in the Republican Party. Now they are a treasonous threat to the continued survival and success of the USA.
Sean| 12.3.10 @ 9:02AM
Old Texican, respectfully, what are would we be retreating from? We have no dog in this fight. We fulfilled our duties and responsibilities to that country decades ago. It is the Koreans who are reluctant to leave "mommies basement". Been there, done that and will not send my sons to die defending KIA, LG and the other large, successfull and quite wealthy Korean corporations. Sixty years! Think about it.
Zbiigniew Mazurak | 11.29.10 @ 7:53AM
This article is yet another isolationist BS by Doug Bandow. Bandow is essentially arguing that America should abandon one of its best allies because Bandow is unwilling to pay his share of taxes for the US military, and unwilling to sacrifice American boys on the Korean Peninsula.
Also, he has falsely claimed that:
"With Uncle Sam effectively bankrupt, Americans increasingly will have to debate how much they should spend on "defense." The answer should be: as much as is necessary for defense -- of America. But no more for the defense of prosperous and populous allies, such as South Korea. (...) The time is long past when Washington could play Globocop."
America is not, and has never been, a Globocop, even though it does defend a number of vulnerable democratic countries such as the ROK. The claim that the DOD's budget is spent on SK's defense is false - the annual DOD expenditure would have to be spent regardless of whether the ROK existed or not. And it's not really a big deal - it's just 3.65% of GDP. (4.5% of GDP if you include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan).
Bandow's claim that the ROK is devoting few (or zero) resources to its defense is not just factually wrong, it is also insulting to the citizens of the ROK. The country drafts its EVERY able-bodied male citizen into its military, unlike the US, which maintains a volunteer military. 95% of living Americans, including Doug Bandow himself, have NEVER served with the military of ANY country. But all able-bodied SK males (as well as all able-bodied citizens of many 'parasitic' European countries such as Germany) are obliged to serve. German males can at least choose alternative service. SK males cannot - for them, the only option other than conscription is a jail sentence.
SK has also taken steps to equip its military properly. It has ordered a number of Aegis-class vessels, several superquiet Type #214 AIP submarines, and modern fighterplanes. It is now conducting an F-X fighterplane program and considering the purchase of F-35s. So the claim that SK is not doing enough to defend itself is ridiculous. South Korea is actually one of the few large-scale military allies that America has.
However, the simple reality is that ROK cannot defend itself. It has NO nuclear weapons and few Aegis BMD vessels. It has no means to deter North Korea. To acquire a nuclear deterrent, it would need to violate the same NPT that the West accuses North Korea of violating. Thus, South Korea needs a strong ally to protect it. Hence, there are still 28,000 American troopers deployed in SK. One brigade, plus 2 fighterplane wings based in Osan and Kunsan. And those 28,000 American troopers are not targets, they're the guys deterring Kim Jong Il, because the Stalinist dictator knows that if he attacks them, the US will retaliate, possibly with nuclear weapons.
Plus, as JL Krueger correctly said, ROK has deployed troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, so it's not like the ROK doesn't help the US militarily.
A. C. Santore| 11.29.10 @ 9:07AM
Clever lad, Zbiig, using facts as an argument against cant. Now please answer "davelnaf," below.
Tom| 11.29.10 @ 9:33AM
Just to pick nits : You claim 3.65 (or 4.5% depending on how it is measured) is no big deal but South Korea spends 2.6% of its GDP on defense matters. Certainly an argument can be made until they spend more we have no real obligation to make up the rest.
Furthermore, Germany spends 1.5% of their GDP on defense, France 2.6%, Italy 1.8%, the Netherlands 1.6%, Belgium 1.3%, and the United Kingdom 2.4%.
The fact is many nations, including the ROK and most of Europe, spend less on defense for the simple reason America is there to take up the slack. If we lowered our defense expenditures to European levels they would have been forced to increase their military budgets years ago.
Mike W| 11.29.10 @ 12:02PM
Incremental costs for US bases in S Korea are insignificant. I assume that you are not counting the costs of defending S. Korea since we would have the troops under arms anyway.
How about this - without those troops we could have a smaller army. That's a direct saving. In addition the cost of keeping troops in S. Korea certainly runs into the billions but even 100 million is too much to defend S. Korea.
I served in the military however your reference to Bandow not having served has no bearing on the argument.
Quit spending my tax dollars needlessly. DOD is going to be cut one way or the other.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 11.30.10 @ 1:58PM
You are right that the costs paid annually to maintain American troops in SK and maintain American bases in that country are insignificant. You are wrong, however, to suggest disbanding those units. You would thus weaken the US military - and the SECDEF (and his deputy) have both warned that the US cannot afford to reduce its military under the present dangerous circumstances.
You have no data to prove your claim that it costs the US billions of dollars every year to maintain troops in SK. Plus, if even $100 mn per year is too much for you to defend SK, then that means you don't give a rat's excrement about SK.
My reference to Bandow is directly related to the argument. He has NEVER served with the military of ANY country. He might or might not have registered with the SS system. Nonetheless, he believes he's fit to lecture South Koreans on whether they work hard enough to defend their own country, despite the fact that EVERY able-bodied SK male has served with the military of SK.
Spending your tax dollars needlessly? Hardly. SK needs and deserves to be defended. Plus, the entire DOD costs you only 18.5 cents out of every tax dollar you pay. In other words, 81.5 cents out of every tax dollar you pay is spent EXCLUSIVELY on civilian purposes.
"DOD is going to be cut one way or the other."
We'll see about that. I shall work to prevent this from happening, together with like-minded conservatives. I promise you that I will defeat you and other libertarians.
hyperbola2| 12.5.10 @ 3:29PM
Why is it that so many NeoCons that seem to like killing Americans in foreign wars have names that suggest they arrived from a "shtetl" in eastern Europe not long ago?
Why is it that our foreign policy is run by israel-firsters" of dubious loyalty to America who think no expense is too much for Americans to pay for their schemes?
Time to put our foreign policy back in the hands of Americans.
Occam's Tool| 1.26.11 @ 12:22AM
Hyperbola,
you are a Islamofascist lover and supporter of sharia. You are therefore scum.
Old Soldier| 11.29.10 @ 1:46PM
Check out the latest South Korean weapons - the K2 Black Panther and the Daewoo K11 rifle. They are spending some serious money to make their troops more lethal.
Roy| 11.29.10 @ 8:18PM
Since when does 1 brigade and two fighter wings equal 28,000? Having been there, I can tell you that the US military has more than 1 brigade in Korea. Also, the Korean military is top notch and rather cranky. They were nice enough to lend us two divisions of Marines in Vietnam, however, which is more than just about anyone else did.
Why does no one mention the United Nations Command? You know, that big building in Yongsan that theoretically leads the show?
S P Dudley| 11.30.10 @ 12:08AM
The Army component is 28,000. While only 6,000 are elements of 2nd Infantry, most of the rest are support troops that form a command and logistics anchor that allows us to very, very quickly reinforce the South in wartime.
UN Command is a paper formation now. The real command there is Combined Forces Command, which is still led by a US 4-star general but consists of 90% ROK Army units.
bogi666| 12.4.10 @ 9:51AM
Your comments are one of the few that make any sense at all. I've never read so much ignorant gibberish on 1 article on the entire internet, except for the T party site. China doesn't control NK, it doesn't want millions of NK crossing into China should military hostilities occur. Stalin goaded China into the Korean war, promising to join China and then didn't. The fact that MacArthur reached the Yalu River of NK which is parallel to Beijing, not far from, Mac was calling for nukes and the USG had declared China an enemy.China had legitimate concerns about the USG military at this time. China has been saddled with the NK albatross ever since. Actually, NK provides the USG with a ready available source to invoke irrational, imagined fears into the American public so that the USG tighten its NAZI jackboot noose on Americans under the cry wolf "national security" refrain. The USG needs NK, for these reasons, more than China and NK needs itself.Besides, under Bush 2 the official policy was for a divided Korea as the USG doesn't want more competition in the Northwest Pacific where the interests of Russia, China, Japan, Korea and the USG collide and a unified Korea with nukes is just another threat to USG hegemony there.
davelnaf| 11.29.10 @ 8:26AM
No matter how justified a complete withdrawal from South Korea has been for at least the last ten years Washington has been reluctant to pull the trigger on it out of an abiding fear of the unintended consequences it might produce. In terms of this country’s defense posture around the world this comes close to being a defense ‘religion’ in DC.
Every country we call an ally has quietly told Washington that it owns a part or all of their security and our ‘leaders’ have accepted this as an unassailable premise. But this policy is no longer affordable and we are seeing the results of the decades long drag it has put on our country and our economy. Together with the boneheaded domestic spending Washington is infamous for this policy became unwise and ultimately unsustainable a long time ago.
A defense re-adjustment in South Korea, in particular, is long overdue.
A. C. Santore| 11.29.10 @ 9:14AM
Davelnaf, are you serious? First, we have too much blood invested in South Korea. Second, and more important, a Korea "unified" by force by North Korea would be one of the worst disasters in our history.
Try to imagine the effect on the Far East of a unified Korea under the rule of the Kim family, with nuclear weapons and one of the strongest economies in the world.
Try harder to imagine the effect on the world. It frightens anyone who can.
Tom| 11.29.10 @ 9:37AM
A.C.,
The North Koreans cannot defeat South Korea militarily without resorting to nuclear weapons, and I am not sure even then. We could let everyone know that any use of nuclear weapons on South Korea would be treated as an attack on the United States and we will respond in kind.
A.C. Santore| 11.29.10 @ 5:24PM
I'm not arguing with you, but I do not agree that North Korea cannot defeat South Korea militarily without resorting to nuclear weapons. [I have respect for the Korean people, but the military facts are not disputable.]
The ROK troops - and their leaders - were definitely not up to stopping North Korea and would most definitely not have done so in the '50s. Only our and our U.N. allies could do it.
I do not doubt that the same situation will repeat itself, except that without us in force, the North would win.
Millions of troops under arms - especially in their system - would present a mean problem, just in numbers alone, as happened before until we jumped in.
Finally, whereas I most seriously doubt our willingness to use nuclear weapons in Korea [far too many bad results], I do not doubt North Korea's willingness to do so. They have less to lose, and do not see us as a serious threat this time.
Tom| 11.29.10 @ 8:02PM
The problem with your thesis is that in the invasion of 1950 North Korea had a significant technological and material advantage over South Korea. That advantage no longer exists. The South is better trained, equipped, and supplied.
The balance of arms no longer is advantagous to the North, if it was 37K American troops would be meaningless. The South Koreans would have naval and air supremacy from day 1, the North would most likely have enormous supply problems, and could not afford to lose because doing so would endanger the entire regime.
I disagree with you in regards to nuclear weapon use in Korea, I believe if the North Koreans made first use we would respond.
hyperbola2| 12.5.10 @ 3:33PM
You make the mistake of thinking that our foreign policy is run for the benefit of America. In fact, much of it is run for the personal benefit of our corrupt elite.
South Korea in particular has long been a source of "slush fund payoffs" to individual Americans and political parties. Check out the relationship of the Bush family with corruption in South Korea.
tdiinva| 11.29.10 @ 9:16AM
Bandow and the CATO foreign policy team are as dumb as their left wing counterparts. They live in a mythological world where if the United States just ignores the world everything will be hunky dory just like it was in the early days of the Republic when we were seperated from the big bad Europeans by a then huge ocean. Oops, I just openeed a history book and found out that during those halcyon early days of the Republic we spend one third of our first 25 years in actual war with with those distant European powers and the remaining time they were preying upon US commerce. In fact we spent more time at war in our first 25 years then we did in the next 100 years and four of those years we were at war with ourselves.
And now for the real facts Dougie, OPCON transfer to the RoK happens in less then two years. They will be in charge and we will be in support. Besides the RoK has always contributed more to the defense of their country then the United States.
Just because you aren't lookking for trouble doesn't mean trouble doesn't come looking for you.
Tom| 11.29.10 @ 9:40AM
"Besides the RoK has always contributed more to the defense of their country then the United States."
The contribute 2.7% of their GDP for defense.
tdiinva| 11.29.10 @ 9:57AM
Fun with numbers. That 2.7% is fully dedicated to the defense of South Korea. That is more then adequate to meet the challenge.
Tom| 11.29.10 @ 10:23AM
Ok, if it is more than adequate to meet the challenge there is no need for US troops stationed on Korean soil.
tdiinva| 11.29.10 @ 10:53AM
Perhaps we should pass a new non-intercourse act so that Americans can't trade or go overseas. Then everyone will leave us alone. That sure worked the first time we tried it.
Tom| 11.29.10 @ 12:21PM
Right, because that is what I am advocating. You cannot have it both ways either South Korea spends enough to defend itself or it does not. If it does not it needs to. It is perfectly capable of spending more, its defense outlays as a percentage of GNP are significantly below America's (which you categorized as no big deal).
Please be consistent, is it your opinion the South Koreans spend enough to defend their nation or not?
tdiinva| 11.29.10 @ 12:39PM
The United States has interests in Asia you either prohibit US citizens from going to or trading with Asia or you step up and have military presense in the region whether your allies can carry the burden or not.
As long as we have economic and political relationships with Asia the United States will be drawn into any future Asian conflict that oocurs and it is more likely to happen if the US pulls out of the region. South Korea is an ally, not a dependency. They support us and we support them. So the only alternative to a military presense in the region and that means on the Penisula is to prohibit economic intercourse in the region. By supporting a US withdrawal from the Peninsula and implicitly from the entire region you are advocating non-intercourse.
William R| 11.29.10 @ 1:00PM
South Korea is a very wealthy country fully capable of defending itself. We are broke and borrowing money from China to keep troops in Korea. The war ended 58 years ago. Time to come home and start rebuilding our economy!
Tom| 11.29.10 @ 1:06PM
Ok, you answered my question: South Korea cannot defend itself. It needs to spend more.
There is no implicit suggestion from me that America should withdraw from the entire region. But even if I had that hardly is the equivilant of advocating non-intercourse. Such an argument is silly. A nation does not forfeit its right to travel and trade because it does not garrison another nation.
By your own words you paint South Korea, militarily at least, as dependent upon the United States. If, as you previously stated, it spent a sum "That is more then adequate to meet the challenge." there would be no need for a large American presence.
It is interesting the straw men you line up. Failure to garrison a nation that can afford to defend itself somehow means Americans cannot either trade to travel through the entirety of the region. That is just absurd. North Korea does not represent an existential threat to South Korea assuming the North does not go nuclear.
South Korea needs nothing more than a token American force. There is already a mutual defense treaty obligating American response to any invasion of South Korea.
tdiinva| 11.29.10 @ 1:41PM
How big do you think the US contingent is in South Korea? It is a token. A few airplanes and one BCT of the 2nd ID. The remaining forces are mostly intel collection and logistics personnel.
Maybe you missed it but nK is nuclear and will use it to reunify the Peninsula absent an equivalent RoK deterrent. Beyond that nK's nuclear option can be used short of war to intimidate not just the RoK but Japan as well. You reasoning falls a little short there.
You go ahead and claim the right to commercial intercourse in a hostile environment without the force to back it up. You will get as far as Jefferson and Madison did with the British during the Napoleonic Wars. The world has not changed. You only get as much access to the global commons as you can enforce. If you don't have the presence you are at the sufferance of others and if they don't give it you don't get it. If you are not willing to enforce it then you don't go there.
US forces are no longer in Korea to solely defend Korea. They represent the US committeemen to collective security in the region and a hedge not just against nK but as a balance to growing PRC power in East Asia. If you say we shouldn’t be in Korea then it follows necessarily that we should not be Japan either and that you are willing to let China be the hegemon in North East Asia. You will then find out we no longer have an inherent right to travel or engage commerce in the region.
Tom| 11.29.10 @ 5:10PM
The troops in Korea do not guarantee freedom of the seas, the US Navy does.
There are only 33 combat brigades in the entire Army, 1 brigade is hardly a token force.
Where exactly does my reasoning fall short? I neither mentioned removing American nuclear umbrella from South Korea nor abrogating the mutual defense treaty with it. Your reasoning is faulty; there is no reason beyond a small token force, and no, 37K troops is not token, to assure North Korea that force will be met with force. By your own admission, although you are all over the map with it, South Korea is able to defend itself. If this is true its only existential worry is the North going nuclear. Which would be an act of insanity - something that cannot be discounted - however our presence will not deter irrationality.
The fact is the force in Korea serves no rational purpose. It is too small to do any real good in a major war where China is involved and big enough where it drains resources from other areas. At a time where there is serious consideration to cutting defense spending a large force in Korea simple makes no sense.
Oh please, how exactly is China going to remove our right to travel and trade in North East Asia? Their navy is all but non-existent. If the naval balance of power was swapped it would not matter if we had 370K troops in Korea because they would lack the potential to project their power outside of the Korean pennisula. Chinese influence is growing but it is growing but it is not primarily because of their rather inadequate military it is because they have money to spend.
Zbigniew Mazurak| 11.30.10 @ 3:01AM
"The troops in Korea do not guarantee freedom of the seas, the US Navy does."
Yup. The same US Navy that you and all other isolationists (including Bandow, Chris Edwards, Pat Buchanan and TGC) want to cut severely.
"There are only 33 combat brigades in the entire Army, 1 brigade is hardly a token force."
There are at least 3 combat brigades stationed in Europe, withdraw them first.
"Oh please, how exactly is China going to remove our right to travel and trade in North East Asia? Their navy is all but non-existent."
Non-existent? Their submarine fleet is currently as big as the USN's (71 boats); their subs can stalk American ships undetected; they have dozens of surface combatants equipped with Naval SAMs and some of them can even launch anti-ship cruise missiles and anti-ship BMs; they have at least 6 SSBNs and 1 SSB; they also have an aircraft carrier (Varyag) and a Naval Air Force. They could sink the entire USN with only small losses.
"Chinese influence is growing but it is growing but it is not primarily because of their rather inadequate military it is because they have money to spend."
Their military, as a whole, is hardly inadequate (although their tank fleet is). They have a stronger Navy than the USN, and their newest fighterplanes are superior to every Western fighterplane type except the F-22 and the F-35 (the latter is now threatened by ideological opponents of a strong defense who wish to redirect defense spending into domestic programs).
Of course, China also has a lot of money to invest. But that is because of its HUGE annual trade surplus vis-a-vis the rest of the world. This is a result of idiotic trade arrangements made by administrations of both parties with the PRC. Luckily, this can be changed, by instituting Import/Export Certificates and STRICT PRODUCT QUALITY STANDARDS.
Tom| 11.30.10 @ 6:26AM
Yes, their navy is non-existent. It has little blue water capability. Secondly it is a tad presumptious for you to assume I want to cut defense in general or the navy is particular. I do not. I think the fleet is far too small, as are the ground forces, and air force.
If you really believe that the Peoples LiberationArmy Navy can sink the American Navy in a day with only small losses then need to remove the troops in Korea because they face the prospect of being slowly attrited since we will not be able to supply them. 37K odd troops is not enough to make any real difference and the money can be better spent building a navy that can compete with the PLAN.
The Chinese spend less than 1/6th what America spends on its military, their 'aircraft carrier' is a joke, its air force undertrained. If they have the local superiority you claim they do a force in Korea is foolish, we have bigger fish to fry.
As far as their subramine fleet most they have less than 60, we can detect them at will, and at best they would be target practice for the USN. Their sole aircraft might serve to intimidate small nations but it would be useless in a shooting war with the US.
Zbigniew Mazurak| 11.30.10 @ 1:42PM
"As far as their subramine fleet most they have less than 60"
Untrue. They have 71 submarines, as many subs as the USN has. Specifically, the PLAN has 31 Romeo class and Ming class subs, 5 Han class subs, 2 Shang class subs, 1 Xia class SSBN, 5 Jin class SSBNs, 13 Song class submarines, 5 Yuan class submarines, and 1 Golf class submarine.
"we can detect them at will, and at best they would be target practice for the USN."
The same USN that can't even detect most of these subs? The USN cannot even detect China's conventional subs, let alone the nuclear ones. Chinese Song class subs have repeatedly stalked American warships, surfacing only when they were close enough to launch their torpedoes at American warships. Plus, the PLAN has a few unconventional weapon types that negate whatever conventional advantage the USN might enjoy. For example, naval mines (cheap and lethal) and anti-ship cruise missiles and BMs, launched from warships like the Sovremenny class combatants they bought from Russia exactly to sink American warships.
"The Chinese spend less than 1/6th what America spends on its military, their 'aircraft carrier' is a joke, its air force undertrained. "
Nope. China's 2009 defense budget was $100-150 bn. That was about 1/5 or 1/4th of America's defense budget ($513 bn in FY2009, $534 bn in FY2010). And the difference is not that big, because in China, one dollar can buy much more than in the US. The PLA also has many off-budget sources of income, while the US military has none, except minor sales of obsolete warships to scrappers.
China's air force is undertrained? Maybe, but it has hundreds of modern fighterplanes that can shoot down anything except an F-22 or an F-35. They have hundreds of Flankers, over 100 J-10s, and several JF-17s. China is now working on its indigenous fifth generation fighterplane.
"If you really believe that the Peoples LiberationArmy Navy can sink the American Navy in a day with only small losses then need to remove the troops in Korea because they face the prospect of being slowly attrited since we will not be able to supply them. 37K odd troops is not enough to make any real difference and the money can be better spent building a navy that can compete with the PLAN."
Absolutely true.
"I think the fleet is far too small, as are the ground forces, and air force."
I agree 100%. The current fleet size (286 commissioned ships as of today, according to the USN's NVR) is the smallest since 1916.
Tom| 12.1.10 @ 9:46AM
Our numbers on their subs are different, I can cite several sources but here is one : http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/sub/default.asp
Every source I have accessed has a Chinese sub force of between 50 and 60 boats. I'd be interested to see your sources.
The Romeo and Ming class subs are based on 1950's technology, they are as loud as a rock concert to modern American detection equiptment. They would be nothing more than target practice. The Song is a Chinese version of the Russian kilo which we have been able to detect for years. I agree that the Song and especially the Yuan are something to fear but they are severely limited in numbers.
I dispute the ability of non-nuclear standoff weapons to severely challenge a carrier battle group. The escort vessels are specifically designed for two purposes: find and defeat subs and shoot down stand off weapons. Perhaps the Chinese have found the magic arrow, lets hope neither one of us will ever find out which one of us is right.
I do not agree with your numbers on the Chinese defense budget, but since it is a closed society we won't really know. But even accepting your numbers one thing you fail to account for is China is engaged in an enormous modernization of its forces which is more expensive than merely maintaining a force. They need to spend more because they were starting at such a low level.
Answer me this: If the USN is so vulnerable to the PLAN why does Taiwan still exist as a nominally independent nation? The only thing keeping it independent is the PLAN's inability to confront an American carrier battle group.
Kevin Riley O'Keeffe | 11.29.10 @ 4:51PM
You mean if we stopped subsidizing the national defense of South Korea, they'd stop dumping their products on our market? Sounds great, but since I don't see the upside for them, I doubt it would happen. We don't need to station soldiers in South Korea and Japan in order to conduct trade with East Asian nations. But if we did have less trade with East Asian nations, maybe we'd have more of a domestic industrial sector?
loulou| 11.29.10 @ 5:08PM
South Korea does not dump products on our market. You thinking of China.
Incredibly, the South Koreans make better cars than we do. Except for the Fords.
nyright| 11.30.10 @ 1:01AM
Why would you have to prohibit Americans from travelling or doing business in SoKo, just because we might not have an army there? Europeans do business in Asia without stationing troops there. We travel to and do business with many places in Asia where we don't have military presence. I have been to South Korea on business, and saw other foreigners there to compete with my company. They didn't need a local military presence to do business there. I have also travelled to and done business in Malaysia ad Indonesia, where we don't have military presence.
While I am not throughly convinced by either side of this argument so far, I certainly don't think that withdrawal of our military from other countries means we can never set foot outside the U.S. again. Other nations do spend significantly less on their own defense, and many of them get away with it simply because they can always rely on us to pick up the slack. Pressuring them to ante up for their own defense is certainly in order.
tdiinva| 11.30.10 @ 3:22PM
Tom, like all these neo-isolationists, demonstrates he is a dumbass. Perhaps you should be better informed about Chinese claims to a 200 nm EEZ. That covers the Yellow and South China Seas and if they get Taiwan under their control it will go deep into Philippine Sea as well. China just doesn't claim the right to monopolize economic activity in the EEZ. They claim it is sovereign territory where they can ban others from entering. So yes, if we do not have presense in the region the PRC can and will prohibit US trade in the region.
You idiots want to know what 1 BCT and a handful of aircraft buy us? It gets us access to the region. If we withdraw then we lose it and the PRC controls Asia to our detriment.
Isolationists have been the class clowns of foreign relations since the beginning of the Republic. The are bigger fools then the leftists.
Tom| 12.1.10 @ 12:13PM
TDIINVA,
I am an isolationist and a dumbass? Nice to know, you cannot counter my arguments in any logical way, you contradict yourself repeatedly, but I am a dumbass.
Please tell me how 37K troops in South Korea ensures our rights of passage? They don't, the US Navy does that. You have laid out no argument supporting your contention that removing troops from South Korea would lead to American being unable to travel and trade in the region. You simply stated it as fact. The reason is there is no argument that can be made to that effect. The force in Korea cannot project power in any real way, a carrier battle group can. Are we going to march the combat brigade into the Yellow Sea?
You Sir, are an idiot incapable of independent thought. When confronted with fact and argument that counters your beliefs you bluster, rant and repeat the same tripe. What evidence do you have that removal of most combat troops would lead to the complete and utter cessation of trade and travel to the region?
hyperbola2| 12.5.10 @ 3:40PM
What!! We cannot participate in the world unless we militarily threaten them?? Boy did you let the cat out of the bag about our stupid elite and the obscene cradle-to-grave totalitarian state propaganda to which Americans are subjected.
As for your comments about our revolutionary war, remember Washington's words. And you might care to think about the fact that our war of independence was essentially a revolution against a corrupt government (Britain) that was controlled for the benefit of a "global corporation" (the East India Company) and that our resistance was labelled as terrorism.
Now which country in the world has a corrupt elite controlled by "globalizers" that use the government and our military to economically exploit other countries and peoples?
bogi666| 12.5.10 @ 11:48AM
Thank you for calling out CATO, a shill for the fascists, along with all the other fascist Stink Tanks.
Thomas| 11.29.10 @ 9:30AM
Previous respondents have hit the nail on the head, here. In the first place, the DPRK is a wholly owned subsidiary of the PRC [People's Republic of China]. The DPRK can do nothing against the wishes of the PRC without suffering near instant starvation. This brewing conflict is not a machination of the DPRK, though they are willing accessories, but provocation aimed at the United States by China. And, if recent history has taught the U.S. anything, it is that an expansionist Asian power can never be allowed to gain control of neighboring countries. The Japanese were allowed to do that in the late 1930's and it took four years of brutal warfare and a good deal of luck to stop their plans for the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere; read empire. Now the PRC has amassed an army totally disproportionate to its defensive needs. It has developed anti-satellite weaponry. It is testing cyber-warfare systems. And it has stepped up open acts of provocation against the U.S. military, especially at sea. The U.S. defense of the ROK has little to do with protecting South Korea and everything to do with preventing another East Asian-Pacific conflict.
The reason for the small number of U.S. troops in-country in South Korea is simply to act as a deterrent against attack. Historically, the U.S. has responded militarily when its troops come under fire. The theory is that an aggressor, DPRK and their master, the PRC, would not want to risk U.S. involvement should they attack the ROK, which killing U.S. troops would surely trigger.
hyperbola2| 12.5.10 @ 3:44PM
The US military is proportionate to our "defensive" needs? And our "needs" are somehow special compared to other countries? Or they have the right to roughly equal "defensive needs".
Arguing that you have "special rights" is not much different thatn every totalitarian state in history.
Occam's Tool| 1.26.11 @ 12:24AM
Our needs are somewhat special compared to other countries, as we are special.
My daughter will never don the Burkha for you, maggot.
Mel Torme| 11.29.10 @ 9:30AM
"With Uncle Sam effectively bankrupt, Americans increasingly will have to debate how much they should spend on "defense." The answer should be: as much as is necessary for defense -- of America. But no more for the defense of prosperous and populous allies, such as South Korea."
Absolutely, Mr. Bandow, and that's pretty much what I stated a few days, back, in the comments on this article:
(you've gotta paste it)
http://spectator.org/archives/.....ess-butter
Good luck getting that across to some of these clowns here. They think it's more important to "project US power across the oceans" than it is to keep out country solvent, keep our sovereignty, and guard our country from invasion from the south and via unlimited legal immigration of people who hate us.
Mel Torme| 11.29.10 @ 9:31AM
Hey, kudos to your software - the link got made up automatically.
Sheila| 11.29.10 @ 12:09PM
Good comment, Mel Torme. Poor, defenseless little South Korea, which aggressively pursues rapprochement with its northern cousins while angrily condemning the crime of the day by U.S. troops stationed there. They love the dollars we spend there, they love to immigrate here to work in massage parlors, they love to rely on our defense budget, and they love to denounce our presence in their homeland. With allies like this, who needs enemies? Most readers here cannot comprehend that prior to WWII, "conservative" belief meant minding our own business and keeping free of foreign entanglements. Our "tripwire" troops in Korea (not to mention Germany) would be of greater service to the country on the southern border -oops, forgot, given the massive incursions of foreign drug runners and gang leaders, better make that at least 100 miles in from the border since we've effectively ceded at least that much territory to Mexico.
South Korea was lauded repeatedly in the 80s and 90s as one of the Asian economic "tigers," but somehow she cannot possibly be expected to defend herself?!
Behind the entire issue, of course, is the fact the the Norks are most likely now, as in the 50s, acting as someone else's agent/probe. Moscow's then, Beijing's now. Either way, The Won is not the stuff a commander-in-chief is made of, and the "global community" whose praise he so covets will not bow to a paper tiger.
Zbigniew Mazurak| 11.29.10 @ 12:50PM
WTH are you talking about? What South Koreans are protesting against American troops in SK right now? As for "conservative", it means a strong military and a confident foreign policy - not isolationism.
"Minding our own business" was the correct policy during the 18th century (when the US was protected by two vast oceans and European countries were busy fighting each other) but it makes no sense now. Today, such a policy would mean ceding the entire free world, except America itself, to thugs like Kim Jong Il, Ahmadinejad, Putin, Hugo Chavez and Bashar Assad.
It is also wrong and insulting for you to claim that Korean Americans immigrate to the US to work in massage parlors. I know a few Korean Americans who actually do white-collar jobs and have never worked at massage parlors.
It's also not true that SK pursues rapprochement with NK. Not anymore. President Lee has implemented a markedly tougher policy towards Pyongyang than his predecessors.
Tom| 11.29.10 @ 1:12PM
Zbigniew,
As you well know there is a long history of South Korean protests against the presence of the American military in their country. And if by chance you are not google is your friend.
Mel Torme| 11.29.10 @ 2:31PM
It's more like history is not his friend, Tom. This guy is still stuck in the cold war mentality, as are many of the posters. This Zbigniew fellow still even has his cold-war era moniker.
BTW, thanks, Sheila, and great comment! You are indeed a true Conservative.
Zbigniew Mazurak| 11.30.10 @ 2:51AM
ROTFL! You think "Zbigniew Mazurak" is my nickname? That's funny, my documents say that it's been by real name ever since I came into this world.
And just for the record - no, I am not stuck in a Cold War mentality. I merely recognize the fact that NK and China are sworn enemies of the United States; that NK has tons of weapons of mass destruction against which SK is unable to protect itself (to obtain nukes, it would have to violate the NPT); and that withdrawing American troops from SK would mean ceding the Korean Peninsula to Stalinist tyrant as well as enabling and emboldening him to threaten all of Asia, as well as the US, with his ICBMs and nuclear warheads.
American troops don't need to be stationed in Europe any longer. That's why, for a long time, I've been advocating a withdrawal of American troops from Europe to the US. However, there is NO reason to withdraw American troops from SK and Japan.
Zbigniew Mazurak| 11.30.10 @ 2:52AM
I know that, but I asked how many SKs were protesting against American troops during the last several days (the relevant period)? So far, no answer to that question has been posted.
Tom| 11.30.10 @ 11:05AM
I see, so your historical perspective is measured in the dozens of hours. Interesting...
Dale Cord| 12.1.10 @ 9:47AM
Gee Sheila, You sure brought out those Liberals pretending to be conservatives from their fox holes here, by your comments. You can always tell a Liberal from a true conservative. They give themselves away by their attack on the truth every time! Almost all of the time its a silly and laughable attack either on your spelling or criticizing a proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt fact. After all, didn't they spit on and beat the truth beyond recognition,piercing it with nails and spears thousands of years ago? They try in their feeble and inept way to silence it before it reaches the part of the brain, that condemns them for their folly and immoral behavior.Truth will always win out in the end, for it is the beacon of light at the end of the darkened tunnel of Liberalism.
Zbigniew Mazurak| 11.29.10 @ 12:59PM
Utter BS. As exemplified by your claim that projecting the USN across the oceans is less important than the (admittedly important) goals you've listed.
Newsflash: Almost everything that the US doesn't import from Canada or Mexico, or export to those countries, is imported or exported by sea. This is true of the oil that the US imports every year (in large quantities) from the ME as well as the cheap stuff the US imports from Asia. Protecting the world's sea lanes is absolutely necessary for the US to remain a prosperous country. That is NOT to say that guarding the Southern border is irrelevant - just that both of these tasks must be executed.
Derek Leaberry| 11.29.10 @ 9:53AM
Countries with structural $ 1.3 trillion to $ 1.5 trillion deficits can not afford to keep troops in an affluent, relatively unstrategic outpost in Northeast Asia. South Korea has ten times the GDP of North Korea and over twice the population. The American troops in Korea need to come home. The South Koreans must be forced to grow up and defend themselves by themselves.
Old Soldier| 11.29.10 @ 1:49PM
Unstrategic? Really?
MoT| 12.5.10 @ 4:00PM
Give it a rest
hunter| 11.29.10 @ 10:00AM
Hell...Give South Korea the nukes the U.S. is seemingly willing to give up in the SALT talks, keep the printing presses humming and pay China all thats due her, issue new U.S. currency thats good only in the U.S. That would teach the Chinese to sit on their asses grinning to belive they have us in a bind.
Mr. Lindstrom| 11.29.10 @ 10:12AM
DAMN RIGHT.
chris haynes| 11.29.10 @ 10:13AM
Not just Korea.
Europe, Japan, Mideast.
Not our job.
Mel Torme| 11.29.10 @ 10:52AM
Yep.
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.29.10 @ 10:59AM
chris,
It is our honor.
ZZbiig???
I happened to drop in on your blog site. How can you root for us in Korea, and then say the things you said on your blog about our support of Israel.?
Doublethink perhaps?
Zbigniew Mazurak| 11.29.10 @ 12:42PM
South Korea is one of the best allies America has ever had. SK has never dragged the US into any war (the Korean War was started by the DPRK and the UNSC obliged ALL UN members to defend SK), has sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, and is one of America's most important trade partners. Just as fiscally conservative groups like ATR and the Club For Growth about their opinions. SK, however, has a militarily-stronger, unpredictable neighbor sitting right on its border.
On the other hand, Israel is a country which has committed repeated treacheries against the US (the Jonathan Pollard incident, the attack on USS Liberty, etc.). It has dragged the US headfirst into the Yom Kippur war, brought about a devastating oil embargo against the entire Western world, undermined Reagan as he was negotiating with the Soviets, repeatedly transferred American weapons to China, and has damaged America's image in the Muslim world. It sucks in $3 bn per year from the US State Department, part of which is used to demolish Palestinian homes in the territories Israel conquered in 1967.
loulou| 11.29.10 @ 1:31PM
You sound suspisciously like that odious creep, Zbig Brezinski (or however the hell he spells it). Do you have a double life?
Zbigniew Mazurak| 11.29.10 @ 2:01PM
No. I'm just a regular guy. And I have nothing to do with Zbig B., except that I have the same first name as he.
loulou| 11.29.10 @ 4:24PM
And what did YOUR family do during WWII?
Zbigniew Mazurak| 11.30.10 @ 4:07PM
My grandfather fought as a soldier against Nazi Germany during WW2. Satisfied?
Occam's Tool| 1.26.11 @ 12:27AM
I tend to doubt that, Z. You are an antisemitic scuzball, and a traitor.
GW| 11.29.10 @ 3:07PM
Who cares about the Palestinians? Israel should demolish more than their homes.
Chuck| 11.29.10 @ 12:14PM
South Koreans broke and ran in June 1950 putting the US behind the eight ball. The did nothing about the sinking of their ship last March. They broke and ran last Tuesday fleeing like yellow cowards in the Yellow Sea. The North crosses the 38th parallel the South will break and run again, leaving Americans holding the bag.
BigAl| 11.29.10 @ 1:07PM
South Korea also sent the second largest contingent of troops to the Vietnam War. Their record against the North Vietnamese was superb both in terms of stand-up combat and in COIN operations.
The reason the South Koreans cut and ran in 1950 was that they had virtually no armor against NK T-34s.
As for the whole incident Tuesday, what has been neglected was that the ROKs dispatched a couple of F-16s to the area, they were "challenged" by a couple of MIG-21s from the Norks, which promptly turned tail and headed back for NK airspace.
But I agree, while SK has been a good ally, it needs to do more in terms of non-nuclear self defense. The U.S. should withdraw all ground forces, beyond liaison and training personnel.
However we cannot afford an arms race either so S.K. should focus on increased spending dealing with a conventional threat from NK, and also contribute its developed forces to assisting in humanitarian and maritime efforts.
Meanwhile the U.S. should continue to quietly project a presence in regards to China's ambitions and also be the Nuclear guarantee against North Korea.
Marine Vet| 11.29.10 @ 1:58PM
Big talk from an armchair general.
At the end of WWII, the Soviets trained and equipped the North Korean Army - Truman only authorized training of South Korean police. They had neither the training nor equipment to face tanks and heavy infantry. The first troops there from the U.S. Eighth Army also broke and ran.
If you ever trained with ROK Marines you wouldn’t spout such nonsense. And if you said it in their presence, you wouldn’t have teeth left to spout it through. ROK’s and Brits are the only foreign troops I’ve met I would trust to guard our flanks.
Tdubb| 11.29.10 @ 7:53PM
Sincere question; what about The Australians?
Thank you.
Marine Vet| 11.30.10 @ 8:41AM
Heard good things but never trained or served with them.
Tdubb| 11.30.10 @ 9:27PM
That was my impression, but it's always good to hear what the guys who have "been there" think.
Thanks for your service!
tdiinva| 11.29.10 @ 2:16PM
The RoK Army did not break and run in 1950. They fought and died where they stood ont the border. RoK forces on the East Coast only retreated because of the debacle in the West. Absent the T-34 the RoKs outfought the nK in the early days of the war.
Dale Cord| 11.29.10 @ 12:30PM
Politics, Politics, Politics......How many of our men and women in uniform have to be sacrificed on the bloody alter, of political corruption between Washington and foreign nations? Dying in battle in some far away country on the pretence of freedom for the world is the epitome of stupidity! How many Americans were murdered by these vermin in Washington, so they can sit in their $1000 suits while they stuff their gullets at their banquets of the finest wines and foods of the world, and dance with their naked whores on the graves of those who gave their lives for their folly? Have you ever once asked yourselves why was General MacArthur fired by Truman for doing his job so well, in ridding North Korea of the Chinese take over of their country? or why was the sixth Army command taken from General Patton by President Eisenhower for liberating Europe of the insanity of Hitler and his mob of murderers? Politics and its definition is: sleeping with the enemy, as one who would sleep with a common whore and then get up the next morning, denying the fact that you have an incurable disease of infidelity to a nation you swore before your Creator to, "protect and defend above all else". Read and study your history as to who gained wealth and power for the shed blood of so many Americans, in using the name freedom falsely as a guise for their folly. F.D.R knew about the pending attack on Pearl Harbour days before it took place, as did Clinton and Bush also knew of the attack on New York in bringing down the Trade center long before it came about. So many American lives were sacrificed for the eventual enslavement of our people in the name of "National Security" The molesting of America is a long and tedious process, but the enemy is willing to wait, for its appetite for complete submission by its prey is its reward in the end. How much of your freedoms have you already lost? look around you and see what we are now being subjected to, the fleecing of our income, being humiliated at your airports by mentally disturbed people who have been given a uniform, as a sign of power, to view your naked body and fondle your genitals and your children's. They do this to see how much they can get away with in violating you. Next they will be coming into your homes to rape your family in the name of "National Security". Nothing is sacred or beyond the law to mentally disturbed people, who think they have the right to beat and kill you if necessary, for your complete submission to their will. The Politics of Hypocrisy has brought our nation to the brink of another Holocaust in the makings.
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.29.10 @ 4:23PM
Dale,
The next time you feel the need for a bowel movement, please go to the bathroom instead of here.
Thank you.
Dale Cord| 11.29.10 @ 8:10PM
Ken, What an intelligent comment,did you get that from your favorite cartoons on TV ? I would suggest you read something other than comic books to improve your grade school mentality. You Liberals just can't stand to hear the truth,can you Ken? Thank you very much.
RCV| 11.30.10 @ 1:32PM
You must be new to this site. No one has ever called Ken a "liberal" before!
Occam's Tool| 1.26.11 @ 12:29AM
Ken, a Liberal. Wow, Dale, you are a live anencephalic, ar you. You and my new best friend,Nazi boy Z. (Your father, Z, was a gutless coward.)
Occam's Tool| 1.26.11 @ 12:44AM
You know, Mel, the real one was a Jewish Israel supporter. Just thought you might want to know.
By the way, after anencephalic, should read "aren't." Thanks.
MoT| 12.5.10 @ 4:04PM
I suppose when you say "bowel movement" you mean he needs to repeat after you? Right?
blackwatch| 11.29.10 @ 12:40PM
Well it's obvious that we need to destabilize Soviet NK during their time of leadership transition. It's an obvious vulnerability and the likely reason behind the latest spate of warmongering by Dear Leader.
Start with selling the ROK as many missles as they can pay cash for. They have enough rifles and bullets. Also why don't we sell them as many A10 Warthogs as we can build? Talk about a shovel ready job for Lil'Barry The Kenyan to endorse.
Seems like and excellent plane to use on the NK artillery and battle troops as they march south on Seoul. $12,000,000 each plus some spares and missles. How many do you need? say 200 for starters?
Hunter| 11.29.10 @ 4:48PM
Great Idea !
Except they quit building A10's about 30 years ago.
Too bad, they work work well on the NORKS.
Jerome| 11.29.10 @ 1:15PM
It's been very interesting reading the various back and forths between the very distinguished and intelligent commenters on this subject. It seems to me that we are lurching between two important points that need to be reconciled.
On the one side, it is incumbent upon the USA, as the world's superpower, to maintain a military presence sufficient to deter any potential adversary who might pose a threat to world peace and security (or some such sentiment). As a practical matter the USA has evolved into being the security guarantor of last resort throughout the entire free world. The constitutional basis for this posture resides with the requirement to provide for a common defense.
On the other side, it is becoming readily apparent that the financial burden of fulfilling the role of security guarantor for the entire free world is one of the components that is leading this country down the road of financial ruin. Our military needs are simply becoming unaffordable unless drastic action is taken in other areas of the Federal budget.
Color me in the camp of those who say it's time for our allies in the free world to share more of the cost of our collective security. I recently came across an astounding statistic - the military budget of the USA exceeds the combined military budgets of all our allies in the free world. It's a simple fact that our allies are freeloading on us regarding common defense while this country is drowning in debt. Of course equitable cost sharing must never override our vital national security interests. My belief is that perhaps we need to be more selective in defining exactly what our vital national security interests are. For instance - what vital national security interest is being served by thousands of troops stationed in Germany? Just asking.
Zbigniew Mazurak| 11.29.10 @ 1:28PM
"On the other side, it is becoming readily apparent that the financial burden of fulfilling the role of security guarantor for the entire free world is one of the components that is leading this country down the road of financial ruin."
Patently false. Firstly, America is not the sole defender of the entire free world (SK, France and a few other democratic countries also maintain respectable militaries). Secondly, America's defense spending is NOT driving America into debt. Defense spending accounted for only 14.87% of the total federal budget and a paltry 3.65% of GDP as of FY2010. Even total military spending, including GWOT spending, accounted for only 18.5% of the total federal budget.
"Our military needs are simply becoming unaffordable unless drastic action is taken in other areas of the Federal budget."
Patently false, as indicated above. And domestic spending is so bloated that it needs to be reduced dramatically anyway.
"Color me in the camp of those who say it's time for our allies in the free world to share more of the cost of our collective security. I recently came across an astounding statistic - the military budget of the USA exceeds the combined military budgets of all our allies in the free world."
That statistic is false. According to SIPRI, total American military spending ($664 bn as of FY2010) accounts for 43% of global military spending. A sizeable share, but not the majority. Not even close. The US doesn't even have a bigger military budget than the next 12 countries combined, if the SIPRI's numbers are to be believed.
And who the hell said anything about Germany? We're talking about South Korea, not Germany.
Jerome| 11.29.10 @ 2:15PM
My friend, if you don't recognize that this country is over-extended in virtually all facets of its expenditures, then you are part of the problem, not the solution.
Derek Leaberry| 11.29.10 @ 5:18PM
Exactly. Sadly, I see little sign that the new Congress understands America's myriad fiscal problems.
Zbigniew Mazurak| 11.30.10 @ 4:08PM
My friend, if you don't recognize that defense spending is not the cause of America's fiscal woes, and is too small to cause them (14.87% of the FY2010 federal budget), then you are part of the problem, not the solution.
bogi666| 12.5.10 @ 12:07PM
The Pentagram/spy agencies are funded by the Treasury bond proceeds for the national debt which is evidenced by a regression analysis since Reagan started the huge deficits while simultaneously increasing Pentagram spending. The purpose of the Pentagram is being the enforcement arm of the NSA/NSC mission, to secure and protect the world resources of the PREDATORY CAPITALIST WELFARE KINGS, some of which pay no USG taxes. Anyone whom goes for the USG propaganda about protecting our liberties is nonsense which is the only sense the USG has. All whom go for the USG propaganda have been instilled with mindlessness the inability or not knowing to discern thoughts including the thoughts of others from facts which is institutionalized using the MSM which give mindlessness legitimacy even creating peer pressure for mindlessness.
MoT| 12.5.10 @ 4:06PM
Zbig. Time to end your ranting boot-licking. The MIC is indeed the problem, your fascist sentiments aside.
Occam's Tool| 1.26.11 @ 12:30AM
The French? Protect who? Z, you are a moron, even though I agree with you on South Korea.
Red Phillips | 11.29.10 @ 1:18PM
"It's time for South Korea to defend itself"
Amen! Thank God for Mr. Bandow's island of non-interventionist conservative wisdom in this sea of interventionist dogma.
loulou| 11.29.10 @ 1:29PM
Ditto.
And while we're at it, we need to get out of Germany and Afghanistan.
Derek Leaberry| 11.29.10 @ 3:06PM
I find it puzzling that military-conservatives and neo-conservatives can't comprehend that nations that run $ 1 trillion + deficits can not afford to project themselves militarily across the globe. The USA faces budgetary implosion in the future and many conservatives seem oblivious to that fact.
To expand to global strategy, neither Korea or Vietnam are vital to American interests. America has never had any important economic ties to Korea or Vietnam. Neither has strategic mineral deposits or foodstuffs that we need. In retrospect, America's intervention can be questioned. George Kennan and John Lukacs, among others, would argue along those lines.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 12.1.10 @ 8:42AM
"I find it puzzling that military-conservatives and neo-conservatives can't comprehend that nations that run $ 1 trillion + deficits can not afford to project themselves militarily across the globe. The USA faces budgetary implosion in the future and many conservatives seem oblivious to that fact."
I find it puzzling that many so-called fiscal conservatives can't comprehend that:
1) America can perfectly afford its current level of annual defense spending, which constitutes just 3.65% of GDP and just 14.87% of the total federal budget;
2) Defense spending is NOT the cause of America's fiscal woes;
3) Defense spending cuts would inevitably weaken the military, but under the present circumstances, when defense spending is already as low as 3.65% of GDP, and the vast majority of the military's equipment is obsolete (and therefore must be repalce), defense cuts would gravely weaken the military and seriously imperil the US;
4) it is possible to balance the federal budget without any defense spending cuts (although the GWOT, financed from supplementals, would have to be ended - but it should be ended anyway);
5) defense is a constitutional DUTY of the federal government, rather than an option that the FG might or might not pursue; therefore, any defense cuts constitute an abrogation of that responsibility.
It should be noted, though, that by "defense cuts" I mean reductions of the total size of the core defense budget and reductions of real military capabilities. Closures of unneeded bases, realignments of globally-deployed troops, reductions of the number of generals, overhead reductions and bureaucracy reductions are not "defense cuts", merely reforms that need to be implemented anyway.
Really, what's the problem with a constitutionally-authorized budget item that constitutes less than 15% of the total federal budget, just 3.65% of GDP, and about $1,700 per capita (compared to a per capita GDP of $46,000)? Did you guys know that even CARTER spent a larger percentage of GDP on defense?
loulou| 11.29.10 @ 1:33PM
Because of their dependency on the US military the SouKs have forgotten how to fight. The formerly scrappy and pugnacious Koreans have become like the Katrina squatters.
Zbigniew Mazurak| 11.29.10 @ 1:58PM
SK drafts EVERY able-bodied male SK citizen into its military, which now numbers 655,000 active-duty troopers and 3 mn reservists.
Your claims aren't just ridiculous; they're offensive to the people of South Korea.
The West is now experiencing the same trend as it did during the 1970s. Communist and Islamist aggressors (including Russia, China and NK) are arming themselves to the teeth, repeatedly attacking vulnerable countries like SK, expanding their global influence, and conducting a global propaganda war against the US.
Meanwhile, the West is unilaterally disarming itself, appeasing totalitarian countries, and expanding its welfare states under the false guise of the "guns vs butter" debate, while leftist and libertarian think-tanks, media and politicians are calling on the West to expand these leftist foreign policies: disarm itself completely, withdraw all American troops from foreign countries, and continue to appease totalitarian regimes.
Just like during the 1970s, when many commentators and journalists called on the US to withdraw its troops from Europe, and Donald Rumsfeld (then America's ambassador to NATO) had to testify before the Congress to prevent this.
Noninterventionism might've been a feasible foreign policy during the 18th century. It makes no sense now. Unfortunately, isolationists such as Doug Bandow, TGC, Chris Edwards, Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan don't understand that the world has changed markedly since the 18th century. They still believe that the US can simply revert to isolationism and then, every foreign country will leave the US alone.
Red Phillips | 11.29.10 @ 3:46PM
First, who is TGC? I probably should know this, but I can't figure it out. Thanks.
Second, non-interventionism is not a "leftist" foreign policy, and you know it. Nor is it just confined to libertarians on the right*, although a libertarian foreign policy would of course be non-interventionist. To label it as leftist because the "new" "right" has embraced belligerent interventionism since the Cold War is disengenuous, misleading and a rhetorical ploy meant more to score debating points than convey facts. (Non-intervention was largely a rightist and populist phenomenon prior to WWII, and interventionism [excessive internationalism] was generally considered a leftist sentiment.)
You inadvertently admit this when you suggest that non-interventionists are backwards looking. There is another word for trying to preserve things like they used to be. It is called conservatism. And you admit that interventionism is inherently modernist, rejecting as it does past assumptions.
You can argue that these past assumptions are no longer operative and should be abandoned if you want, but you can't argue that those who cling to these past assumptions are also liberals for doing so. If anything they are reactionaries.
*The proper place of libertarianism on the political spectrum is a complicated discussion and for another thread. I think it is largely accurate in this case to categorize them as an element of the "right."
Jerome| 11.29.10 @ 4:52PM
I think I can help you on the "TGC" point, Red. It stands for "The Golf Channel".
Zbigniew Mazurak| 11.30.10 @ 4:13PM
TGC is Ted Galen Carpenter, the vice president of the CATO Institute for foreign affairs.
"To label it as leftist because the "new" "right" has embraced belligerent interventionism since the Cold War is disengenuous, misleading and a rhetorical ploy meant more to score debating points than convey facts."
Rubbish. Plus, the claim that the "New Right" has embraced "belligerent interventionism" during the CW is false - unless by that you mean defending SK and SV from communist aggressors, fighting the Commies in Latin America, deterring the USSR, and toppling a drug-dealing tinpot Panamanian dictator.
"(Non-intervention was largely a rightist and populist phenomenon prior to WWII)"
True. This policy was popular with the entire American populace - until WW2, when the idiotic policy that "noninterventionism" is was finally proven as a fallacy. Just 7 days from now, America will be observing the 69th anniversary of the emergence of the "brilliant" results of "noninterventionism".
Red Phillips | 11.30.10 @ 10:44PM
"Just 7 days from now, America will be observing the 69th anniversary of the emergence of the "brilliant" results of "noninterventionism"."
ZM, you couldn't be more wrong. The attack on Pearl Harbor was the result of our intentional provocation of Japan. FDR wanted to plunge us into the war in Europe but knew the people were against it. So he manipulated an attack by Japan to backdoor us into the war. Had we followed a non-interventionist foreign policy we wouldn't have ever been dragged into WWII.
"unless by that you mean defending SK and SV from communist aggressors, fighting the Commies in Latin America, deterring the USSR, and toppling a drug-dealing tinpot Panamanian dictator."
Interventionism is the obnoxious notion that America is responsible for fighting other countries' battles half-way around the world, so yes, those would be pretty good examples.
William R| 11.29.10 @ 4:34PM
I doubt you even know what isolationism means! Nothing Doug Bandow has proposed is isolationist. He's suggesting we get our troops out of Korea since the war ended 60 years ago. Enough is enough. The real isolationist are those that don't want to trade with an island 90 miles off the cost of Florida.
Marine Vet| 11.29.10 @ 2:01PM
Nonsense - ask any Marine or American Soldier who served with them - South Korean soldiers are very good and ROK Marines are way beyond hardcore.
loulou| 11.29.10 @ 4:28PM
Well then why do they twiddle their thumbs as their people are attacked and say, "do it just one more time and watch out--we may have to fight back"?
The South Koreans have lost their mojo. They USED to be tough and smart. Hardcore marines don't say--oops, they killed us again but we'll let it pass this time.
Tom| 11.29.10 @ 5:16PM
Because in South Korea the civilian government gives orders to the military, not the other way around.
Marine Vet| 11.30.10 @ 8:43AM
Exactly - same reason we watch while our borders are overrun.
Matt| 11.29.10 @ 3:53PM
I agree completely that we, as Americans, need to protect our citizens over protecting other countries' citizens (that includes economic protections as well). I'm encouraged to see Doug Bandow (of the conservative Cato institute) advocating a reduction in military spending. It has been something republicans have been reluctant to do for decades. There is no reason why we cut Medicare and Social Security at home, while continuing to fund Frances', UK's, Korea's, and even Israel's army when they can clearly do it themselves.
Mel Torme| 11.29.10 @ 5:50PM
"There is no reason why we cut Medicare and Social Security at home, while continuing to fund Frances', UK's, Korea's, and even Israel's army when they can clearly do it themselves."
Absolutely; what we're gonna have to do is cut EVERYTHING to have even a chance of being solvent again. That includes Medicare, Pyrami_I mean Social Security, some defense procurement,, entire EPA, Dept. of Motherland Security, Dept. of Education, etc.
You all who think the Fed Gov't can go on the way it has better look sometime at how much Fedzilla spends on interest payments as a percentage of the budget. It doesn't look too bad, you say, Mr. Brezinski? Work it out again with an interest rate of 10 %. It is most of the budget. Oh, don't have 10 % rates, you say? Well, the rate is gonna be whatever it has to be for people to buy bonds. Otherwise the country will default immediately, and all your bank balances will read "Present Balance: Jack Squat"
Zbigniew Mazurak| 11.30.10 @ 2:21AM
"Absolutely; what we're gonna have to do is cut EVERYTHING to have even a chance of being solvent again."
Garbage. Defense spending need not to be cut if the federal budget is to be balanced. The best way, and simoultaneously the ONLY way, to balance the budget, is to significantly reduce bloated domestic spending (the EPA, the ED, the DHS naked-body-scanners, subsidy programs, 14 mn federal workers, entitlement programs and welfare programs).
Welfare programs alone cost $888 bn per year. Eliminate them and you reduce the annual budget deficit from $1.29 trillion to less than $400 billion.
Cutting defense spending is not needed to balance the budget, and it is absolutely unacceptable, as it would weaken the military.
"That includes some defense procurement"
Rubbish. The DOD's current weapon programs are necessary to equip the US military. There were some exquisite programs, but they have been closed. Furthermore, the DOD has stopped requesting funding for the Alternative Engine Program and the C-17 program years ago.
BOGI666| 12.5.10 @ 12:15PM
USG aid to Israel enables Israel to have socialized medicine which includes massages with snakes and chocolate lotion. The same USG politicians that vote to enable socialized medicine for Israel will vote against medical care for US citizens, for which I have to admire Israeli government for taking care of their citizens. The Israeli's know the the USG is a sucker and that American like to be lied to and they are only being accommodating .
Occam's Tool| 1.26.11 @ 12:32AM
Are you sure you're not Z?
Massages with snakes? WTF?
Zbigniew Mazurak| 11.30.10 @ 2:16AM
You know absolutely nothing about what you're talking about.
Firstly, the CATO Institute is not conservative. It's libertarian.
Secondly, any reduction of defense spending now, when defense spending is already so low (a paltry 3.65% of GDP), would weaken the military and render it decrepit. It would also amount to a heinous betrayal of the federal government's #1 constitutional DUTY: national defense. THAT is why many Republicans have been reluctant to do so for many years - although it must be noted that during the years 1995-2000, it was a REPUBLICAN Congress which significantly reduced defense spending (and exposed America to aggressors).
The US is not subsidizing the militaries of France and the UK. Both of them have nuclear arsenals, the two largest defense budgets in Europe, and France doesn't even have any American troopers stationed on its soil (except Marine Embassy Guards). The US doesn't pay one dime for the defense of France OR the UK - they pay for it themselves.
Gordon| 11.29.10 @ 4:05PM
Having served in ROK or four different ocasions while I was active Army, The ROK army is very efficient and knows the art of war. I lived in that coutry for a total of five years. They do their best given the terrain. They do not have nukes nor a real Navy.
I love how we need to do away with defense so we can still give money to the losers that do not work nor pay taxes for that matter!
Social programs eat up most of the budget now. 86% the last time I checked How about cutting that back for a change.
I do not post on forums but telling U.S. citizens to get rid of defense is naive and stupid to boot, in these crazy times!
mlc2005| 11.29.10 @ 4:17PM
I agree that we don't need to "get rid of defense," thats for sure. I think the author was merely pointing out that we continue to subsidize the armies of countries that have strong, stable and vibrant economies (Korea, Western Europe, Israel, etc) and that we can find some ways to cut back our spending on that. Of course we still need to recognize the real threats that are out there.
loulou| 11.29.10 @ 4:31PM
We do not subsidize Israel's army and Western Europe does not have a stable and vibrant economy.
Tom| 11.29.10 @ 5:21PM
America gives Israel $3,000,000,000/yr. Of course we subsidize its army. I think it is money well spent but to pretend it does not exist is silly.
Zbigniew Mazurak| 11.30.10 @ 2:24AM
It is not money well-spent - unless you believe that purchasing bulldozers and razing Palestinian homes are good purposes.
Israel receives an annual $3 bn subsidy, i.e. $500 per year per every Israeli. It doesn't have to account for how money is spent, which makes it hard for the US to track it down, and it sometimes uses it for purposes the US opposes (e.g. building settlements in the West Bank). Other recipients receive FMF funding in quarterly installments, but Israel receives it annually and can thus earn interest on it. Other recipients are required to spend 100% of FMF funding in the US, but Israel is allowed to use 25% of its installments to pay its own defense industry.
Tom| 11.30.10 @ 11:03AM
All the aid from the US to Israel is military in nature, there has been no economic aid for years.
Occam's Tool| 1.26.11 @ 12:34AM
Hey Z, the israelis have some special needs which we cannot supply---for example, the Merkava is built for different terrain than the Abrams.
I like the way you suck up to terrorists, you antisemitic scumbnag.
Occam's Tool| 1.26.11 @ 12:34AM
Sorry, scumbag. As in Amalek. As in a disgrace to your father, if you know who he is.
Ben Cook| 11.29.10 @ 4:07PM
I wonder if CAT, GM and other big China investors are reading this. This doesn't seem the time to go long on China. Relations between the US and China seem doomed. Our focus ought be on convincing Taiwan, SK and Japan to wake up, it's their neighborhood not ours.
Kevin Riley O'Keeffe | 11.29.10 @ 4:41PM
Yes, and its also time for Western Europe to defend itself. And Israel too. I don't mind aiding in Canadian defense, or otherwise maintaining a Monroe Doctrinal posture towards the rest of the Western Hemisphere, but its time for our troops to come home. From Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy, Britain, Iraq, Afghanistan...you name it.
loulou| 11.29.10 @ 5:12PM
I assume your heart's in the right place but you MUST get your facts straight.
Israel does defend itself and does a better job at it than we could.
Occam's Tool| 1.26.11 @ 12:35AM
Israel does defend itself. One reason we give aid is to make sure that they don't defend themselves too well.
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.29.10 @ 4:47PM
Folks,
Doug,
We have to get through the next two years, and get this administration OUT.
This is not the time to send a signal around the world that we are actually in retreat.
Right now, the bad guys around the world can't be actually "sure" that our military would run and hide regardless of our CinC's orders.
The idiot isolationists that drop in here have never left mommies basement. Please do not encourage them.
Zbig,
Get over your Jew progrom. You aren't in Russia anymore.
For whatever you folks are able to absorb, let me be very clear...if very brief:
I APPRECIATE defense in depth.
I appreciate our "trip-wire" troops in harm's way.
The Israelis have never asked for one American boot on the ground in their battle for survival.
I like our "forward deployed" force structure.
Houston is a port city.
I don't want to fight the world's bad guys here on our beaches.
I will gladly pay taxes for all the above.
I don't like paying taxes for communists, (pardon the shorthand), buying votes by enslaving our poor for their votes.
If we can put our poor to work in meaningful work, we won't have a deficit problem.
Thank you.
Kevin Riley O'Keeffe | 11.29.10 @ 5:01PM
"I don't want to fight the world's bad guys here on our beaches."
My advice would be to dispense with the silly delusion that such is an actual possibility. The only threat to the continental United States emanates from Mexico.
Red Phillips | 11.29.10 @ 6:02PM
Yes Kevin, I have asked over and over again during these interventionist vs. non-interventionist debates for someone to draw me up a plausible scenario whereby the US homeland is invaded. I have yet to get a real answer. So maybe Ken will step up to the plate. Ken, please work that out for me. Explain to me a plausible scenario whereby Houston Harbor is invaded. Which country is the agressor? How do they get their troops here? Etc. Minor details aren't necessary. Just a broad overview. Thanks. I anxiously await your reply.
Ken (Old Texican) | 11.29.10 @ 6:32PM
Red,
it will cost you ten dollars.
www.texassaidno.com
I spent every spare minute for four months writing the book, and e-publishing before the elections.
Just out of curiosity, did you know that 70 % of our oil and gas (nationally), flows out of Houston?
How ignorant are you?
I shall not bandage your abject ignorance for free.
.....On the other hand...if you get down on your knees and beg...right here in front of everyone..I just might decide to send you a FREE "review copy".....maybe.
Red Phillips | 11.29.10 @ 8:52PM
First of all Ken, to answer your question, no I did not know off the top of my head that 70% of our oil and gas flow out of Houston. I'm not sure why I would be supposed to know that unless I'm the Rainman. So I guess I have to plead ignorance.
But I wish you would reveal to me the plot of your book. (Congratulations on being an author, btw.) Otherwise I have to guess at the premise. My suspicion is that it involves some sort of terrorist plot instead of an invasion. If so, you haven't answered my question. You have moved the goal post.
When someone says they don't want to fight the bad guys on "our beaches" or the more common formulation that they would rather "fight them over there than fight them over here" this implies an actual invasion. This is especially true when they link it to something like "If we don't do x we will all be speaking Arabic and our women will be wearing burqas." This definitely implies invasion and conquest.
This is all very silly boilerplate. There has never been any real threat of invasion much less conquest. So either retract your hyperbolic and inflammatory rhetoric or provide me with a realistic scenario whereby we are invaded.
Occam's Tool| 1.26.11 @ 12:37AM
Red---you should have. I'm an MD, not an oilguy, and I know 70% of the refineries are located there. That's the whole problem with the Dems---they don't allow new refineries.
So, you are a blithering idiot on energy policy. I already know you aren't worthy to sniff my jockstrap on medical issues. Anything you do know, Red?
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.30.10 @ 7:50AM
Red,
I will give it a shot.
I think where your thinking may have stumbled, is the picture in your mind of landing craft unloading troops on the shore like on D-day. (WWII era). That isn't the way it is done anymore.
Instead, perhaps extend your thinking from the premise of "asymmetric warfare" the Islamists have utilized extensively.
Picture an attack on our "infrastructure" rather than against our troops.
Picture our HUGE refineries lined up along the Houston Ship channel like ducks in a row, or the refined fuels and pressurized natural gas leading away from those refineries to the rest of the country.
Supertankers make a pretty good bomb. Picture 9-11 times a thousand. (It was the jet fuel in the airplanes that brought down the towers).
Lots of variations on the theme, but you can get your arms around several I am sure.
Millions of Americans could be killed...indirectly from lack of food or heat....across two thirds of he country.
Go to the website, scroll down, click, and read chapter one.
Red Phillips | 11.30.10 @ 8:47AM
OK. But that is still moving the goal post. If I'm thinking D-Day it is because "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" conjures up that image. You are still talking about terrorism, not an actual attack. Terrorism is NOT primarily a military issue unless you plan a mass genocide of anyone anywhere who might be prone to terrorism. (This actually seems to be the plan of some.) Terrorism on our soil is an immigration problem. How many of the terrorist have been American citizens? They have been in general been either foreign born or first generation "birth right citizenship" babies. (Birth right babies are citizens based on a misreading of the Constitution, but I'm sure you get what I mean.) How many American convert have been terrorists? (Although this is a potentially growing problem, but wouldn't be growing were there not Muslim "missionaries" of sorts here to convert them.) You want to fight terrorism on our shores? Then restrict immigration. But instead too many keyboard warriors would rather beat there chest and call for invading far off countries and American world hegemony. I don't get it.
Occam's Tool| 1.26.11 @ 12:45AM
It doesn't have to be invaded, Red.
No freedom of the seas, no trade, no oil, we dry up on the vine.
Zbigniew Mazurak| 11.30.10 @ 2:42AM
The claim that I'm guilty of a Jew pogrom is false and insulting. I hereby demand that you retract it. And for the record, I've never even been to Russia.
Israel has received a total of $132 bn of funding from the US during the last 6 decades, as well as equipment worth $2.2 bn (in 1973 dollars) delivered during the Yom Kippur War. It now receives $3 bn per year from the State Department - $500 per year per every Israeli.
The US has defended Israel during the Six Day War, the Yom Kippur War, the War of 1982, and the First Gulf War.
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.30.10 @ 8:25AM
Zbig,
I will quote you from above:
""On the other hand, Israel is a country which has committed repeated treacheries against the US (the Jonathan Pollard incident, the attack on USS Liberty, etc.). It has dragged the US headfirst into the Yom Kippur war, brought about a devastating oil embargo against the entire Western world, undermined Reagan as he was negotiating with the Soviets, repeatedly transferred American weapons to China, and has damaged America's image in the Muslim world. It sucks in $3 bn per year from the US State Department, part of which is used to demolish Palestinian homes in the territories Israel conquered in 1967.""
You used up almost all the tired old code words to defame Israel right there.
When I went to your blog, (link way up top here, folks. his name underlined.)
I read your rant twisting all the truths you could seem to think of. I shall let anyone here make their own evaluation of your rants.
Zbigniew Mazrak| 11.30.10 @ 1:30PM
"You used up almost all the tired old code words to defame Israel right there."
I did not defame Israel anywhere. I merely pointed out the FACTS.
FACT: During the last 50 years, Israel has committed repeated treacheries against the US, while SK has committed no such act.
FACT: Israel sunk the USS Liberty deliberately, as confirmed by the then CNO Adm. Thomas Moorer, the attack's survivors themselves, and numerous US government officials. (Common sense alone should tell you that there's no way Israel could've ACCIDENTALLY attacked a warship which was flying a clear, large American flag and had Latin markings on its sides.)
FACT: Jonathan Pollard has stolen American government secrets, and has been convicted of this crime in an American court.
FACT: Israel did pass these secrets on to the Soviet Union, thus making it harder for Reagan to negotiate with Soviet leaders.
FACT: Israel does receive $3 bn per year from the US State Department under the FMF program (check the federal budget).
FACT: Because Israel's populace is roughly 6 mn people, $3 bn per year amounts to $500 per year per every Israeli.
FACT: Part of this annual installment has been used by Israel to finance bulldozers (produced by Caterpillar Inc.) which it uses to raze Palestinian homes in the territories Israel conquered in 1967. (This is the equivalent of the Canadians conquering a part of the US, expelling Americans from that territory, razing American homes and building Canadian settlements on US soil - except that the Canadians have NEVER done so.)
FACT: During the Yom Kippur War, Israel did request (and did receive) $2.2 bn worth of weapons from the US. The result was an OPEC oil embargo against the Western world, which crippled Western economies (and brought about long lines at gasoline stations).
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.30.10 @ 2:17PM
Zbig,
Your "facts" are lies. They are simply lies, and you have either been suckered...or you are a liar.
That makes me sad.
You have written some brilliant posts here on TAS, but you seem to have a blind spot regarding Israel.
My God, man, don't you have a clue as to where our BEST intelligence comes from the middle east?
Question:
Has your life ever led you into absolute "survival mode"?
Have you ever found yourself in a kill or be killed situation?...especially when your family is involved?
Why do you blame Israel for OPEC?
Hell, man, I helped negotiate the nationalization of ARAMCO. I sat right in the middle of all of that stuff....the king of Saudi on one hand...the guys who could get the oil out of the ground on the other.
Listen carefully, guy:
European Dhimmis have taken over Americans getting the oil out of the ground.
Without westerners, the oil dries up....period.
Saudis and friends starve.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 11.30.10 @ 3:58PM
Ken, which exact facts that I presented do you believe to be lies?
The fact that Jonathan Pollard stole American secrets (which Israel passed on to the USSR, thus undermining the Reagan Admin)? It's a fact. He was convicted in an American court, by an impartial American jury, for exactly that.
The fact that it was Nixon's decision to resupply Israel that resulted in the crippling OPEC oil embargo? It's a fact.
The claim that the USS Liberty was attacked deliberately? It's a fact. No way you can misidentify a ship flying a large 50-star flag on its mast, and marked with Latin "AGTR-5" markings on both of its sides. As confirmed by then-CNO Adm. Thomas Moorer and the attack's survivors themselves.
The claim that Israel gets $3 bn per year from the State Dept.? Phone (or email) the DOS or the OMB and they will confirm this. Or, alternatively, google it.
Regards,
ZM
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.30.10 @ 7:18PM
Zbig,
I'm going to do better than that. I am going to hand you another hand-full of dung to throw at the JOOOs.
Another group of their spies literally swiped enough fissile material from us to build their entire nuclear arsenal.
(wink wink)
See, sir, if the world at large decided that the family of Mazurak should be killed...world wide, you just might get a mite "survival minded".
Seriously, let's get rid of the Mazurak problem, once and for all...men women, and children....tsk tsk.
Do you happen to be a pilot? Have you ever read the after-action reports of our pilots in the Pacific during WWII ?
Did you know that at Midway, our pilots didn't even know that they had destroyed the entire Japanese carrier strike fleet?
I have been a pilot for over forty years. Please trust me. A flag and/or numbers on a ship cannot be seen by pilots in the air at engagement distances. Nope.
Another thought you have never thought ...evidently: "Blue on Blue".
Why under God's name would Israelis attack a ship from their biggest supporter in the universe, (at that time at least)? Duh?
It can only be chalked up to a horrible group of mistakes.
Mr. Pollard?
God bless him. He told the Israelis that a group within the US refused to share with the "mazuraks" that their family was going to be attacked...men women and children.
He is sorta' a hero in my mind, just like our spies that have been executed doing the right thing.
He is currently paying the price.
No Sir, you have been given the "facts" but you have NOT been given the context.
I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here. I am going to decide that you have been horribly misinformed.
Going forward, let's decide that Mazuraks can live in the world.
Occam's Tool| 1.26.11 @ 12:39AM
OK---you are simply an antisemitic scumbag. Ken owes you no apology, Amalek maggot.
The US was not involved in the defense of Israel in the Six Day war. None, nada, zilch. '73, yes. Nixon saved israel. But '67, no.
General Dwight Eisenhower| 11.29.10 @ 4:58PM
The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend without. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought of unsought, by the military-industrial complex. We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security.
Zbigniew Mazurak| 11.30.10 @ 2:46AM
Ooops, too bad that you didn't quote Eisenhower's ENTIRE farewell speech. You just chose to quote the portion you like. You omitted parts such as:
"Our arms must be mighty, ready for constant action."
As well as his calls for a strong defense during both of his Inaugural Addresses.
Plus, the claim that the DOD is bankrupting the US is utterly false. The DOD receives only 14.87% of the annual federal budget, and only $28 bn of the post-FY2008 total federal spending growth (over $500 bn) went to the DOD. Since FY2001, defense spending has grown by ca. $160 bn while total federal spending has splurged by over $1.5 trillion (in 2010 dollars). Who is the real culprit?
Dale Cord| 11.30.10 @ 10:02PM
Zbig, Ken doesn't like true facts and statistics, because they always shine a beacon of light on the darkness of deception they try to project to those who are uninformed.
Gopooh| 11.29.10 @ 5:02PM
If the US were to withdraw it's forces (and thus the implied nuclear umbrella from the Korean Peninsula), South Korea would have their first atomic weapon within 6 months. Japan would soon follow.
What other choice would be left them with an erratic, aggressive neighbor(s) to the North?
If this we were talking a purely conventional conflict, yes, Seoul would be devastated, but the RoK would reunify the country fairly quickly if one compare's the ORBAT of the two countries. However, due to now 3 president's fumblings, North Korea has nukes.
Without the threat (or protection) of the US nuclear umbrella, the RoK would quickly develop nukes. Verbal reassurances (especially from this administration) would be meaningless.
BTW I'm a 2nd generation Korean-American physician whose father served in the ROK Vietnam contingent, in addition to being a US reservist once he emmigrated. Sheila, you and your stereotypes can go to hell, and you make me embarrassed to call myself a conservative.
RCV| 11.29.10 @ 5:10PM
Sheila is the resident white nationalist on this site, and why more people don't shower her with the disdain she deserves is beyond me.
Mel Torme| 11.29.10 @ 5:55PM
It's mostly just because she has been correct in all her posts. All the name-calling in the world by you and some gung-ho army reservists don't change that.
BTW, if you Korean-American physicians really cared about your country (I mean the one you're living in, asshole), than you wouldn't call yourself some kind of hyphenated something-or-other). You're either an American or you're a foreigner, which is it?
RCV| 11.30.10 @ 1:30PM
You don't get to tell people what to do, cretin.
Occam's Tool| 1.26.11 @ 12:41AM
Jeez, RCV, you're fighting on Ken's side on this one. Anyone you two want me to kick?
Mel Torme| 11.29.10 @ 5:57PM
oops.
WAS: "than"
S/B: "then"
WAS: "asshole"
S/B: "dipshit"
jomo2009| 11.29.10 @ 6:21PM
Let Japan go nuclear and act as a regional deterrent to China.
Jason| 11.29.10 @ 7:57PM
I'll agree that we need to pull out of Korea and that SK can defend itself. It's not like we can't reinforce if the need arose. But I will take issue with one point in the article. NK troops are not undisciplined or untrained. I was stationed there for 3 1/2 years, and can say first hand that they are not to be underestimated. Granted, their government is broke and starving, but to push the idea that these soldiers are a pushover is a fallacy.
NK plays by different rules. Step out of line as a soldier and you're liable to get a bullet in the head, and they all know it. They can survive on a handful of rice per day and can march and fight well. They are not as well trained or equipped as American soldiers, but this does make them a pushover.
JT| 11.29.10 @ 8:46PM
As stated already South Korea's Military is very capable of defeating the North. Furthermore the country is extremely prepared to defend its self should the provocative North go too far. None of this has any bearing on the enormous cost to South Korea, North Korea, China, U.S. or the region. No one wants, I repeat, No one wants another Korean War. Simply put the cost out way by far the benefits and it would be a global landscape changer, restructuring the power base in the region.
Consider this, North Korea would not only lose militarily, but it would lose its monarchy, hegemony, fiefdom… that it cherishes more than anything (it’s good to be the king of your own universe). South Korea would win (with our support) but would have great destruction to its country. It would lose everything it has built in the last 60 years and would have to deal with the economic and social cost of a unified Korea (remember Berlin, the wall). China would lose. A war at this point would contradict its current strategy of economic dominance (reference our debt) and would be burdened with an influx of refugees. China would also lose its position as a major player in Asia and throughout the world. It would also have a democratic pro-western society on its border whereas North Korea has been a useful buffer. The U.S. would win at the expense of our economy and our lives. After the last 10 years we probably can’t afford another big one.
So the issue is not whether South Korea has the capability or will to put the North in its right place rather it is the cost of such a war that keeps every ones response passive.
As for US interest check out Asian Shipping Lanes.
MongooseMan| 11.29.10 @ 9:20PM
I don't think that people are seriously angry about the fact that we are spending money on our international peacekeeping force, or, for that matter, that we have troops on the intra-Korean border. What they are mad about is that our leaders started two strategically unsound, ill-planned, expensive, lose-lose conflicts in places that are of no apparent (or at least obvious) benefit to our security or world influence. And even more insulting, they then had the gall to tell us that we have to clean up these nations, without even leveraging any debt on them or rebuilding their nations with our resources post-WWII style. In addition, I think many Americans are annoyed that while average citizens are getting slammed economically, the government is running up record debts to supply its never-ending, irrational and unsustainable domestic spending and entitlement programs. People want the government to cut spending somewhere.
Now, unfortunately, that anti-spending, anti-war sentiment is swinging too far to the left, and people are making irrational statements like, "we should withdraw from South Korea."
It is certainly true that we are spending a token amount of money picking up the military slack for other nations - albeit a small amount next to the cost of the pointless conflicts we started in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, there are numerous advantages to this policy militarily, democratically, and economically. Because we pick up the military slack for many other nations, our nation is so militarily superior to all others that any sort of conflict with ANY nation is like Muhammad Ali boxing against infants. No other nation or coalition of nations (China included) has even a fighting chance of competing with the US in an open wartime conflict. This gives us an enormous amount of international military security, mobility, and piece of mind. It also gives an enormous economic and democratic bargaining chip. It's GOOD to have nations rely on you for protection because they repay the favor in other ways. They might grumble about it a little, but you know what team they play for, especially when the shit hits the fan. Moreover, it means that we get to shape the world's political and economic landscape as we see fit . Plus, on top of everything else, we maintain a relative peace in the world. Has anyone seriously considered the alternative: Allowing all these nations to build and hone their collective military power? The world tried that before WWII, and it was a nightmare. Better than we have all the guns, and a little more debt, than have a global military entourage to deal with.
And, for the record, I think paying a little extra for the above benefits is worth more than building some useless fence along our Southern Border. If we really want to keep out the Mexicans, what we need to do is remove the source of their income here: Their jobs. We need to levy fines and possible jail-time on anyone who employs illegal aliens. But that is a talk for another day.
Syd Chaden| 11.30.10 @ 5:01PM
Don't blame South Korea for its reliance on the US. Seoul would be destroyed within 24 hours of the start of a war with the North. The US would never permit the South to develop the nuclear capability to match the North, instead, insisting that the South depend upon the US "umbrella". However, as we have seen, the US "umbrella" resembles Chamberlain's umbrella, and isn't likely to deter North Korea. In fact, it appears that the US "umbrella" is more of a deterrence of our so-called allies, rather than of our so-called enemies.
George| 12.1.10 @ 5:35AM
Premise: the RoK is fully capable of defeating the DPRK. Objective evidence evaluated by rational Western military experts leads them to come to this conclusion. However, these are irrelevant to the RoK's desire to maintain the peace, protect its people, and keep the social and economic gains after arising from the ashes of the Korean War. It's not our our judgment on the outcome, or the RoK's judgment on the outcome that matters, but the DPRK's judgment that governs whether maintaining a presence on the Korean peninsula that counts. The DPRK holds the RoK's capabilities in contempt, believing that without a U.S. presence, the RoK would be a severely weakened foe and subject to defeat. Until the West and the RoK can convince the DPRK otherwise, a U.S. presence is imperative in preventing a war admittedly capable of being won by the RoK alone, but only in a Pyrrhic sense. As in the Cold War, deterrence is everything when the prevention of war is as important as a win.
Dale Cord| 12.1.10 @ 9:55AM
Gee Sheila, You sure brought out those Liberals pretending to be conservatives from their fox holes, by your comments here. You can always tell a Liberal from a true conservative. They give themselves away by their attack on the truth every time! Almost all of the time its a silly and laughable attack, either on your spelling or criticizing a proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt fact. After all didn't they spit on, and beat the truth beyond recognition,piercing it with nails and spears thousands of years ago? They try in their feeble and inept way to silence it before it reaches the part of the brain that condemns them for their folly and immoral behavior. Truth will always win out in the end, for it is the beacon of light at the end of the darkened tunnel of Liberalism!
PBAR| 12.1.10 @ 8:26PM
Two years ago I spent 18 months as an exchange student at the Korean Air Force Staff College and talked to RoK officers about our presence repeatedly. When I asked about us leaving the RoK, the first thing even the most pro-American RoK officers I knew would spurt out is "That would cost us too much money!". They never mentioned the 60 year alliance, friendship, etc.; they only talked about money. For the RoKs, our deployment here is almost entirely about saving them money-we are a just a necessary evil and convenient scapegoat. The RoKs are very miserly in the defense spending and most of the big defense projects they spend money are more for supporting local industry (not that we should talk) than actual need such the new K-2 tank. Moreoever, most RoK officers I know, especially RokAF ones, don't take the threat of nK very seriously even in light of recent events. They worry more about Japan. As the regard the north as the same blood, they find it inconceivable that the north would start a war with them (despite the repeated provocations). They are willing to fight in heartbeat with Japan over Dokdo (small rocks in the middle of the East Sea/Sea of Japan) however. The bigger problem I see is that South Korea is going to go the way of Finland. They will gradually move to a neutral position in an attempt to accomodate both China and the US. They care more about the trade with China than they do about our security arrangements with them. So, eventually in the next 10-15 years they will ask us to leave so as to maintain neutrality. When I ask my RoK officer friends why they haven't done anything of substance in regards to the island shelling they all say that it will hurt their economy. Their economy is and always been more important to them than security and they will glad kick us out if it means better economic opportunities with China...
j tom| 12.1.10 @ 11:04PM
North Korea has become the West's weeping boy. Everything involving NK and SK is NK's fault. Have we in the West ever asked is it possible SK is the belligerent party.
The accusation that the North Koreans sunk the South Korean war ship Cheonan is false and not proven. The NK has consistently denied that they are responsible for this sinking. The attached two articles might throw some light in this matter.
http://www.anatakara.com/petit.....rpedo.html
http://newamericamedia.org/201.....n-ship.php
SK has been using this incident to smear NK. The recent shelling by NK is also instigated by the SK when they fired into NK's territorial waters during a life fire military exercise. We in the West are not getting all the correct information and we tend to draw the wrong conclusion.
Do we ever wonder why the SK did not respond violently to the sinking and shelling? The SK knew they are in the wrong. The conclusion drawn in this article are completely backwards. It is the SK who are the belligerent party instead of the NK. The SK are playing a very dangerous game.
j tom| 12.1.10 @ 11:04PM
North Korea has become the West's weeping boy. Everything involving NK and SK is NK's fault. Have we in the West ever asked is it possible SK is the belligerent party.
The accusation that the North Koreans sunk the South Korean war ship Cheonan is false and not proven. The NK has consistently denied that they are responsible for this sinking. The attached two articles might throw some light in this matter.
http://www.anatakara.com/petit.....rpedo.html
http://newamericamedia.org/201.....n-ship.php
SK has been using this incident to smear NK. The recent shelling by NK is also instigated by the SK when they fired into NK's territorial waters during a life fire military exercise. We in the West are not getting all the correct information and we tend to draw the wrong conclusion.
Do we ever wonder why the SK did not respond violently to the sinking and shelling? The SK knew they are in the wrong. The conclusion drawn in this article are completely backwards. It is the SK who are the belligerent party instead of the NK. The SK are playing a very dangerous game.
Horace| 12.3.10 @ 5:10AM
Your arguments lack credibility, tom. First of all, the South has no motive for attacking the North. There have been numerous truce violations of the Truce over the years, and the North has been found guilty in all cases. Second, the Cheonan, a South Korean vessel was found to have been attacked by a DPRK torpedo. The evidence is conclusive. Three, the North starves its own people, while it feeds its army. Fourth, the vicious repressiveness of the North is well known. Fifth, the DPRK has reneged on every agreement with the West since the end of the Korean War. Sixth, the DPRK is guilty of state sponsored counterfeitting of U.S. money. Seventh, the DPRK has been proven to be guilty of kidnapping Japanese citizens. Eighth, hundreds of escapees from the DPRK have testified as to the evil nature of that country. I'm sure the others in this blog have just dismissed you as a crank, not worthy of a response. They are right and I am wrong to have written this.
paul| 12.4.10 @ 2:19AM
As you know, Bandow, North Korea likely had nothing to do with the sinking of the Cheonan, and as you know, the US and SK have been deliberately provoking North Korea for some time now. The NK regime may be insane, but so are the US and SK regimes.
ron| 12.4.10 @ 8:18AM
"Still, better for Seoul to get the gullible Americans to pay its defense bill than to have to cover the cost itself." Do you really think that the US is in South Korea because of its gullibility? The US is in there because it wants that military presence next door to China. Plain and simple. If South Korea asked it to leave, Washington would not do so.
JoJo| 12.4.10 @ 8:29AM
Uncle Scam has been known to cheat and lie to start conflicts and jump in to invade. When I read the first part of the diatribe nonsense article--North Korea sank the S.K. navy ship and last week started a military fight--Enough reading of garbage.
USA wants a fight using two countries and then coming in for the kill. Example--Iraq/Iran war and Germany againist UK/France/Poland/Russia.
How many of you obtuse low lifers know that in both cases--USA was funding all parties and being allies at the same time? USrael is a terrorist state---9/II was self inflicked you morons--wake-up fools {:^/
sage| 12.5.10 @ 12:53AM
The wheels on the bus go round and round....
http://willyloman.wordpress.co.....-accident/
MoT| 12.5.10 @ 4:14PM
Mr. Bandow regurgitates flimsy arguments once more about the entire North Korean debacle. Firstly he swallows as whole cloth the argument that the South Korean warship was sunk by the North when even investigators from the South at first found no evidence of such an event. They were hustled off because it wasn't in keeping with the tone the south wanted to display. How ironic that it was an "anti-submarine" vessel that couldn't see it's attacker. Or did it in fact merely run aground and sink? The most recent foray in insanity has the South Koreans engaging in a "simulated" attack on North Korea right on their neighbors doorstep! Now why in the hell would you do something like that unless you wanted to provoke someone? Are you telling me there weren't enough coves or island to shells anywhere else along the entire korean coastline for hundreds of miles? It beggars belief. No... I for one think it's long past time to leave the Koreans to kill each other as they wish or reunify seeing as a treaty was never signed. Time for Uncle Scam to scram.
Dale Cord| 12.10.10 @ 10:34AM
I SEE............THIS FORUM WAS CREATED SO PEOPLE CAN ARGUE AMONGST THEM SELVES.THE ILLITERATE AGAINST THE LITERATE OR LIBERAL AGAINST CONSERVATIVE .A PACIFIER TO SUCK ON WHILE THE GOVERNMENT CLEANS YOUR CLOCK WHILE YOU SLEEP. THE FACTS ARE ..........WE HAVE BEEN FIGHTING NEEDLESS WARS WITH OTHER COUNTRIES SINCE WWII. IT IS OUR COUNTRY AND OUR MENTALLY DISTURBED GOVERNMENT ,THAT HAS BEEN PICKING FIGHTS WITH OTHER WORLD LEADERS TO TRY AND GAIN WORLD DOMINANCE.SOLUTION: THROW THE WAR LORDS OUT OF OUR GOVERNMENT AND REPLACE WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE A TRANSPARENT BACKGROUND,YOU KNOW,ONE THAT IS NOT UNDER THE CHOKE OF SECRECY CALLED "NATIONAL SECURITY". THIS WAY YOU KNOW BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT , WHO THEY ARE AND WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN. WHINE,WHINE,WHINE THE GOVERNMENT HAS LARGE SUPPLY OF CRACKERS AND CHEESE FOR THAT WHINE.
Occam's Tool| 1.26.11 @ 12:48AM
Dear Dale:
The British Empire has been gone a long, long, time. Please name another nation, other than us, that you would like to see Hegemon. Because if we go, someone will take our place.
Grow up. You're not 1/10th the man Ken is, I know him, you don't.