All Hell Breaks Loose at Camp Humphreys
UPDATE #4: Budaechigae has got a posting on this that provides a link to a video of the protest.
___________________________________
UPDATE #3: Of course the Marmot has a great post covering the battle at Camp Humphreys.
___________________________________
UPDATE #2: Mark has got more on this at his site. He compares the battle to Pickett’s Charge during the Civil War. Not a bad analogy.
___________________________________
UPDATE #1: Nomad has got more on this at his site. He also draws some conclusions about the hypocracy and greed of the people involved in this from this article in today’s Chosun Ilbo..
____________________________________
Original Posting:
There was a very violent protest that broke out at Camp Humphreys on Sunday. The protesters were protesting the ROK governments move to buy adjacent farm land around the camp to begin building the needed facilities in order to move soldiers stationed on Yongsan and the 2ID area to Camp Humphreys by 2008. Camp Humphreys for the most part is surrounded by rice paddies on three sides which makes Camp Humphreys the ideal place to expand a camp to relocate soldiers.
However, the local farmers don’t think so and have thus begun to protest. Some of the farmers may legitimately not want to move for whatever reason but I have a feeling that many of the local farmers are protesting in order to get a sweeter deal from the ROK government to sell their land. What do they got to loose by protesting? It only helps them in negotiations with the government. These farmers have teamed up with the “peace activists” which I use this term very loosely because would real “peace activists” do this:
This wasn’t violence that just accidentally happened and got out of hand. This was obviously very well planned because the “peace activists” or for sake of clarity I will just call them thug protesters brought plenty of weapons to assault the riot police and brought wire cutters to breach the fence line.
The pictures seem to support my theory that the thug protesters out number the rice farmers at the protest. Basically it appears, I could be wrong that you got the usual suspects (ie-Hanchongryun) that show up at all the anti-American protests joining with some local farmers to raise hell and then they all go back to Seoul drink a few beers and tell their buddies how much fun they had assaulting policemen and destroying private property because that is basically all they accomplished.
Something I find interesting about the thug protesters is that they always try to make things out like they were the victims. Here is this quote from the International Action Center site.
South Korean government dispatched over six thousand police including the notorious 1001 Unit from Seoul. During the ensuing struggle, over 200 people were hospitalized from the brutal attack by the police and hundreds were arrested.
Brutal Attack?! What do you call this picture?!:
This looks scene from Braveheart. I can just picture the Hanchongryun leader yelling, “You may take our lives but you will never take our rice paddies!”
All I see is the thugs attacking the police! I saw the after action review report today and many policemen were seriously injured and one of the policemen is facing life threatening injuries because these people want to go cause trouble and be stupid.
Why should any young policemen be subjected to getting beat down by these thugs? The reason is because nobody does anything to discourage this activity. If you assault policemen you should go to jail. Why should policemen be treated as some ones private boxing bag? Policemen should be held in high regard and they are not in this country. That is why protesters feel free to seriously injure these young mandatory service draftees at these protests. I get extremely frustrated by this because I see these young men getting beat down and these young men are no different then the young soldiers I’m in charge of and I would never subject them to what the Korean policemen are subjected too.
The slogan on the left of the stage says “Drive out the US military” and the slogan on the right says “This land is our life, we will guard it to the end.”
I make a point to periodically thank the Korean police around my camp for what they do. They really do have a tough job and execute their duties the best they can which I appreciate. I wish their own government would do more to appreciate what they do by preventing them from getting injured in the first place by arresting anyone who assaults a policemen. There should be mandatory jail time for this.
Here is some more stupidity from the IAC website:
As part of the U.S. military’s strategic global realignment plan, the role of U.S. military in South Korea now encompasses all of East Asia. To support their new military role, the U.S. military plans to expand their bases in South Korea in addition to building a number of Patriot Missile Bases along the west coast of South Korea, targeting China.
Plan to expand our bases in South Korea?! We have been shutting down bases up here in 2ID land left and right plus redeploying soldiers back to the US to cut troop numbers here. The goal is to get troop numbers here down to 17,500 by 2008 and we are well on our way to achieving that. Plus it is an out right lie that that is being passed here that the US is building PATRIOT missile bases in Korea. The PATRIOT missile batteries are located on Korean Air Force bases in Kwangju and Suwon and also on the US Air Force’s Osan and Kunsan airbases. In addition to this, the PATRIOT missile cannot be used on offensive strikes against China, North Korea, or anywhere else because they are a purely defensive weapon system. A PATRIOT missile is not a Tomahawk Cruise Missile. But these people believe their own garbage they put out.
\
Is this Korea or the Gaza Strip?
I really have no problem with them protesting. It is their right to protest which I fully support. However, I do not support violence and destruction of private property. The only way to stop this is by arresting people and dishing out steep sentences.
Finally what I find most ironic about all of this, is that these same thug protesters that went down to Camp Humphreys to stir up trouble are the same people who protest outside of Yongsan Garrison demanding that it be moved. When a plan is made to move the garrison these same people protest about that. Where do they want us to move to? Out in the ocean? When the USFK says screw you guys we will just redeploy soldiers back to the US these same people complain that the US soldiers can’t go home yet because that may increase the mandatory service time which these protesters are trying to avoid. We just can’t win. So I say screw them and let’s buy land on Cheju Island instead.
Hey, way to go idiots teach the kids to hate Americans early before they even have a chance to meet an American. If the kid is really lucky maybe he will get his head cracked open like the guy below. Why in the world would someone bring children to something as violent as this?
Here is why I accuse you of being a multicultural zombie living a DANCES WITH KOREANS fantasy (play on the Dances with Wolves movie).
You ooze a weepy sentimentality for the Korean police being abused by such Korean thugs, yet reflexively ask your own men to become masochistic in the face of the same Korean thuggery.
I quote your womanish lamentations desperately seeking to nurture the noble Korean savage: "Why should any young policemen be subjected to getting beat down by these thugs? The reason is because nobody does anything to discourage this activity. If you assault policemen you should go to jail. Why should policemen be treated as some ones private boxing bag? Policemen should be held in high regard and they are not in this country."
Yet, when American military men are subjected to the same Korean abuse you instinctively impugn a white man's guilt on your own men — asking them to "swallow their pride" and back down — effectively emboldening Korean thuggery to take it to higher levels … such as this aggressive demonstration.
I quote one of your past emasculinating pleas regarding Korean assualts against GIs: "The best thing to do in this situation is to swallow your pride and walk away. We use the 2002 subway incident as a perfect example of why you should do this. If those guys would of just walked away they may have been able to avoid the incident that happened."
Yes, sometimes walking away is a prudent response, but your advise smacks of American fecklessness that insults your own men. American GI's should not be instructed to eat Korean shit in fear of getting the shit-slinging natives riled. The natives need to have some fear lest they lose all perspective about Americans.
I thought women weren't allowed in combat positions!
Savvy?
Quote from SS: "I quote one of your past emasculinating pleas…"
AOL dictionary states: "No such word as "emasculinate" (or emasculinating) exists."
Of course you mean "emasculate" and I think you already know the word. But, if you're going to undertake a one woman jihad for the assertion of American masculinity in the ROK, then I'm going to hold you to a personal standard of perfection in the spelling of "masculinity" and all of its derivatives.
Main Entry: emas·cu·late
Pronunciation: i-'mas-ky&-"lAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -lat·ed; -lat·ing
Etymology: Latin emasculatus, past participle of emasculare, from e- masculus male —more at MALE
Date: 1607
1 : to deprive of strength, vigor, or spirit : WEAKEN
2 : to deprive of virility or procreative power : CASTRATE
3 : to remove the androecium of (a flower) in the process of artificial cross-pollination
synonym see UNNERVE
– emas·cu·late /-l&t/ adjective
– emas·cu·la·tion /-"mas-ky&-'lA-sh&n/ noun
– emas·cu·la·tor /-'mas-ky&-"lA-t&r/ noun
Other than this, your use of the English language in support of your argument is outstanding and sets a good example for the GI. A nice mix of elegance ("impugn", a good word) and earthiness ("American GI's should not be instructed to eat Korean shit"; yup, Private Snuffy may not know what "impugn" means but he will certainly understand about "not eating shit").
However your basic argument I find almost surreal. (When I recall your previous postings to the GI on other threads along these lines, I assume you're being absolutely sincere vs. getting some kind of thrill by posing as a coy provocateur).
If the GI were to assemble his troops right before an offpost pass period and give them a fiery speech encouraging them "not to eat Korean shit" (instead of a cautionary safety briefing) I assure you he would soon find himself relieved of command and on a plane back home.
And then you'd be deprived of his useful insights into what's going on at the ground level over there.
If you want to encourage displays of "masculinity" (as you define it) why not devote your efforts close to home? For example, seek out some English soccer hooligans and tell them what sissies they are for not going after the Muslim militant preachers in the UK (the ones who call for jihad against their polite English hosts)?
You should find the resultant displays of masculinity by both sides most edifying.
Don't you know protesting is the Korean national pastime…??? ;o)
I agree with you on protesting though. They have the right. But they don't have the right to start riots.
Your on it Paul, she is just trying to be a troll and start something. She is foolish to think I should encourage soldiers to go get in fights with Koreans and get sent to ROK jail just to display their masculinity.
Paul H,
It's a woman's prerogative to mispell anything she likes, but … I love a man with a little spunk: we women NEED men with principled-testosterone (What you curiously call bullshit macho-ism)to put us bitches in line.
I am a reasonable woman realizing the USFK cannot tell its men to allow "incidents" in defense of small matters such as American integrity and pride. The Pentagon and Leon LaPorte don't mind muzzling American soldiers when Koreans attempt to metaphorically butt-fuck them — since it's not their personal asses exposed.
But, let me reveal something to you and the USFK. Koreans call the USFK … "The Crying Army". I have been told the Korean male's favorite anecdote during drinking sessions is to mock the USFK by impersonating Lt. Gen. Charles Campbell, 8th Army commander.
The Koreans play-act out an alleged true event of the "sensitive" General crying crocadile tears to demonstrate to Koreans his heartfelt sorrow for the two-girl's deaths.
All Koreans are well-aware Korea used the two-girl incident for political advantage at the expense of USFK.
The joke is USFK is a feckless bunch of sensitive crying soldiers who will take any amount of abuse — and merely cry and appease.
I have even heard a Korean say: "What do they(Americans) mean we Koreans are appeasing Kim Jung Il … take a look at USFK appeasing South Korea!"
I just point out that GI's opinions is a reflection of the USFK culture … a feckless organization caught between an indifferent Pentagon and the cunning South Koreans.
I am caught between Silly Sally and GI Korea again. I don't feel the need to be insulting, and I lean more toward the teaching to swallow pride and move along, but I also believe deciding not to eat shit and fight back is just as acceptable a choice.
I also remember back in the post Sally quoted from, I too felt you were putting too much weight on the shoulders of the US soldiers in relation to the blame for what happens when a soldier fights back. The root cause is Korea's problem, and it should change, and I can't get angry with a US soldier if they were really singled out in the street like I was a few times by a drunk Korean with a chip on his shoulder, and I didn't look like a soldier. I walked away, but I would not have given a second's negative thought if someone else in the situation had taken the other route.
And there is one thing I agree with Sally on completely —
"a feckless organization caught between an indifferent Pentagon and the cunning South Koreans."
It would take too long to find the quote, but during the end of the 2002 orgy of hate, when the US media started getting a fucking clue, the USFK commander asked about the situation said something about how individual US soldiers weren't in Korea long enough to really feel the effect.
This was also around the time, if I remember correctly, there was talk about changing the rotation system in Korea to cut down the exposure to 6 months and rotate in units rather than individuals.
That was fucking great, I thought. The answer to the situation isn't to fight the misinformation, down right lies, and unreasonable nature of much of the anti-USFK process. The answer was to cut down how long GIs might have to suffer. Bullshit…
But, this is typical of how the US government and even area speciallists deal with it.
After 60 Minutes ran the special at the end of the 2002 hate fest – the special where the USFK commander broke down and cried – I saw a South Korea-US alliance panel in DC. Victor Cha said about anti-US sentiment that the "60 Minutes special hadn't helped the situation."
Another F-ing A perfect comment from the people who know the most about situation.
It would be one thing if they agreed with the many of the basic arguments against the US in Korea. If they do, in fact, they should apply pressure along with the anti-US groups to get changes made.
But, if they don't, and I don't believe they do, then cowing down in the face of it is NOT the answer.
But all we get from the think tank people and the US government people is — stay the course, we've been through rough times before, we can ride out the storm —-
and above all — don't add fuel to the fire.
A few times in the past I've watched the US Embassy or the USFK leadership wade out into the turbulent waters with a criticism of what were simply lies being told to the public and gross distoritions, but when Korean society exploded even more, they backed off.
Sometimes, it frustrates me even more than the anti-US elements and the promotion of the negative views….
"…there was talk about changing the rotation system in Korea to cut down the exposure to 6 months and rotate in units rather than individuals….That was fucking great, I thought. The answer to the situation isn't to fight the misinformation, down right lies, and unreasonable nature of much of the anti-USFK process. The answer was to cut down how long GIs might have to suffer. Bullshit…"
You are completely misreading the reasons for using a unit rotation system vs individual replacement.
The primary purpose is unit effectiveness. We are using unit rotation in Iraq now; there are reports current in the blogosphere (if you take the trouble to search them out) about how well such units are doing (in terms of fighting effectiveness, re-enlistment rates, etc). Even many of the harshest domestic critics of the Bush administration have acknowledged this.
The individual replacement system/1 year tour for a combat zone was first initiated during the latter part of the Korean War. Like all systems, it has its advantages and disadvantages, but the disadvantages became obvious when it was carried to its penultimate degree during the Vietnam war. It became a key factor IMO in the near-collapse of the Army towards the end of the Vietnam war and the many disciplinary problems associated with that period.
My personal recommended response to the problem of Korean contempt for USFK is to withdraw the permanent stationing of the USFK, as I've stated here many times before. That solution is not imminent; however, I don't think it's wise to compensate (in its absence) by encouraging US soldiers to start engaging in brawls with any belligerent or mocking Koreans they might encounter.
Don't you think USFK should be a disciplined force? If so, just how do you define this quality? I'd say self-restraint in the phase of provocation is a good starting point for anybody's definition.
The sooner we start rotating battalions and brigades into Korea the better. It won't be a panacea that will solve all cases of US soldier bad conduct; but when rotation does happen, I'm confident that the big picture will become one in which individual soldiers will feel a lot more confident in themselves, their values, and their units, as part of a pre-existing organization upon arrival in ROK (as opposed to a more atomized group of individuals subject to constant turn-over). And self-confident soldiers will be less likely to have serious disciplinary problems.
Unit rotation is essentially a return to the way the Army used to be. The reason we got away from it was because in an era of conscription and mass armies (and the worldwide commitments that necessitated these) such unit rotation was too hard to implement.
GI Korea and the rest of the troops aren't responsible for a "weeping" general. If you have a problem with said general's behavior, send him an email or a letter; even better, call his office, get on his calendar, and tell him to his face what you think (the "manly" thing to do).
It's not clear to me exactly what behavior Sally specifically wants to see displayed by individual USFK private soldiers. Indeed, it's always a mystery as to what civilians with no personal military experience imagine the service to be like. Maybe you all think USFK should be a bunch of hardened American Foreign Legionnaires, wenching and brawling, a woman in one hand and a broken beer bottle in another? That's not our national (or our Army's) preferred style, regardless of whatever the popular imagination (from the movies?) might suggest about such behavior being a necessary corollary for military effectiveness.
The 4 man Seal team in Afghanistan, in the news recently, fought to the death; while they are the elite of the elite, I suggest they are more typical of our military's fighting spirit than your posts imply. The drunken Koreans (who mock a general's mistaken surrender to the mawkish emotion now fashionable in this media age) only display to me their own basic insecurity; they will probably be the first to cry for US help if the balloon goes up.
And Sally, again I suggest that you look to your own country first. I commend to you some of the columns of Mark Steyn, the ones where he comments on the almost complete moral disarmament of the English citizen and homeowner in the face of an ever-mounting domestic crime wave.
Or go lecture the English anti-fox-hunters, on the subject of hunting as a character-builder for manliness and toughness. From what I hear, the foxes are practically overrunning the countryside and English chickens may soon be extinct.
USFK = crybabies????
I think not. The same folks who you call crybabies are the same soldiers who would fight to the death to stem any invasion from the north. If we cry about anything its that we are prepared to shed our blood for a people who don't appreciate the sacrifice we make.
Paul,
I'm not a military guy or planner, but I can picture the benefits of unit rotation. From the Vietnam War, I got the idea individual rotations caused some problems. I can imagine the benefits you are describing.
But, I would also need to show you the quote to see what context the leader put the rotation when asked about the effect of anti-Americanism on the soldiers. Maybe his primary idea about unit rotation was the benefits it brings to USFK as a fighting force, but at that moment, what was in his mind was, "Well, we're not worried about this orgy of hate, because our guys are just here a year and we're trying to cut it down to 6 months." That was NOT an answer for how to deal with the anti-US process in South Korea.
On the USFK commander crying, I am not knocking him at all. I don't know anybody in their positions would stop from pulling their hair out having to deal with that stuff. Even if I were a grunt on the ground, it would be hard for me to duck my head from realizing what sacrifice I was offering South Korea if the North invaded and what South Korea was offering the US military in return for that willingness to die for them. That's just me. But I can understand the frustration of the top boss leading to tears during that specific time in 2002.
However, I also told me sister who called me about it when she saw it, just imagine the pressure that guy was under. He is trained well how to handle public relations, public speaking, the importance of the press, and the importance of good relations as a top guy in the US military in a foreign land. He is a military man above all, but he didn't get to that position without having gone through a lot of training and experience.
And at that really shitty time in 2002, the 60 Minutes guy asked him for the second time, "How does seeing flags burning really make you feel?" And he choked up and cried.
Knowing that several of the early Korean bloggers and people like me who had set up special sites to try to get someone in the US to pay attention to what was going on, and that we were emailing photos and links to the Korean media to US media outlet and screaming that we were pulling our hair out, and we weren't in his position, his frustration is understandable to me with ease…..
I would tell my soldiers to "endure" and show self-restraint, but I wouldn't jump on their asses if it turned out they didn't and I was resonably sure they were telling me the truth about having been overly provoked in the street. I'd do my best to walk away, but I'm not going to demand US soldiers go beyond th ecall of duty in that regard.
And I have a question on the 6 month rotation…
I can see the unit rotation benefits……but is 6 month too short?
I have no idea…..
I am just thinking…..if you are rotating units in and out of a front line, tense, standoff nation like South Korea —– with North Korea having the capability of collapsing at any time —-
wouldn't 6 months be too short to get the new units plugged in and effectively ready for blunting North Korea's thrust or reacting fast enough to a limited strike if the call is to take North Korea out?
Can units get settled in country and up to speed on the terrain, communications, and all the many things that go into being prepared to fight quickly?
How much time would it take for a unit rotating in to be really fighting effective in Korea?
My fear with the 6 month rotation thing is this —
just when units are settingling down to their role in the greater Korean defense plan —-
—- they will be on the short list to leaving and counting each day until they leave.
I would think this would hurt USFK's defense posture and possibly negate the advantages of full unit rotation….
I've been wanting an answer to that question since I heard about the 6 month rotation idea……
Paul, H
Here is my take on correct policy: we tell our American soldiers to NOT create "situations", use prudence, and to stand their ground against Korean outrage. If the Koreans are inherently abusive people ready to produce and capitalize on every "incident", then they are not our civilizational friends — let the incidents proliferate till we are forced to concede and give them over to their beloved Chinese home-boys where they spiritually belong. It will eventually happen anyways: South Koreans are at heart — capitalistic-communists wearing watches and Western suits. So start looking for alternative bases NOW — build an artificial island, if you have to.
Furthermore, Lt.Gen. Charles Campbell, 8th Army Commander is an example of the Pentagon's new enlightened policy of creating effeminized males that lead the NEW ARMY. The trickle-down effect of such leadership creates efficient, rational, and egalitarian Nancy Boys such as our beloved blogger — GI. Paul, you too suspiciously smell of perfume and lace with your feminist suspicion towards the "macho-factor". GI could of been a male deep down, but was deprived of manly role models in the military — thus, his clitorial concern to nurture Koreans at the expense of his own men creates a womanish self-abnegation infecting his own men with self-doubt. Even the female soldiers are insecure working in a feminized Army.
For you see, the problem with USFK's technocratic culture is that "equality" slips into androgyny, creating interchangeable men and women, which isn't true to human nature: thus, creating a loss of natural and healthy cohesion in such a vital military institution.
Furthermore, the public relations result of a feminized Lt. General Charlene Campbell wearing his feminine-side on his sleeve before Sixty-Minutes not only gives the Koreans the contemptuous creeps — but emboldens their sense of entitlement fueling their peevish squawking for more American subsidy.
There is no honor in Korea.
Savvy?
[…] PSPD has been one of the leading groups trying to stop the USFK transformation and relocation to Camp Humphreys and now all of the sudden they are one of the biggest defenders of […]
[…] is about time that violence like what you see below is now going to be […]
[…] Camp Humphreys expansion project despite all of the violent protests, delays & even more delays, funding cuts, and corruption; appears to be getting closer to […]
[…] is a picture of the violent protests against the US military relocation in […]
[…] violence to include participating in the attempt to tear down the MacArthur Statue in Incheon and fighting with Korean police against the Camp Humphreys expansion. He is also a pro-North Korean […]
[…] The Pan-Korean Alliance for Unification has a long history of anti-US activity to include the violent clashes at Camp Humphreys over the bases expansion as well as assaulting American soldiers participating in a joint training […]
I was at Humphreys in 1993-94. I was just checking the place out on Google maps, and damn has it changed. Even the airfield has undergone major changes. It was a real small base then. Not including the ROK’s, there were just a few hundred, maybe 800, troops stationed there. After you got use to the place it had a real small town feel to it. We rode bikes everywhere. Now it looks like there are as many cars there than was bikes back then. Guess they changed the rules for car ownership. Only E-6 and above could have a car, and most of the soldiers that qualified didn’t have one. Lots of new buildings, and lots of buildings are now gone. Guess that’s progress.