Tag: USFK

U.S. Forces Korea’s top commander Vincent Brooks gives a pep talk to South Korean soldiers in Yeoju, about 100 kilometers southeast of Seoul, on Nov. 2, 2016, as he visits a river-crossing drill conducted by the Army’s 8th Division. The maneuver is part of the broader Hoguk combined drill that the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force have carried out since 1996. (Yonhap)

Via a reader tip comes this article from Korea Bizwire criticizing USFK’s use of electricity compared to the ROK military.

Recent data from the Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) showed that electricity consumption per capita for the USFK was almost ten times the average rate for the Korean military, again raising questions over excessive energy consumption by American military personnel stationed on the peninsula.

According to KEPCO, electricity consumption by the USFK was 683 million kWh in 2015,  compared to 1.595 billion kWh for the Korean military.

However, given the number of personnel, with 28,500 American soldiers but around 630,000 Koreans, the average American soldier (23,965 kWh) consumed 9.47 times more electricity than their Korean counterpart (2,531 kW), the data noted.

Officials suggest that the USFK’s cheaper electricity rates are one of the factors encouraging excessive consumption of electricity.

The USFK currently receives electricity benefits, paying cheaper rates than Korean households and even industrial customers, which pay the lowest rate at 107.41 won per kWh. In 2015, the USFK paid a rate of 106.94 won/kWh, while the rates were 122.28 won/kWh for the Korean military, 123.69 won for households, and 113.22 won for educational institutions.

Another electricity benefit includes exemption of penalties or interest for overdue electricity bills.  [Korea Bizwire via reader tip]

You can read more at the link, but considering the various command centers, barracks, family housing, commissaries, exchanges, etc. that US military bases have compared to a typical ROK military installation its seems this article is comparing apples to oranges.

This is just another example of why these sexual assault cases are so hard to litigate and not as cut and dry as the activists and politicians want people to believe:

The Seoul High Court upheld Tuesday a lower court ruling that acquitted a former Korean soldier of raping a female American soldier, saying sexual relations between the two did not involve a physical attack or threats.

The Korean soldier, 22, whose name was withheld, was serving as a sergeant in the Korean Augmentation Troops to the United States Army (KATUSA) in Dongducheon, Gyeonggi Province, when he allegedly raped the U.S. soldier, 19, in December.

He was in charge of educating American soldiers new to Korea, and he and his accuser began seeing each other frequently and engaged in sexual relations from last October. However, on one occasion, while kissing at his barracks, the man told her he wanted to have sex and she refused. He then said he would not let her leave the room, and forcibly had sex with her anyway.

During sex, he asked her if it was rape, and as she said yes, he then stopped, and knelt down to apologize. She accepted his apology but later reported it as rape to the military police.

Even though the assailant partially admitted it was rape during the investigation, the lower and high courts did not recognize it as such.

“Although sexual intercourse occurred against the woman’s will, she said there was no physical attack, swearing or anything threatening,” the high court said. “She did not call for help or resist, but rather she undressed on her own volition,” it added. [Korea Times]

Should this be considered rape even though there was no physical attack and she did not resist in any way?  The Korean courts don’t think so, I wonder what a US court would have ruled on this?  I also wonder why the ROK Army did not try this case and instead gave it to a ROK civilian court?

Does anyone think permanently deploying US bombers and Aegis ships will do anything to change the behavior of the Kim regime?:

South Korea and the United States have officially begun discussions on the permanent deployment of strategic weapons such as nuclear-capable bombers on the Korean Peninsula.

This was at the top of the agenda in the “two plus two” high-level security talks among Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se and Defense Minister Han Min-koo, and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Ash Carter in Washington, Thursday.

Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se told reporters after the meeting that the two defense chiefs will discuss details about how to deploy U.S. strategic assets in South Korea during the annual Security Consultative Meeting (SCM).

“The permanent deployment of U.S. strategic assets will be discussed at the defense chiefs’ talks,” he said.

U.S. strategic assets include nuclear-capable B-52 and B-1B bombers, F-22 stealth fighter jets, nuclear-powered attack submarines and nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.

Military sources here said that working-level officials of the two nations have already been talking on permanently deploying B-1B Lancers or Aegis destroyers to South Korea. [Korea Times]

You can read more at the link, but this article from Yonhap says the US is unlikely to station strategic assets in South Korea due to cost and concerns of upsetting China:

The scholar said as the U.S. has gradually reduced its defense budget, it will be financially burdensome to deploy its strategic assets on or near the Korean Peninsula.

“The U.S. prefers to operate those assets on a rotational basis to flexibly respond to conflicts in the Middle East, the South and East China Sea, if necessary,” he pointed out.

China remains another major obstacle as the North’s closest ally will be “definitely irritated” by permanent deployment of any U.S. nuclear-armed weapons in South Korea, said Kim Dong-yeob, a professor at Kyungnam University’s North Korean studies school.  [Yonhap]

You can read more at the link.

Here is the latest exercise held between the ROK and the United States to further deter North Korea:

The flight deck of the USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier was bustling with sailors and planes Friday to demonstrate air flight operations to dozens of South Korean reporters who arrived on board after an hour-long flight from a U.S. air base near Seoul.

The first thing that greeted reporters was pilots in the cockpits of their Super Hornet fighter jets getting ready to take off and the flight deck crew assisting in the operations in waters some 240 kilometers from Osan Air Base in Pyeongtaek, south of Seoul, and north of Jeju Island.

Before the planned demonstration, Rear Adm. Charles Williams, commander of the carrier battle group of the U.S. 7th Fleet, delivered a short briefing on the ongoing joint exercise between South Korean and U.S. navies amid ever-growing nuclear and missile threats from North Korea.

“Our operations on the Korean peninsula are part of the ongoing partnership with our Republic of Korea Navy counterparts that has been around for more than 5 decades now. The work we have done with our counterparts has proven to strengthen our alliance,” the flag officer said.

As for the meaning of the combined exercise, Lt. Commander Aaron V. Kakiel, a spokesman for Carrier Strike Group 5, which the nuclear carrier is a part of, said, “This exercise has been planned for a very long time. We’ve been working with our Korean counterparts to exercise our interoperability in this area. It is not a direct response to any (provocative) actions (by any country). It is meant to be training for us to work together for a stronger alliance.”

During the 30-minute demonstration, nine fighter jets took off and 15 fighter jets made landings. Most of the fighter jets were FA-18 Super Hornets. Others were the E-2C Hawk Eye early warning plane and the EA-18G Growler, the fleet’s electronics warfare plane.

U.S. and South Korean navy officials said the joint exercise will further improve interoperability to be fully ready to strike back against any military attacks by North Korea.  [Yonhap]

You can read more at the link.

I agree with the concept that a “grand bargain” with China is the only way to end the Kim regime’s nuclear weapons program, but I don’t think what the professor is recommending that the US offers in return would cause the Chinese to turn on the Kim regime:

The United States should seek a grand bargain with China that commits Beijing to use its leverage over North Korea to end its nuclear program in exchange for American concessions like the scrapping of a decision to deploy the THAAD missile defense system in South Korea, a U.S. expert said Wednesday.

Amitai Etzioni, a George Washington University professor, made the point in an article in the National Interest, stressing that the “greatest threat” to U.S. security that the new American president will have to confront is North Korea.

The professor said that efforts to simply “urge” or “shame” China into acting won’t work.

“The costs to China if it were to move to rein in North Korea are considerable. China views living with a Communist-ruled nuclear-armed state on its border as preferable to the chaos of its collapse,” he said.

Instead, China should be offered a deal based on “differential salience,” which means that each side should get what’s important to its national interests from the other side by giving up what’s less important.

“China might well have a high interest in gaining assurances that if the North Korean regime collapses and the two Koreas are unified, the United States will not move its troops to the border with China,” the professor said. “This is a no- or low-cost proposition for the United States, because once the North Korean nuke program folds or the regime collapses, the United States should be quite content not to move its troops north.”

He also said that the U.S. could offer not to deploy THAAD because once the North’s s nuclear missile program is no longer an acute threat, the United States should be quite willing not to place THAAD in South Korea.  [Yonhap]

You can read more at the link, but for the Chinese to turn on the Kim regime I think they would want something extremely significant in return that meets their security interests.  North Korea is a buffer state for them that can also be counted on as a third actor if conflict with Taiwan for example was to occur to tie up US forces.  This is a huge strategic benefit from the Chinese perspective.  That is why I think the complete removal of USFK from the peninsula is the only thing that would get the Chinese attention.

From the Chinese perspective if the Kim regime is removed and the Koreas are united what other reason would the US have to keep troops in Korea other than to threaten China?  I don’t think the Chinese would even go for this proposal and would push for more US concessions in regards to Taiwan to really strike a deal, but I think any proposal would have to include the removal of US troops from Korea.

Maybe I am wrong, does anyone else have any differing opinions on what it would take to strike a deal with China?

I just have little sympathy for these bar owners complaining about the fact that USFK has eaten way at their juicy girl model which at one time brought them huge profits:

Pyeongtaek has embraced U.S. Army Garrison Camp Humphreys on its soil for many years. And under a relocation plan, more U.S. troops ― the 8th Army headquarters and the 2nd Infantry Division ― will move into the city by 2017, making Pyeongtaek a centerpiece of Seoul-Washington military ties.

All appears to be peaceful and harmonious there. But just beneath the surface of the relationship is growing anger toward the United States Forces Korea (USFK).

While massive construction work for the relocation is under way, the U.S. military in the region has been blamed for prejudicing local business owners’ sovereignty and hurting their livelihoods with what they call “off-limits” action.   (………)

“The current off-limits restrictions clearly infringe on our sovereignty and autonomy,” an official surnamed Park, from the Pyeongtaek branch of the Korea Foreigner Tourist Facility Association (KFTFA), told The Korea Times.

Park said bars have been declared off-limits without warning. The regulation takes effect right after the owners receive a written notice from the U.S. military that briefly explains the reasons for the ban. The owners are not provided with further evidence or details of what provoked the order.

In addition, there is no route to confirm the validity of incidents because “off-limits” are issued based on anecdotal evidence provided by service members or military police of the USFK. This is why bar owners are calling it “absurd.” [Korea Times]

You can read much more about the bar owner complaints at the link, but the argument that their sovereignty is being violated is ridiculous.  They can have all the juicy girls and prostitution they want in their business.  USFK isn’t telling them how to run their business.  However, USFK is under no obligation to allow its servicemembers to patronize such establishments.  Putting businesses off limits to servicemembers is not something that is only done in Korea; in fact in the United States each US military installation has a list of businesses that are off limits to servicemembers as well.

Here is something interesting, the U.K. is going to take part in a joint military drill with the US and the ROK in November:

To counter the rising threats from North Korea’s intensified nuclear and missile tests, South Korea and its allies – the US and the UK – are gearing up for a joint military drill in November.

Earlier in the week, South Korea and the US conducted a joint naval drill in the Sea of Japan in the Korean peninsula, which was said to be a show of force by the two countries against North Korea. The countries are also discussing imposing tougher sanctions against Kim Jong-un’s regime to stop him from pursuing the banned nuclear programme.

The South Korean Air Force said in a statement that the maiden joint military drill will be conducted between 4 and 10 November at Osan Air Base in Pyeongtaek, 70 km south of the South Korean capital Seoul. The drill, dubbed the “Invincible Shield” will involve a combined aerial exercise, the first of its kind, the statement added.

The UK is planning to send four Eurofighter Typhoon combat jets, Voyager tanker aircraft and C-17 Globemaster transport aircraft to take part in the exercise. F-15K and KF-16 fighters from South Korea will also participate in the drill with the US’s F-16 fighters, the statement added.  [International Business Times]

You can read more at the link.

I wonder what the backstory on this was?  Was this simply just someone forgetting to pay the bills?:

U.S. Forces Korea paid South Korea’s main electricity company nearly $2 million this week after a report that it was overdue on its bills for the year.

USFK had failed to pay 1.9 billion won worth of electricity bills from January to July, South Korea’s Yonhap news agency reported over the weekend. It cited data submitted by the Korea Electric Power Corp., known as KEPCO, to the National Assembly’s Trade, Industry and Energy Committee.

A KEPCO official told Stars and Stripes the utility received 1.6 billion won from USFK on Monday and 2.8 million won on Thursday. That amounts to about $1.7 million.

The military still owes some money, the official said without providing a specific amount. The KEPCO official spoke on condition of anonymity.  [Stars & Stripes]

You can read the rest at the link.

Here is the latest on the Rodriguez Range noise complaint issue:

The U.S. military agreed Thursday to address noise complaints and safety concerns about the Rodriguez Live Fire Complex near the border with North Korea.

Lt. Gen. Thomas Vandal, 8th Army commander, signed a memorandum of understanding aimed at forging a stronger bond between residents in the rural area and U.S. forces who train there.

The mountainous, 3,390-acre training complex is considered essential by U.S. Forces Korea and their South Korean allies for military exercises to maintain a state of readiness amid high tensions on the divided peninsula. It will remain operational even after most U.S. forces relocate south to an expanded Camp Humphreys.

But nearby residents have long complained about noise, fires and occasional mishaps. Training was temporarily halted after an anti-tank missile fired by U.S. Marines on Dec. 30 landed in an abandoned building about 650 feet outside the range’s boundary.  [Stars & Stripes]

You can read more at the link, but the MOA is supposed to include guidelines on how troops will conduct safe training and respond to local noise complaints.