| Submit your comments on this article |
| China-Japan-Koreas |
| U.S. military told to get ready in Korea standoff |
| 2010-05-24 |
| Obama orders commanders to prepare 'to deter future aggression' MSNBC - The White House said Monday that President Barack Obama "fully supports" the South Korean president and his response to the torpedo attack by North Korea that sank a South Korean naval ship. In a statement, the White House said Seoul can continue to count on the full backing of the United States and said U.S. military commanders had been told to work with their South Korean counterparts "to ensure readiness and to deter future aggression." The United States still has about 28,000 troops in South Korea to provide military support. The two Koreas, still technically at war, have more than 1 million troops near their border. "U.S. support for South Korea's defense is unequivocal, and the President has directed his military commanders to coordinate closely with their Republic of Korea counterparts to ensure readiness and to deter future aggression," the statement said. "We will build on an already strong foundation of excellent cooperation between our militaries and explore further enhancements to our joint posture on the Peninsula as part of our ongoing dialogue," it said. "The U.S. will continue to work with the Republic of Korea and other allies and partners to reduce the threat that North Korea poses to regional stability," the statement added. President Lee Myung-bak said Monday that South Korea would no longer tolerate the North's "brutality" and said the repressive communist regime would pay for the surprise March 26 torpedo attack. He also vowed to cut off all trade with the North and take Pyongyang to the U.N. Security Council for punishment over the sinking of the warship Cheonan. |
| Posted by: |
| #21 He would do whatever cost the most money. |
| Posted by: gorb 2010-05-24 23:52 |
| #20 Question is: What would Obama do if push came to shove. Would he fulfill out obligation and defend our ally? Or would he tie our hands behind our back and blindfold or military. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2010-05-24 23:20 |
| #19 ION BRINKMANSHIP + "TESTING THE BAMMER", NEWS KERALA > UN CHIEF SUPPORTS TAKING MEASURES AGZ NORTH KOREA, + US URGES CHINA TO PUNISH NK FOR SOUTH KOREAN SHIP SINKING [suppor anti-NK UN Sanctions]. WAFF > OBAMA: PREPARE FOR NORTH KOREA | OBAMA OFFERS SOUTH KOREA FULL US SUPPORT AGZ NORTH. * SAME WAFF > [Turkey]ANKARA THREATENS REPRISALS IFF ISRAEL HALTS FLOTILLA FOR GAZA [Israeli Naval blockade versus incoming Turkish-led supply-humanitarian convoy]. * CHINESE MIL FORUM > VARIOUS > Did the DPRK or South Korea sink a USN Submarine | MYSTERIOUS USN SPECOPS ACTIVITIES [UDT-Seals], MYSTERY "THIRD BOUY" in and around CHEONAN area may be covert marker for hiding an alleged damaged or sunken US nuke sub [USS COLUMBIA? during US-SK NAVEX]. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2010-05-24 22:13 |
| #18 Steve- I would love to get my hands on that study. Sounds fascinating. |
| Posted by: eltoroverde 2010-05-24 21:35 |
| #17 I don't think the South really wants to be responsible for the North. S. Korea is a first world country, with a modern industrial plant, well integrated into the world economy. North Korea for the last 50+ years has been starved, mentally and physically abused, and is much closer to a third world country. If South Korea had to rebuild North Korea, it would be like when East and West Germany were reunited, but thousands of times worse. The East Germans may have been poorer than the West Germans, but they had not been starved and brainwashed for 50 years. That said, if war happens, you do NOT want to be in Seoul when it breaks out. The North does not have to invade to destroy Seoul. It is only about 30 miles from the DMZ. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2010-05-24 20:36 |
| #16 "The good part is that the South will do the heavy lifting and I doubt that it will last more than a week." Well, if it is going to be done, this is about the time of year to do it. But this is also the time of year when North Korea has the most troops available as there is not much going on in the agricultural fields these days. The North Korean army has no combat experience. Their plans are untried under fire, at least in the last 50-some years. But while we could probably wipe out anything they have moving on the surface in short order, that whole country is like a prairie dog colony. Digging them out of those mountains would take a very long time. We could defend South Korea but I am not sure about actually taking North Korea. We could drive them underground and wait them out, I suppose. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2010-05-24 19:26 |
| #15 CHIN/WMF MIL FORUM BLOGGERS > A number of have opined that although BEIJING likely did NOT approve of the DPRK's action in attacking the CHEONAN, THE PRIORITY OF THE PLA IN ANY INTER-KOREAN MIL CONFLICT IS TO KEEP THE US-ALLIES SOUTH OF THE KOREAN DMZ = CHINA + EAST ASIA, OR IN THE ALTERN TO DESTROY + FORCE A TOTE US MIL WITHDRAWAL FROM THE KOREAN MAINLAND. Again, DPRK > facing in LT USSR-style SELF-IMPLOSION = NATIONAL, ETHNIC COLLAPSE, ETC. unless something changes soon. The new PRC-DPRK agreement establishing CHIN-SUPPOR/DEV SEZS around the DPRK will likely result in GREATER CHIN ENTRENCHMENT IN NORTH KOREA'S GOVT-SOCIETY, NOT LESS. Despite any PCorrect rhetoric to the contrary, THE PAN-KOREAN LEFTS, NORTH OR SOUTH, WOULD'VE HAVE UTTERLY FAILED IN THEIR SELF-PROCLAIMED DEFENSE + PROTECTION OF THE INDIGENOUS KOREAN PEOPLES + INTERESTS. The only remnant of the ancient KORYE "THREE KINGDOMS" would be SOUTH KOREA. 2010-2012 > A "GREAT POWERS" MIL CONFRONTATION is in Kimmie's DPRK-specific interests, SOONER THAN LATER, + given the THIRD-PARTY ALTERNATE THREAT FROM NUCEARIZING RADIC ISLAM TO THE WHOLE OF EAST ASIA, NATIONS + TRADITIONS. And then there's MOUD = ISLAMIST IRAN in the Perdsian Gulf. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2010-05-24 19:24 |
| #14 Why liberate the North? It will only make the Koreans more crazy and the Chinese more paranoid. The only people who would benefit are the North Koreans. They can throw Kimmie off any time they're ready. Until then, we should just keep pointing out the obvious. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2010-05-24 18:55 |
| #13 It's about time we liberate the North. The good part is that the South will do the heavy lifting and I doubt that it will last more than a week. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2010-05-24 18:44 |
| #12 Depending on how bad the current agricultural situation is in NorK, Kimmie might figure he has several hundred surplus mouths to feed. If the population gets uppity, he might decide to keep the focus South. We could probably defeat them with a bulgogi bomber. We send drones into the enemy rear area that drops steaming hot tasty bulgogi behind the enemy forces and maybe some rice balls, to boot. The enemy turns around and runs in the other direction for the food. While they are running in the opposite direction, engineers cross the DMZ and erect a huge labyrinth consisting of paths through a maze of Kentucky Fried Chicken joints. At that point the enemy becomes hopelessly bogged down in coleslaw and forgets what it was they were fighting about. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2010-05-24 18:15 |
| #11 Because Barry's flaccidity is assumed by all given his track record, our enemies will overreach, giving him the excuse to overreact and distract us from his domestic woes. Like the German General Staff of WWI, having jumped the shark, they will have to hold on for the entire ride, one that will leave all who survive exhausted. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2010-05-24 17:38 |
| #10 EV and GT, that's actually been proven. There was a study some years back in which volunteers, all of whom were educated and in government, were given an unfolding national security scenario and asked to respond to it. Based on their responses the scenario would continue to unfold in different ways. Turns out, by the end of the scenario there was the option to push 'the button', or not. The self-identified liberals almost always pushed the button well before the self-identified conservatives did. Wish I had a reference for it; at the time I read it I filed it under 'interesting but not particularly useful to me.' |
| Posted by: Steve White 2010-05-24 17:23 |
| #9 If it were any other C-in-C I'd laugh at how obvious a diversionary ploy it was. I'm more worried about him screwing this up. Hopefully if anyone has any brains there whatsoever they'll be more inclined to knock some sense into his head if he goes to make another stupid move. Of course, he likes to play his cards pretty close to his vest, so we'll see. |
| Posted by: gorb 2010-05-24 16:54 |
| #8 GirlThursday- You and I share the same hunch. For all his bowing, prostrating, apologizing, speeching, outreaching, etc., I feel Bambi is more likely than not to bring us closer to catastrophe than few predecessors before him. I've said before that my only hope (a hope which diminishes daily) is that he has decided to walk very, very softly ("I'm so sorry... It's all our fault... Can you ever forgive us?) and carry a really big stick behind his back which he will wield if and when necessary while claiming "I did everything I could" to avoid doing so. Then again, this is premised on the fact that he would be willing to use the big stick if necessary, which I've since come to doubt. It also is a high risk, high reward strategy that rarely plays out for the better as far as international geopolitics and conflict are concerned. Which only serves to emphasize his total and utter failure to grasp how the real world actually works. So whatever hope I had, which was really nothing more than trying to give our POTUS the benefit of the doubt, is now just a dream. Such as it should be, I guess, given that is was based on a fantasy from the start. |
| Posted by: eltoroverde 2010-05-24 15:54 |
| #7 Can US afford to get involved? My hopes for regime change in Iran could be diminishing! |
| Posted by: Paul D 2010-05-24 14:47 |
| #6 I'm hoping that the US commanders in the Pacific have been getting ready since July 27, 1953. They've been more ready at other times. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-05-24 13:42 |
| #5 Idk. My hunch is that if any POTUS could ignite a full scale conflict by accident, its Bambi. I mean, the man has zero military experience. Zero. One wonders if he could even hack one day as a private getting ordered around like a dog and take it. I highly doubt his ego could accomodate such insult. And you know how the saying goes...good followers make good leader. Bambi has never been a good follower, yet here he is in charge. |
| Posted by: GirlThursday 2010-05-24 13:16 |
| #4 Uh oh. They're in trouble. |
| Posted by: GirlThursday 2010-05-24 13:02 |
| #3 I'm hoping that the US commanders in the Pacific have been getting ready since July 27, 1953. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2010-05-24 12:46 |
| #2 I'm hoping that Bambi's order was a formality, and that the US commanders in the Pacific have been getting ready since the day the Cheonan was sunk. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2010-05-24 12:43 |
| #1 GLAD I'm not there.....38th p. that is. The US has already demonstrated it's idiocy at war. |
| Posted by: armyguy 2010-05-24 12:10 |