Pentagon mulling withdrawing troops from South Korea

U.S. Considers Withdrawing Troops from South Korea
Thu Mar 6, 1:19 PM ET

By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Thursday the stationing of U.S. troops near the border with North Korea has become intrusive to South Korea, and said forces could be moved southward or out of South Korea altogether.

Rumsfeld said Army Gen. Leon LaPorte, commander of U.S. forces in South Korea, and others are considering ways to realign American forces on the Korea Peninsula. This comes as the United States is engaged in an increasingly tense crisis over North Korea's nuclear ambitions.

The United States has about 37,000 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea near the Demilitarized Zone separating that democracy from communist North Korea.

During a town hall-style meeting with Defense Department employees at the Pentagon, Rumsfeld said that to some extent the location of U.S. forces in South Korea and in Europe is a leftover from the Cold War.

"We still have a lot of forces in Korea arranged very far forward where it's intrusive in their lives and where they really aren't very flexible or usable for other things," Rumsfeld said.

Rumsfeld said South Korea possesses an economy probably 25 to 35 times greater than North Korea's, adding that the South Koreans have "all the capability in the world of providing the kind of up-front deterrent that's needed."

"And I suspect that what we'll do is we'll end up making some adjustments there," Rumsfeld said. "Whether the forces would come home or whether they'd move farther south on the peninsula or whether they'd move to some neighboring area are the kinds of things that are being sorted out. The same thing's true with our forces in Western Europe."

Rumsfeld's comments amplified remarks he made in Feb. 13 testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Rumsfeld said U.S. officials are consulting with the South Korean government ahead of making a final decision.

STABILIZING PRESENCE

The United States for half a century has maintained a stabilizing military presence in South Korea, since the Korean War.

New South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun has asked the United States to study the bilateral relationship. The presence of American troops has become increasingly controversial in the past year, with some critics in South Korea saying the Bush administration has hindered closer ties with North Korea. There also is concern in South Korea about alleged crimes committed by U.S. troops.

White House and defense officials last month said the United States was considering shifts in global military deployments, including the thousands of U.S. troops in Europe. About 70,000 of the nearly 110,000 U.S. troops in Europe are in Germany, a vocal foe of a possible U.S.-led war against Iraq.

Rumsfeld did not state when a decision would be made, but said the Pentagon is "almost through the process of looking at our force structure" around the world. He added that whatever changes would not change that "we are engaged in the world (and) we care about assisting our friends and allies."

http://rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/fc/wo...ry&u=/nm/20030306/wl_nm/korea_usa_troops_dc_2

On the one hand, I do believe that it is important to stand united with fellow democracies against dictatorships such as Kim's, but on the other this sounds like a tempting idea to me. SK can defend itself adequately, we are not really welcome there, and we need those troops elsewhere...

 

Intimating that we'd pull out of Germany would certainly screw with Germany's economy... Their markets would take a hit, as I'm sure confidence would waver. But I agree, it is a much nicer way of saying "screw the German economy"...

Personally, I think that pulling out of Germany is looking more and more attractive every day. Just move a few miles to the east (Poland and other eastern European countries) where we are still remembered as liberators... Where we are still welcome.

As far as SK goes, I'd pull the troops out to Japan, or out of the region altogether. Although I would keep the marines there. If war broke out there, I'm more inclined to let the SKs slug it out on the ground while lending heavy air and naval support.

 

Their economy would adjust, yes. Just a temporary hit, as most confidence-based hits are.

I am also starting to think that Japan having nukes wouldn't be such a bad idea. Some nations can be trusted with such weapons, and I think that Japan is one of them, especially considering their history with them... It would also greatly alter the playing field wrt China in our favor, I believe.

Given another term in office (not a sure thing, of course), I think this administration is going to rearrange the global strategic security landscape in some startling ways. I think we'll probably see a major rearrangement of deployed forces at some point.

 

What's not to like?

 

RIET & Deckard:

Why don't you guys do a little research on the North and South Korean militaries? The North outnumbers the South by a large margin, but the South's qualitative advantages cannot be denied. Standard military procedures dictate that typically a 3:1 numerical advantage is required for successful attack; the North has less than a 2:1 advantage. And considering that the South is so vastly qualitatively superior to the north in terms of equipment, training, and leadership - the outcome is not really in doubt.

Militarily, all that the US forces there really do is provide a significant air and naval augmentation to SK forces; the ground elements are commonly refered to among military circles as a "speed-bump" - they are not significant enough to actually stop an invasion. It is commonly acknowledged that 2 ID is a write-off in the event of a land war there. They are just a trigger that is designed to get us even more deeply involved.

They are really there for simply political reasons.

Why condemn those guys to death in the event that Kim loses his marbles completely? I'd rather just back the SKs with heavy air and naval power; that would be enough to ensure the South's victory. Why offer up our ground troops to die if it will not alter the outcome? Besides, that division would come in handy somewhere else.

As far as China goes - pretty much the same deal. We are not going to fight China in a land war on the mainland - that is insanely suicidal, and we are not that stupid. If we ever do fight them, it will be confined to air, naval, and special ops (if it doesn't go nuclear). It serves no purpose to maintain ground troops there - beyond the marines in Okinawa - for any eventuality concerning the Chinese.

As far as Rumsfeld running his mouth - would you prefer that he just spring it on everyone the day before we are to depart? Mentioning it gets the dialogue going.