Category: US-ROK Alliance

It is becoming more and more clear that the US military seems to care more about the security of Korea than Korea’s own president:

President Roh Moo-hyun on Wednesday said Korea is capable of exercising sole wartime operational control of its troops ¿even if we get it back now.¿ In an interview with the Yonhap news agency, the president said, ¿The South Korean military’s capability is sufficient and it can get U.S. military support.” The remarks pour oil on the flames of controversy by suggesting that what Seoul calls the ¿withdrawal¿ of operational control will be possible to achieve even before the 2012 timeframe the government has set. Scores of foreign and security affairs experts including 13 former defense ministers say even 2012 is unfeasible.

What I find interesting is that President Roh who is not a military man, yet he thinks he is a better security expert for the country than all the military and former defense ministers who say Korea will not even be ready for sole operational war time control by 2012. Basically what President Roh is doing is playing again to his domestic political base by saying Korea could take back control now, but he is also like the Chosun article said, trying to hedge his bet by maintaining that Korea should stick to the 2012 timeline. For reasons I have discussed before, President Roh wants to keep that 2012 timeline for his own political reasons.

President Roh is right about one thing, the ROK Army does have sufficient capability to defeat a North Korean attack now. What President Roh fails to look at is if war broke out what additional cost would the country absorb with no immediate US support? How many more lives in South Korea would be lost during a North Korean attack than they would with an immediate US counterattack? President Roh is playing around with the potential lives of many Koreans because he hopes the North Koreans will not strike South Korea if the US does redeploy it’s forces from Korea. Someone in the military does not plan around hope, military people plan around reality.

The US operational control turn over and camp consolidation plan were all closely planned in conjunction with the ROK military’s transformation in order to ensure that the national security of the country was not compromised due to these changes on both sides of the alliance. However, a good plan the military officials on each side came up with is being compromised by those with their own axe to grind and political ambitions. Than again it is easy for a Korean politician to plan around hope when they know when the kimchi hit’s the fan, the Yankee cavalry will save your ass anyway.

I wrote in a posting a year ago that the Korean government at least owes the United States military an honorable face saving redeployment of forces from the peninsula. My argument centers around that if the Korean government wanted USFK to reduce or redeploy forces from the peninsula it should be done in a face saving way in which it doesn’t appear that the US is retreating from South Korea due to rabid anti-Americanism running out of control in the country. The US should be able to redeploy forces off the peninsula with honor; however the ruling South Korean government thinks otherwise:

Seoul also insists on the loaded term ¿withdrawal¿ as the official designation for the project. “Since the issue first came up, the U.S. has asked Korea not use the word ‘withdrawal’,” the government official said. “But Cheong Wa Dae at the urging of the National Security Council has insisted.¿

The above comment was made in reference to the negotiations currently going on between the US and Korean governments over the handover of war time operational control of the ROK military and the US force reductions on the peninsula. The current Korean government is openly anti-American and seems determined to make the reduction of USFK an embarrassing “withdrawal” for the United States with public comments from the government and the Korean President Roh Moo-hyun about the US using failed policy with North Korea, encouragement of anti-Americanism in Korea, delay of the Camp Humphreys camp consolidation plan with violent anti-US protests, giving government subsidies to these violent anti-US groups, the fraudulent environmental issue, distribution of pro-North Korea propaganda in Seoul, and the denying of a bombing range for the US Air Force for a few quick recent examples off the top of my head.

All of this is maybe reaching a point where the US government may have had enough:

The U.S. is playing tit-for-tat by offering to hand over wartime operational control of troops to Korea at what experts say is the unfeasibly early date of 2009-2010, a high-ranking official speculated Monday. Seoul aims at the ¿withdrawal¿ of wartime control of Korean troops, as it is officially termed, in six years¿ time. “Perhaps this is a counterattack motivated by anger because [U.S. authorities] feel Korea is seeking the 2012 withdrawal for political reasons,” the official said.

A Korean source quoted a U.S. official as saying in recent bilateral discussions that Korea will not realistically be ready to exercise independent control of its forces even by 2012, but since that deadline appeared to be politically motivated, there was no reason for Washington to cling to military logic either.

The above statement comes on the heels of the uni-lateral handover of vacated USFK camps plus an announcement today of further USFK troop reductions below the 25,000 number agreed upon with the South Korean government:

The United States will lower troop levels in South Korea beyond a previously agreed reduction to 25,000, but the cut will not be “substantial,” a senior defense official said on Monday. “As the adjustments (in capabilities) take place, there will be a reduction in the number of U.S. forces located in the Republic of Korea beyond the level of 25,000 that we’ve currently agreed to,” the official said.

What the current South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun is trying to do is score domestic points with his political base in South Korea for standing up to the US on what are basically hypocritical and demagogued issues, while at the same time avoiding the fall out of a USFK pull out during his presidency. The Korean president is limited to one 5 year term and next year President Roh’s term ends and with approval ratings in the 20 percentile he will probably leave office as the greatest lame duck president in Korean history. His unpopularity will probably open the door for a South Korean conservative to regain the presidency.

However, if President Roh can keep the operational control handover date at 2012, that would mean the possible conservative president in power at the time will be blamed for when the country’s economy bottoms out from the USFK pull out. A pull out does not happen over night. It will probably be a 2 year process which if the operational control happens in 2012 that means 2010 the first US forces will start to leave the country, right in the middle of the presidency of the next Korean president. This would open the door for another Korean liberal to take power in the 2012 election if that president is held responsible for the country’s economic woes. However, if the hand over happens in 2009 that means the first forces will start pulling out next year, during President Roh’s term in office. Any bottoming out of the Korean economy will fall squarely on his shoulders and will forever be his legacy as he leaves office.

The old guard of Korea’s security understands very well the game that President Roh is playing and have now begun mobilizing to stop the hand over of operational control from the US to Korea:

A group of senior military experts including 13 former defense ministers have urged Defense Minister Yoon Kwang-ung to stop seeking the return of wartime operational control from the U.S. The meeting came at Yoon’s invitation on Wednesday.

It is rare for the contents of such a meeting to be made public, especially when it focuses on a call to end a core government project.

The group included Lee Sang-hoon and other former defense ministers as well as retired Gen. Paik Sun-yup and former vice defense minister Lee Jung-rin. They said now is not the time to reclaim wartime operational control of troops but rather the moment to strengthen the Korea-U.S. alliance.

These old defense ministers fought and lived through the Korean War plus helped build the country into the economic miracle that is today, knowing full well it would not have been possible without the assistance of the United States. So now they see one Korean presidency undoing the 50 years of work they have done to keep the US-Korea alliance strong and beneficial to the economy and most importantly the security of South Korea. In fact this is the advice that these ministers have given to USFK officials:

¿I¿ve sought a meeting with Gen. [Bell], the commander of the U.S. Forces Korea. If I meet him, I¿ll suggest that he ignores what the South Korean government says.¿

These statements have even led some to speculate that South Korea may be headed for a military coup if the current Roh policies remain in effect. Military coups have happened before in South Korea so it wouldn’t be stretch to say it couldn’t happen again. For the sake of South Korean democracy let’s hope this doesn’t occur and that these issues can be worked out before something drastic such as a military coup happens.

Obviously it is interesting times in South Korea and the coming months are really going to shape the future of Korea for decades to come. The South Korean media has now circled the wagons and have become extremely critical of the Korean president with articles such this, this, this, and this. All these competing dynamics in South Korea means that for USFK, leaving the country with honor is easier said than done.

However, shouldn’t liberation from the Japanese after World War II, 36,000 lives lost during the Korean War, and over 50 years of stability and economic development on the Korean peninsula provided by the United States be at least worth an honorable redeployment of US forces from the Korean peninsula? Is that asking too much?

From the Chosun:

An Asia specialist with the U.S. Congressional Research Service has presented a report to Congress suggesting the U.S. Defense Department is pushing to change the military command structure as a means to drastically reduce the role of the U.S. Forces Korea. Larry Niksch drew up the 16-page report after North Korea’s volley of missile launches earlier this month, saying part of the plans is thought to be putting the U.S. Forces Korea under the U.S. Army First Corps whose headquarter is to move from Washington State to Camp Zama in Japan’s Kanagawa Prefecture near Tokyo.

That would also mean lowering the rank of the USFK commander and changes in the UN Command in Korea, which have taken orders from a four-star general since the Korean War.

Niksch’s analysis could mean that moves to downgrade the military relationship with South Korea reportedly instigated by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld are well underway. A former high-ranking official in the Bush administration told Grand National Party lawmaker Park Jin last week that Rumsfeld wanted to bring the Korea-U.S. alliance down to a level similar to Washington¿s relationships with the Philippines or Thailand.

The US military’s relationship with both Thailand and the Philippines consists of joint training exercises and not large permanently stationed troops. If this proposal gets approved the US-ROK alliance would for all intents and purposes be over. I think that will probably mean the US-ROK relationship would then be composed of a routine deployment of a Stryker brigade for annual exercises with the ROK Army and maybe keeping the PATRIOT batteries in place until the ROK Army can buy their own. The way it looks now the Air Force will be gone soon unless the Korean government gives them the bombing range they need to train their pilots. No matter what happens I think the writing is clearly on the wall.

The former foreign minister to the current Roh Moo-hyun administration had some very interesting things to say in today’s Chosun Ilbo about the US-ROK relationship:

Prof. Yoon Young-kwan, who served as the first foreign minister of the current administration, said in a lecture to a Korean Federation of Teachers¿ Associations affiliate on Monday, “Despite becoming the 10th largest economy in the world, the consciousness of South Korea remains in turn-of-the-19th-century resistant nationalism and passive concepts of independence, desperate to get out from under the influence of the Great Powers. We have to pursue positive independence taking advantage of our relations with these powers to achieve our national interests.” Yoon cited the former German chancellor Helmut Kohl as representing a spirit of genuine independence when he achieved German unification through close diplomatic ties with the U.S. Germany achieved unification by overcoming fears of a united Germany in neighboring countries or former enemies like France, the Soviet Union, Britain and Poland through cooperation with Washington.

Make sure you read the whole article because it is a good read, but I think there is a reason why this guy is no longer the foreign minister; because he makes sense compared to people like this.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Korean defensive officials have agreed to “appropriately accelerate” the operation control of the ROK Army issue:

Korea and the U.S. have agreed to “appropriately accelerate” discussion on the return of wartime operational control, which currently rests with the U.S. It was one of 13 points agreed at the 37th annual bilateral Security Consultative Meeting here headed by Defense Minister Yoon Kwang-ung and his U.S. counterpart Donald Rumsfeld.

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld speaks at a press conference after the annual Korea-U.S. Security Consultative Meeting at the Defense Ministry in Yongsan, Seoul on Friday.

To an official request from Korea for the return of wartime command, Rumsfeld said he agreed with Seoul but cautioned matters must proceed to ensure they help peace on the Korean Peninsula. Sources close to the talks said the joint statement pledged to “appropriately accelerate” discussions. Asked what that meant, Rumsfeld told a joint press conference after the meeting, “It’ll take place at the moment when the Republic of Korea and the United States of America decide it’s appropriate.”

Notice he doesn’t say when this acceleration is going to take place. He only says when appropriate. The whole issue of the Korean government taking operational control from the United States during war time is nothing but an empty slogan to play to Korean nationalism since President Roh Moo-hyun’s approval ratings are in the twenty percentile range.

Think about this logically. If Korea takes operational control during a conflict with North Korea do you for one minute think that the US government will allow ROK Army generals to command US stealth fighters, tomahawk cruise missiles, submarines, AEGIS destroyers, B-52’s, etc. during a war? The ROK Army generals are fine infantry, land warfare commanders for their theater of operations here on the Korean peninsula but, they are not trained or have the war time experience to properly implement the the combined arms fight that the US military can bring down on an enemy.

If Korea wants operational control they may just end up regretting it if the US military pulls out of Korea. Not that the ROK Army cannot win a war with North Korea because it most probably could, however victory is not certain without the US militaries involvement. The ROK military does not have the capability to conduct critical war time missions such as precision bombing over North Korea’s rear areas or collecting usable signal intelligence. These lack of capabilities even if the ROK military were to win a war would make any war here longer and more devastating than it needed to be. Is national pride worth the stategic consequences? For President Roh, that is a yes.

I’m actually for pushing this issue of the ROK military getting operational control because that would force them to buy capabilities they need to replace some of those currently provided by the US military. For every capability replaced by the ROK military that means a US military capability is then open to be used elsewhere to support the GWOT.

I wonder if Rumsfeld cook this whole idea up as a way to get troops out of Korea? Anyway, Korea likes to let the world know that they have the world’s 11th largest economy, so it is time to start using that affluence to buy the capabilities that they would lose once they do get operational control. If they don’t and the US military leaves, I sure hope for all the citizens here that the Sunshine Policy works because a war here would be absolutely devastating.

However, keep in mind that if a war were to occur on the Korean peninsula these same people crying about operational control now will be the same people begging the US military to come back and fight in a second Korean War. Hopefully it doesn’t come down to that.

The Marmot’s Hole is providing some great information about the future of the US-ROK alliance:

To set up a forward operational headquarters, the Army plans to move the I Corps headquarters from Fort Lewis to Camp Zama, a U.S. post southwest of Tokyo. Military officers said negotiations with Japan are progressing and an agreement may be reached in time for President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi to announce it in November when the president visits Japan.

(…)

In addition, the headquarters of the Army in the Pacific is preparing to assume command of Army forces in South Korea, which are gradually being reduced and may eventually be largely withdrawn. Plans call for dismantling or shrinking the United Nations Command in Seoul that dates back to the Korean War that ended in 1953.

The Army also plans to transfer the Eighth Army headquarters from Seoul to Hawaii and to turn back to the South Koreans control of their forces commanded today by a joint U.S.-South Korea headquarters. The four-star American general’s post in Seoul would move to Hawaii.

I would not take all of this as gospel as to what is going to happen here in Korea and the Pacific. This maybe what some Army staffers want to happen, but often reality and politics are what influences what will actually happen. Any shake up in USFK will be subject to some huge politics.

On the political front the Marmot also links to One Free Korea’s posting of a Congressional Report from US House of Representative aid Dennis P. Halpin. Here is a part of the report that I continue to find to be a troubling aspect of inter-Korean cooperation:

Many in Washington, myself included, wonder at the lengths that South Korean society appears willing to go in pursuit of reconciliation, no matter what the apparent cost. For example, people here are somewhat amazed at the willingness of South Korea, both following the 2000 Summit and in a more recent proposal, to turn over convicted North Korean agents without receiving one single South Korean abductee or Prisoner-of-War in return. While humanitarian gestures are always appreciated, the American people would not tolerate for five minutes news of the forced detention of a Prisoner-of-War from a past conflict. Yet the detention of hundreds of South Korean POWs as slave laborers in North Korean coal mines for half a century raises barely a whimper in Seoul. Is the price of reconciliation to be paid by the continued enslavement of old soldiers who were just doing their duty for the Republic of Korea?

Could you imagine if the US gave the old Soviet Union back captured spies without reciprocation all in the name of “cooperation”. I still find it amazing that kidnapped citizens and POW’s from the Korean War continue to rot in North Korea while the South Korean government does nothing about it. The Japanese on the other hand pushed on the North Koreans to give back their kidnapped citizens and Pyongyang eventually returned the abductees. The Koreans can say what they want about Prime Minister Koizumi of Japan but at least he cares about his citizens enough to go to Pyongyang and bring them back from that gulag.

The report goes on to highlight other key issues between the US and Korea including the rewriting of history to make General MacArthur and all US soldiers who served in Korea out to be war criminals while the North Koreans are thought of as liberators. You may think this is silly, but like the report says, this is what is being taught to South Korean children today. Definitely read the entire report, it is a definite must read.

It appears that finally some attention is being shown on what is going on here in Korea. The media reports a lot on the nuclear crisis, but IMHO the real crisis is the propaganda war we are losing here. The amount of disinformation that is taught to Korean youths here in the schools and the media is truly astounding.

Just interacting with KATUSA soldiers that work with me I have had plenty of interesting conversations with them on history they didn’t know about and perceptions of Americans they found to be untrue once they worked together with us. These perceptions and thoughts about history were formed by their schools and the media. I try to highlight the disinformation I see here in Korea on my blog, but I’m preaching to the choir. Someone within Korea needs to show some leadership and identify what the current policies are costing South Korea. The current policies will cost the Koreans morally and financially in the long run as they continue to turn a deaf ear to North Korean atrocities while at the same time bashing the US in order to appease the North Koreans. Keep in mind that the next South Korean presidential elections are about two years away and a new America friendly government or at least one that is not openly anti-American would have a huge impact on any changes in policy here in regards to the US-ROK alliance. However, two years from now could be too late as proposed changes may already be implemented by then. As always we will see what happens.

Keep this in mind; how many wars has South Korea had against their country the last 50 years since the founding of the US-ROK alliance? Zero. How many wars was Korea involved in the 50 years before the founding of the US-ROK alliance? To many. Korea needs a big time wake up call and maybe the realignment of the USFK is the wake up call that is needed over here.

The United States Forces Korea may become a thing of the past according to this report in the Chosun Ilbo:

A new U.S. Army command to be set up at Camp Zama in Japan would assume charge in an emergency on the Korean Peninsula, the Daily Yomiuri reported Monday.

The daily said direct command of the UEX would be limited to an emergency on the Korean Peninsula, while the China-Taiwan “hot zone” and conflicts in Southeast Asia included in the “arc of instability” would come under the command of the Third Marine Expeditionary Force based in Okinawa. However, in any Korean emergency U.S. Marine units in Okinawa would come under the operational command of the UEX.

The move seems intended to strengthen the USFJ and will likely entail reorganization of the U.S. Forces in Korea. USFK command could be merged with the USFJ’s or taken down a peg to be put under USFJ control.

If this is true that would mean that the Army could further cut down on soldiers here in Korea by eliminating the soldiers involved with every day operations of USFK. It is going to be interesting to see what the Korean response to this will be because I’m sure they will not like the fact that operational control of the US Army and in wartime the ROK Army would fall under a general based in Japan. Plus Korea will lose clout with the United States with the 4 star command being moved to Japan. Yes, we live in interesting times over here.

The Marmot linked to this story in the Honolulu Advertiser that talks about the possible reshuffling of US forces in the Pacific. This is what the article had to say about the Army:

The Army headquarters at Fort Shafter would become a war-fighting command to devise and execute operations rather than to train and provide troops to other commands as it does now. The U.S. four-star general’s post in Korea would be transferred to Hawai’i.

I Corps at Fort Lewis, Wash., would move to Camp Zama, Japan, to forge ties with Japan’s ground force. Japan would organize a similar unit, perhaps called the Central Readiness Command, to prepare and conduct operations with the U.S. Army.

Japanese officials are considering elevating the Self-Defense Agency to a ministry and renaming Japan’s Ground Self-Defense Force as the Japanese Army and the same for the navy and air force. Shedding those postwar names would reflect Japan’s emergence from its pacifist cocoon.

In South Korea, the U.S. plans to disband the Eighth Army that has been there since the Korean War of 1950-53, to relinquish command of South Korean troops to the South Koreans, and to minimize or eliminate the United Nations Command set up during the Korean War.

A smaller tactical command would oversee U.S. forces that remain in South Korea, which would be down to 25,000 from 37,000 in 2008. That may be cut further since Seoul has denied the U.S. the “strategic flexibility” to dispatch U.S. forces from South Korea to contingencies elsewhere.

I have heard about transformation concepts in the Pacific similar to this, but people need to realize that this is just a draft. What you are reading here I doubt will actually happen. It may make great strategic sense but you have to think about the political factors involved in this.

The Koreans are already draggging their feet on the relocation of US forces within Korea due to monetary and local economic issues. These issues have already delayed the Yongsan Garrison move which is something just about every Korean tells you they want but when you get down to making it happen the domestic concerns keeping delaying it from becoming a reality. The Koreans would probably similarly drag their feet on a massive withdrawal of forces and the dismantlement of the 8th Army command here.

Then in Japan how eager is the Japanese public to having more US GI’s in country plus having to change their pacifist constitution to allow the Japanese SDF to become a joint offensive force with the US I Corps. Then imagine the protests from countries in the region if Japan does do away with its pacifist constitution.

Don’t go bet the farm yet on this happening. Some of this may happen but I believe some of it also won’t happen. The article is a lot of speculation and more of a reflection of what Rumsfeld would ideally like to see happen but probably not what is going to happen.

Japan’s Vice Foreign Minister during a visit to Korea said that Japan is hesistant to share intelligence with Korea because the US does not trust Korea:

The official scoffed at reported remarks by Japan’s Vice Foreign Minister Shotaro Yachi to the effect that Tokyo is unable to share intelligence with Seoul because Washington “can’t trust South Korea.” “It’s below my dignity as a Korean official to ask the Japanese why they said something like that,” he commented. He also dismissed reports in the Japanese press that Seoul’s unceremonious scrapping of a Korean-U.S. military plan for contingencies in North Korea, dubbed OPLAN 5029, would be a key topic when President Roh Moo-hyun and U.S. President George W. Bush meet next month. The matter had not made its way on the summit agenda, he said.

It is pretty odd for a Japanese official to say something like that so publicly. It may be an interesting summit for President Roh coming up.

According to USFK Commander General LaPorte there is no cracks in the US-ROK Alliance.

The alliance between South Korea and the United States remains solid, Gen. Leon J. LaPorte, commander of the United States Forces Korea (USFK), said Friday.

During a meeting with some 20 domestic political experts and leaders of civic groups at Yongsan Garrison in Seoul, the USFK chief stressed the half-century alliance between the two countries is strong, said Kim Young-gyu, spokesman for the South Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command (CFC).

“Some are worried that the Seoul-Washington military alliance is weakening, but it’s not true,’’ LaPorte was quoted as saying by Kim. “There is no crack in the alliance as long as both countries share the same goal of maintaining security and stability on the Korean Peninsula.’’

I would say he is correct if commenting on a military stand point because the relationship between the US military and the ROK Army is solid. Politically is where the problems are.