This shouldn’t be surprising news to anyone following the US-ROK cost sharing negotiations:

The Pentagon has offered the White House options to reduce American troop levels in South Korea, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday.

Citing unnamed U.S. officials, the paper said the options were presented in March following a broader review of options for withdrawing troops from around the world, including in the Middle East, Africa, Europe and Asia.

The White House requested the review last fall, and by December, the Pentagon had come up with broad ideas, it said.

No decision has yet been made to reduce the number of U.S. forces stationed in South Korea from the current 28,500, according to the WSJ.

Yonhap

You can read more at link, but President Trump has already reduced U.S. troop levels in Germany over cost sharing issues and he has been having the same monetary disagreements with South Korea. This report I suspect was leaked to the Wall Street Journal in order to pressure the Korean side that Trump is serious about USFK troop withdrawals.

However, this all may be playing out as Korean President Moon Jae-in wants it to play out. Moon is a very skilled politician that needs to keep the Korean right at bay and public anxiety down.  If he openly advocated for a USFK withdrawal, that would give the South Korean right an issue to strongly attack him with and cause much public anxiety after decades of security guarantees provided by US forces.  

This is why President Moon has been saying all the right things that USFK should remain, to include claiming Kim Jong-un understands this as well. However, if troop withdrawals do happen he has political cover to not be blamed for it by claiming President Trump’s monetary demands were unreasonable which is a position likely a majority of Koreans believe.

Here is the latest on any drawdown of US troops in South Korea:

The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday passed a defense authorization bill that restricts any drawdown of American troops in South Korea.

The John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act, which approves US$716 billion for defense in fiscal year 2019, passed the House by a vote of 359-54. Upon Senate approval, it will be sent to U.S. President Donald Trump to sign into law.

The bill notes that about 28,500 American troops are currently stationed in South Korea as a demonstration of the U.S. commitment to the bilateral alliance.

Their “significant removal” is “a non-negotiable item as it relates to the complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization” of North Korea, the bill says under a section describing the Sense of Senate on U.S. military forces on the Korean Peninsula.

In a conference report accompanying the legislation, Congress also prohibits the use of the funds to reduce the troops’ number below 22,000 without certification from the secretary of defense that “such a reduction is in the national security interest of the United States and will not significantly undermine the security of United States allies in the region.”  [Yonhap]

You can read more at the link.

Over at One Free Korea he has an interesting posting up that I recommend everyone read where he discusses whether US Forces Korea (USFK) should be withdrawn from the peninsula:

To save Korea’s democracy, withdraw its American security blanket

Most Korea-watchers will view the recent hints from both Seoul and Washington about a U.S. withdrawal with alarm, and as a grave risk to the security of both Korea and Japan. Indeed, it’s one more development that’s consistent with my hypothesis that Pyongyang means to coerce and cajole Seoul into submission, first by lowering the South’s defenses, and later by ruling it through an inter-Korean confederation that it will use to suppress dissent, neutralize it as a political and military threat, and loot its resources without the burdens of war, occupation, or cultural pollution. The Panmunjom agreement will fuel Pyongyang’s expectations of collaboration by a government in Seoul that prioritizes ethno-nationalism and appeasement over the protection (much less the propagation) of liberal democratic values.  […….]

If the arc of Korean history bends toward capitulation, the continuing presence of American forces is less likely to bend it back than soothe into passivity those Koreans who still can. Our presence would only create a false sense of security and quell any sense of alarm that the Blue House is consenting to a quiet capitulation of the freedom and prosperity their parents and grandparents won at such a terrible cost. Maybe the U.S. presence is contributing to the clearest and most present danger to Koreans’ security by obstructing the concentration of their minds, by retarding their development of a confident sense of nationhood, and by excusing them from the grim burdens of sisu.

Can America do anything to bend that arc back? One answer might be to present Koreans with a stark choice and a referendum. So let President Trump go to his summit with His Porcine Majesty, and soon. Let him hear Kim Jong-un’s offer. Then, let him — and John Kelly, John Bolton, Jim Mattis, and Mike Pompeo — explain to us why those terms are tantamount to surrender, why Moon was a fool or worse[10] for agreeing to them, and that while South Korea is free to surrender itself, we would rather retrench ourselves in Japan than subsidize frivolous policies that undermine our own security.  [One Free Korea]

I highly recommend reading the whole thing at the link, but I have long believed that there has been peace in Northeast Asia since the end of the Korean War because of the balancing influence that the US military provides to the region.  However, that doesn’t mean we need all the troops currently in South Korea if real concessions are made by the North Koreans.

For example if the Kim regime removes the vast majority of their troops and artillery positions along the DMZ would USFK still need to have the 2nd Infantry Division forward deployed in Korea?  Would the Air Force need as many aircraft stationed there to take out those artillery positions?  That is why I think this argument needs to be influenced by real actions by North Korea not pretend ones, which is all we have seen so far from the Kim regime.