U.S. Troops in Korea: A blessing or a curse? For whom?
David Kaplan's most recent article for the Atlantic highlights the few things that Rumsfeld got right. His amazing blunder in Iraq is contrasted with his strategic success in reorganizing the military's global presence. Rumsfeld lowered the number of troops stationed permanently outside of the U.S., at bases in Germany, Japan and Korea, for example, and established instead many smaller, semi-permanent staging points scattered around the globe. Kaplan calls Rumsfeld's dealings with Korean and Japan "astute," for both strategic and political reasons. Rumsfeld managed to reorganize his troops without upsetting the delicate diplomatic relationships we have with Korea and Japan.
Specifically, in Korea Rumsfeld decided to reduce troop levels from 37,000 to 25,000, give the Yongsan Garrison in Seoul back to Korea, and hand-over wartime control of the Korean military--a control which the U.S. has had since the Korean war. Kaplan makes it seem like this reorganization was done in spite of the Koreans. Rumsfeld even threatened to remove all U.S. troops from Korea. It was the Koreans, not the Americans, who desperately wanted the troops to stay.
The story was quite different in the Korean media. What I heard about it, back in February of 2007, was that the U.S. had reluctantly caved to Korean demands for more autonomy and independence. This article (from the standard Korean news agency, Yonhap) makes the hand-over of wartime control seems like a concession to South Korea. The article reports that: "Operational control became a focal point as South Korea desired to command its own forces during wartime."
What's the truth? Did Rumsfeld give in to the Koreans or bend them to his will? Are Koreans trying to hold onto U.S. troops or kick them out? I'm inclined to believe Kaplan on this, but the wide variance in perspectives is interesting in its own right.
Korea itself seems to be massively divided on the issue. Some people see the situation as the U.S. imposing its will on Korea, and they hope for a total U.S. troop draw down. These feelings are stoked by incidents such as the accidental killing in 2002 of two school girls by a U.S. Humvee. On the other hand, other people see the U.S. military as the primary line of defence against Kim Jong Il and his budding nuclear arsenal. These people are practically begging the U.S. to keep the troops here. The election this year of Lee Myung Bak, a pro-U.S. conservative, was largely driven, I believe, by North Korea's 2006 nuclear weapon test.
See, for instance, this survey, from back in August of 2006, which shows considerable public confusion about the hand-over. A solid majority believed that the handover was a good idea. But 24% believed that the hand-over should happen as soon as possible, while over 33% said that the transfer should happen as late as possible. The middle ground--transferring control in the middle-term, as was actually agreed upon--drew less support.
The hand-over of wartime control is scheduled for 2012. This is also the year that U.S. troops will begin to vacate Yongsan. It will be interesting to see how Korean perceptions of these events develop, especially vis a vis changing relations with North Korea.
By the way, here is a totally, totally in-depth blog on us troops in korea: http://rokdrop.com/.
Specifically, in Korea Rumsfeld decided to reduce troop levels from 37,000 to 25,000, give the Yongsan Garrison in Seoul back to Korea, and hand-over wartime control of the Korean military--a control which the U.S. has had since the Korean war. Kaplan makes it seem like this reorganization was done in spite of the Koreans. Rumsfeld even threatened to remove all U.S. troops from Korea. It was the Koreans, not the Americans, who desperately wanted the troops to stay.
The story was quite different in the Korean media. What I heard about it, back in February of 2007, was that the U.S. had reluctantly caved to Korean demands for more autonomy and independence. This article (from the standard Korean news agency, Yonhap) makes the hand-over of wartime control seems like a concession to South Korea. The article reports that: "Operational control became a focal point as South Korea desired to command its own forces during wartime."
What's the truth? Did Rumsfeld give in to the Koreans or bend them to his will? Are Koreans trying to hold onto U.S. troops or kick them out? I'm inclined to believe Kaplan on this, but the wide variance in perspectives is interesting in its own right.
Korea itself seems to be massively divided on the issue. Some people see the situation as the U.S. imposing its will on Korea, and they hope for a total U.S. troop draw down. These feelings are stoked by incidents such as the accidental killing in 2002 of two school girls by a U.S. Humvee. On the other hand, other people see the U.S. military as the primary line of defence against Kim Jong Il and his budding nuclear arsenal. These people are practically begging the U.S. to keep the troops here. The election this year of Lee Myung Bak, a pro-U.S. conservative, was largely driven, I believe, by North Korea's 2006 nuclear weapon test.
See, for instance, this survey, from back in August of 2006, which shows considerable public confusion about the hand-over. A solid majority believed that the handover was a good idea. But 24% believed that the hand-over should happen as soon as possible, while over 33% said that the transfer should happen as late as possible. The middle ground--transferring control in the middle-term, as was actually agreed upon--drew less support.
The hand-over of wartime control is scheduled for 2012. This is also the year that U.S. troops will begin to vacate Yongsan. It will be interesting to see how Korean perceptions of these events develop, especially vis a vis changing relations with North Korea.
By the way, here is a totally, totally in-depth blog on us troops in korea: http://rokdrop.com/.
posted by Brian at 11:02 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home