You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
China-Japan-Koreas
U.S. troop pullouts: There’s a political message, too
2004-06-17
We already got the political message. That's why the pullout...
The implications of the forthcoming withdrawal of one-third of the 37,000 U.S. troops in South Korea and two army divisions from Germany are as much political as military since both nations have been the site of vigorous anti-American eruptions in the last few years. A researcher at the East-West Center in Hawaii, Richard Baker, asserted June 9 that the planned reduction in South Korea was "basically calls the bluff of those in Korea who have been calling for the United States to go away." He added that nobody thought it would leave. On a wider angle, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said June 5: "We want to have our forces where people want them. We have no desire to be where we’re not wanted."
This is what our collective back looks like. This is what the place looks like without us. Enjoy your kimchee, guys...
Polls by the Pew Research Center in Washington suggest that Rumsfeld has solid backing in the American public for his stance on Europe. Where 83 percent of Americans saw Germany in a favorable light two years ago, only 50 percent say so now. France dropped from a 79 percent favorable rating to 33 percent. Despite expressions of European and American unity at D-Day commemorations, in a United Nations vote on Iraq, and at the Group of Eight summit in Georgia, the Economist magazine of London called U.S.-European relations "a creaking partnership." U.S. forces have been in Europe since World War II ended in 1945; those in South Korea since the Korean War ended in 1953. In a recent Pentagon briefing, an official said those deployments "had a logic that was based on an earlier time technologically and an earlier time historically."
We'll be right on the spot if the 100 Years War fires up again...
Bush administration officials further suggested it was time for allies in Asia and Europe to do more for their own defense. Said one official: "There’s a bigger piece in security cooperation -- how we can build up capability in allies?"
Let 'em do it themselves?
The military intent of the worldwide repositioning of U.S. forces, the officials said, was to be able to contend with uncertainty, operate across regions rather than be tied down to one nation, and respond to crises with speed. Perhaps most important, said one official: "The focus here has been on capabilities and not numbers." Politically, the delay of President Roh Moo Hyun’s government in Seoul to dispatch troops to Iraq has generated a perception that South Korea may not be a reliable ally. Some American officers have wondered privately whether South Korea could be counted on if the U.S. got into hostilities with North Korea or China.
Not if they could get out of it.
Pro-China leanings of many South Koreans, especially those younger, has caused some South Korean specialists in international relations to caution that their nation should not weaken what one called its "maritime alliance" with the U.S. in favor of Korea’s traditional role as a vassal of China. A subtle factor in American strategic thinking is Korea’s continuing anti-Japanese posture even though Japan’s occupation of Korea ended nearly 60 years ago. In U.S. military planning, Japan and Korea are part of the same area of operations and Korean animosity toward Japan is seen as a hindrance to U.S. action. American officials have been discussing changes in U.S. deployments to Japan, officials in the Pentagon briefing said, but did not give specifics. Among the changes speculated in the Japanese press are moving U.S. Navy aircraft out of Atsugi, southwest of Tokyo, and U.S. Air Force units out of Yokota, in western Tokyo.
To someplace cheaper?
In addition has been speculation that the U.S. Marines might move some units out of Okinawa, in southern Japan, to ease long-standing frictions between Okinawans and Americans on that crowded island. Those marines would go to Hokkaido, in northern Japan, where they would have more room to train and would be closer to South Korea. The army’s I Corps at Fort Lewis in the state of Washington is scheduled to go to Iraq and then to be posted in Japan to take command of U.S. Army forces in Asia. Officers at U.S. Forces Japan, a political-military headquarters, contend that their unit should continue to work day-to-day with the Japanese Self-Defense Force, a task that requires constant attention. Even so, Japan is seen as a steady ally despite constitutional constraints on its military actions. Said one U.S. officer: "The Japanese have done everything we asked of them in Afghanistan and Iraq."
Posted by:tipper

#23  RKB,yes there is much the US could do if it didn't have Gulf oil,but there is virtually no way any of your suggestions could get passed in US as a substitute for Gulf Oil.Further,the US wants Gulf Oil flowing not just for itself and Europe,but also Japan and China.Western Europe is betting the US will have to keep Gulf open,that US will continue to act like Britain in the 1800's.
Posted by: Stephen   2004-06-17 10:56:32 PM  

#22  Frank, Chavez clearly worries that will happen ....

I don't think so, not overtly and not unless the world changes a whole lot in the near future. Our relationship with Latin American countries is long and sometimes messy .... I don't think we need to complicate it more. We could, if necessary, do fast-build refinery construction here, which would reduce the attractiveness of Venezuelan refined oil products a fair amount. But as with most things, it's a matter of tradeoffs ... and the tradeoffs shift with events and attitudes over time.
Posted by: rkb   2004-06-17 10:10:21 PM  

#21  Oh, and don't come 'round asking for contributions for the United Non-Governmental Organization of the Week, okay? Charity starts at home and all that .... we're sure you'll understand.
Posted by: ditto   2004-06-17 10:06:03 PM  

#20  RKB - I'm thinking Chavez and the Venezuelans/Cubans aren't doing the best for the Venezuelan people, and maybe a relief team needs to be brought in...
Heh! I'm just saying...
Posted by: Frank G   2004-06-17 10:05:45 PM  

#19  RWV - I understand - that's why this sentiment was so appealing...

And following up...

[rant]
In some ways, both the native LLL zipperheads and the "international" multi-culti's had better be vewy vewy caweful, lest we decide they're "right" in some respects. The isolationism wouldn't end the way they think, however, for we would prolly toss the LLL's over the Northern Border just before we closed it - unless we decided we wanted to own the other side. The Exact Same could be true of the Southern Border, come to think of it. Lessee, it was "sea to shining sea" (East-West) on the first pass. This time, let's make it North Pole to The Equator. Then close up and tell everyone to pissthefuckoff.
[/rant]
Posted by: .com   2004-06-17 10:03:37 PM  

#18  Stephen,

As for Gulf oil,as TGA points out US needs to keep that flowing for own needs,so why spend money for navy,expeditionary force when US is doing so-what's the US gonna do,not keep the oil flowing?

Well, we could start drilling in our Alaskan fields for domestic consumption only and in parallel, begin a crash construction program of nuclear power plants for electricity (or degrade air quality by allowing more coal to be mined domestically and burned for power).

It's a mistake to think that because policy and public opinion here haven't gotten to the point of taking such measures YET that they won't in the future. The problem with freeriding is that you need to be very careful not to take too much - doing so causes the "host" to collapse or generate a strong immune response.

I'm not sure it would be good for any of the countries if that happened -- but if it does, there are options the US could take that would leave us even more independent for at least several decades.
Posted by: rkb   2004-06-17 10:00:03 PM  

#17  I think, given the current world situation, it will be much easier for these countries to get US troops out than to get them to come back if they need them.
Posted by: RWV   2004-06-17 9:52:24 PM  

#16  I'm in favor of moving the 37.000 troops out of Korea back to the US to guard our southern border. The divisions from Germany could take the Canadian border or Canada for that matter.
Posted by: RWV   2004-06-17 9:50:34 PM  

#15  RKB,I don't think France or Germany believes they are threatened w/invasion by anybody,nor do they plan on invading anybody for forseeable future.In this view they don't need a large defense capability.Just need top-quality light infantry,w/easily deployable light armor and some strike a/c.After all the infantry will only deploy as part of broad coalition in peacekeeping ops,so for near future airlift can be from US or charters(nice way funnel some funds to national airlines).Extra bonus,these are exactly what you'd want to put down internal disturbances.As for Gulf oil,as TGA points out US needs to keep that flowing for own needs,so why spend money for navy,expeditionary force when US is doing so-what's the US gonna do,not keep the oil flowing?If the worst happens,Europe will request more from North Sea,pay for more Russian pipelines and build pipelines to Trans-Caucausus oilfields.
France will sell to Russia,China,anybody to keep defence industry going and as alternative to US and US restrictions on weapons sales.

So Europe will get a "free ride" on defence spending,but the Capitols of Europe ask why should they spend money on vast Armies and Air Forces that have no possible foe to fight?And does the US really want a EuroNavy that might interfere w/US policy?The trade-off for US is,if US can convince West Europe the cause is just,W.E. will provide the troops,the US just has to get them there.
Posted by: Stephen   2004-06-17 7:52:33 PM  

#14  Well, at least they'll learn to like that pine-needle juche, .....idiots
Posted by: Frank G   2004-06-17 7:46:06 PM  

#13  OK - "Americans Are Not Weclcome Here."

"Kim Jong Il will Start his Nationalization Here"

That is if the REM counts on the Geiger aren't too high from the item he previously used.

Do you like workin' in the rice patty collective, asshole?
Posted by: BigEd   2004-06-17 7:25:22 PM  

#12  TGA, I welcome your analysis, but I wonder: will Germany and the other EU states reform their economies &/or commit sufficient funds to build a suitable defense capability. And if so, will it be interoperable with that of the US, or will Germany play along with France in dealing arms to/with China, against the US.

Because that's what I see emerging and it bothers the hell out of me to think that you all expect our treasure and our lives to be at the call when the threat gets ugly ... but that you can undercut us up until that point.

I know ... not your personal intent. But it sure looks like the country's and the EU's, if the French/German alliance keeps on its current path. And I use 'alliance' intentionally - when your countries have each others' ministers represent the other partner, that suggests a very close bond on Germany's part to France's stance and her open courting of Beijing to oppose the US.
Posted by: rkb   2004-06-17 6:20:47 PM  

#11  Did some measurements on the map in reference to the moving of US troops from Okinawa to Hokkaido.

Seoul SK to Hokkaido (say Sapporo) 750 NM
Seoul SK to Okinawa (say near Naha) 670 NM

Hokkaido would be more like Korea than Okinawa for training purposes.

Seoul to say Yokohama near Tokyo, 600 NM

Taipei, Taiwan to Okinawa, 270 NM

units are in nautical miles, equal to 1.15 statute miles.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2004-06-17 4:13:34 PM  

#10  I see the future of the European military of excellently trained small fast response units. Should full blown invasions be necessary at some point, these should be done with joint U.S.-European forces.

TGA, when you say "excellently trained small fast response units", are you thinking of small, combined-arms units, reinforced light infantry, or special forces?

Posted by: Pappy   2004-06-17 3:35:46 PM  

#9  Only 20% of Germany's oil imports come from the ME as well but percentage will change, for us and for the U.S.
Posted by: True German Ally   2004-06-17 12:05:02 PM  

#8  yeah but while you say "Western Troops" the world hear's "American Troops", usa imports only 20% of it's energy (far lower than most nations), let the nations that import 40+% safe guard the oil. not that they will of course, they expect the great satan to do all the dirty work ( but in the name of NATO or UN or SUSA (Screw USA) )
Posted by: dcreeper   2004-06-17 11:55:57 AM  

#7  South Korea has a real threat just a few miles north, Europe has no real threat at the moment that warrants a dozen of armies of drafted men (and women). But the German defense minister (SPD but rather sane) has said that "the security of Germany is also defended at the Hindukush". Many LLL laugh about this but here is the future of European defense: Working together with the U.S. to bring stability to trouble zones that generate terrorism, and maybe acting alone to ensure stability in SE Europe (Kosovo, Moldova etc) and organizing humanitarian missions in Africa (European intervention in starving Darfur is long overdue). I see the future of the European military of excellently trained small fast response units. Should full blown invasions be necessary at some point, these should be done with joint U.S.-European forces.
Apart from terrorism, economic blackmail of rogue states or groups must be met with military resolve if need be. We will always pay for the oil we buy, but not for the oil we don't get. As the importance of oil exporters will rise in the next decade, we have a right to buy oil at fair prices unhindered. Artificially high blackmail prices or embargos are acts of economic warfare and must be dealt with accordingly.
Of course I hear the left yell out but when houses go cold and cars don't run anymore they will be the FIRST to whine that we're not doing anything.
Let's face it, Saudi Arabian oil will probably have to be safeguarded by Western troops sooner or later.
Posted by: True German Ally   2004-06-17 9:54:05 AM  

#6  Good,step-up the time table.It is about time Korea and Euorpe got off the American Defense tit.Euorpe certainly has the tech to defend it self(as does Korea).The only question is does it have the will and disipline to do so.Korea has both the tech and a huge disiplined army capable of protecting it self(Hell the average ground pounder in the Korean Army is a black belt).
Sending troops to defend Sudanese Christians and Animists serves at least 2 purposes(1)It is the right thing to do(2)The Muslems would have cross-eyed apoplectic fits(to funny).
Posted by: Raptor   2004-06-17 8:28:21 AM  

#5  Protecting Christians from genocide would be a little bit of a different flavor for us.

Can you imagine how berserk the left would go over that? I mean, half of them think Christians deserve genocide.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2004-06-17 8:09:15 AM  

#4  The southern position of Okinawa is distorted in the linked to map, cause Japan so far north? Sounds like one of them big circle deals. Better call in AP.
Posted by: Shipman   2004-06-17 7:34:10 AM  

#3  Politically, the delay of President Roh Moo Hyun’s government in Seoul to dispatch troops to Look closely at the statement: Iraq has generated a perception that South Korea may not be a reliable ally. Some American officers have wondered privately whether South Korea could be counted on if the U.S. got into hostilities with North Korea or China.

Can anyone imagine a scenario where North Korea and the US are militarily engaged without the presence of a large number of South Korea civilians? If the South Koreans would prefer to unilaterally surrender, it would be best if we pulled all the troops out. I would expect that there are many oppressed people in the world where the citizens would like some help protecting themselves. What would be wrong with moving troops to the Sudan to protect Christians from being killed, enslaved or horsewhipped by Sudanese Muslims? Protecting Christians from genocide would be a little bit of a different flavor for us.
Posted by: Super Hose   2004-06-17 2:43:37 AM  

#2  Steve, I think the idea might be that we would be in a better position to support Taiwan. I may be wrong I couldn't zoom on the map.
Posted by: Super Hose   2004-06-17 2:36:47 AM  

#1  ... where they would have more room to train and would be closer to South Korea.

Not according to this map.
Posted by: Steve White   2004-06-17 1:29:56 AM  

00:00