US M1A2 tank (AFP Photo/Jung Yeon-Je) / AFP
Reuters: South Korea says it wants U.S. troops to stay regardless of any treaty with North Korea
SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korea said on Wednesday the issue of U.S. troops stationed in the South is unrelated to any future peace treaty with North Korea and that American forces should stay even if such an agreement is signed.
“U.S. troops stationed in South Korea are an issue regarding the alliance between South Korea and the United States. It has nothing to do with signing peace treaties,” said Kim Eui-kyeom, a spokesman for the presidential Blue House, citing President Moon Jae-in.
The Blue House was responding to media questions about a column written by South Korean presidential adviser and academic Moon Chung-in that was published earlier this week.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: It is up to the U.S. to decide on whether to leave troops in South Korea or not. But I understand South Korea's concerns. If a peace treaty is successful it will be China that the South Koreans will be concerned about .... less so the North Koreans .... and a U.S. presence will be a sign to South Korea on the U.S. commitment.
More News On South Korea Wanting U.S. Troops To Stay Regardless Of A Peace Treaty With North Korea
Korean Peace Deal Wouldn't Threaten US Troop Presence, Seoul Says -- Wall Street Journal
Naturally any peace accord will need to include a provision whereby US personnel are withdrawn. This came up on another thread. I referred to the current arrangement as a "national humiliation" for the United States. While the general premise is correct, perhaps that particular choice of words was a bit harsh.
ReplyDeleteIt was suggested on the thread by Russ I believe that regardless we could expect US forces to remain for at least 8 to 10 years, as I recall. This is probably correct. While not a good arrangement for America, this has been the arrangement for decades and like it or not it may be problematic to undo it "on a dime" so to speak. US forces may be able to help both sides in preserving some type of stability during the transition. Nevertheless I think eight to ten years is to long. I would suggest four years but there does need to be some type of timetable/realistic path forward to finally get US personnel out.
When one receives a valuable service that they are underpaying for, naturally they would express interest in maintaining that service. I've referred to us as South Korea's "chumps." While the sentiment is generally correct, perhaps the wording could have been different. Maybe likening it to a bad marriage would be more accurate.
Naturally the side getting the short end as America is here would generally want the terms of the agreement altered or ended. As is often the case in abusive relationships, the side being mistreated oftentimes lacks the confidence to demand a change in the terms of the relationship or to break it off altogether. Then enter Donald Trump a master negotiator who calls out South Korea by name during the campaign. This no doubt served notice to the South Koreans that the current relationship may not be allowed to continue as it had been for many decades. I think this has been an important factor in negotiations. South Korea has decided they may want to try a little harder to make peace.
If South Korea is concerned about China, perhaps they need to try and work constructively with China to solve issues of contention they may have with them. Also, they may bolster their military capabilities in order to better represent their interests where military force may need to be used. The American military cannot be expected to serve as their foreign policy arm. As to any territorial disputes with China, South Korea will need to fight for them. This is not America's concern.
IF peace is achieved, then obviously the entire premise for US forces being there is eliminated. As such, a withdrawal would be expected to take place at a time and pace that is reasonable to all affected parties. Even if peace is not achieved US forces will have to be withdrawn eventually anyway as our current level of worldwide deployments simply is not sustainable. As such, I would suggest that South Korea work constructively with us on a timetable for this redeployment that is reasonable and equitable for both us and them.
Stay for china
ReplyDeleteWhatever is in Russia's interest, bposter will be for it :) I think the US should put more troops on the eastern European front and to south Korea and have new missile defense shields there. How would you like that, comrade bposter? :)
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDelete"Whatever is in Russia's interest, bposter will be for it." Your arguments are weak. As such, you have to try and discredit me by accusing me of being for another country.
"I think the US should put more troops on the Eastern European front and to South Korea and have new missile defense shields there." You want to know what I think about it. From the snarky nature of your post, I have my doubts as to whether or not you are a serious person. Nevertheless I will try and address this.
As general Mattis recently acknowledged the strain on the American taxpayer of these far flung military commitments is enormous. Already children are going unfed, many lack access to basic medical care, much of America is de facto a third world country, and I could go on. As a colonel put this a few years back to paraphrase, "do you want a large number of troops stationed perpetually in Poland or do you want a high speed rail system?"
The military is already strained and worn down, suffers from low morale, poor leadership, and training gaps. It would be problematic and probably unethical to place still greater burdens on the US military and America. I suppose we could further run the military into the ground and speed up our progress to bankruptcy.
In short, there's no upside to what you suggest combined with huge downside risks. Also, part of the reason the diplomatic process with regards to North Korea has been so successful to date is because we have been able to get China and Russia to assist us with sanctions. To get this in place, these countries had to be treated with a degree of respect. This is called "statesmanship." Essentially this means putting the intersts of the American people ahead of your petty desire to inflame tensions with other major powers.
For this to be successful, Chinese and Russian assistance is still going to be needed. As such, putting more US personnel in South Korea and Eastern Europe right now would be about the worst idea someone could come up with right now. As far as missile shields, what we currently have isn't effective even in the dumbed down trials. It's hard to see how it is going to be effective against the highly advanced missiles Russia has. There's no utility involved here.
Now as for your cute "comrade" remark. I HATE Communism with a PASSION. You'd know this if you actually read my posts.