An ongoing debate that has surfaced recently is the presence of U.S. military in South Korea. There are different opinions on whether the present of the U.S. military is still an effective tool to preventing conflict with North korea. Currently with 28,500 American troops permanently stationed in South Korea it is just a fraction of the 640,000 personnel in the South Korean military, however the South Korean government considers the U.S. presence a crucial deterrent and some fear that lessening the presence of American troops could embolden North Korea (www.washingtonpost.com). There are those that believe the U.S. presence is actually negatively impacting the current relations with North Korea. They believe that the presence of U.S. troops is actually a provocation of North Korea. Even with their critics the South Korean government and the U.S. intend to maintain its current role in providing security from North Korean attacks. Defense secretary Chuck Hagel said while touring the DMZ that Washington would not reduce the U.S. military presence in South Korea, reaffirming commitment to the country in the event of a North Korean offensive (america.aljazeera.com).
"This is probably the only place in the world where we have always a risk of confrontation, when two sides are looking clearly and directly at each other all the time"
South Koreans see the presence as a sign of Washington's steadfast support in the event of a North Korean offensive.
North Korea stands as the largest special operations force in the world. It is the fourth largest military with 1,700 planes, 800 ships, and 4,000 tanks (abcnews.go.com). You can see several topics we have discussed in class such as preventative war. From a realist point of view the U.S. is keeping troops in South Korea is a way of protecting themselves. We view North Korea as a threat and in order to protect our assets is essential to have a presence on that side of the world. There are many U.S. civilians in South Korea and if there were to be a conflict the U.S. would be drawn into a conflict for no other reason than U.S. civilians being killed.
Another blog that talks about the relations between Iran/North Korea and Iran/America (jkpsci3123.blogspot.com) and that the strengthening relation with Iran could reduce relations with North Korea. So from both sides there are positives and negatives from maintaing troops in South Korea, but as far as protecting U.S. interests and allies it is essential that we maintain a presence in South Korea, so that in case of a North Korean offensive the U.S. can react and respond quickly and efficiently. War is costly and the mobilization of troops costs a lot of money. It would be better to maintain the troops than to bring them home and thus emboldening North Korea to strike.
Here is a video on the current debate of maintaing troops in South Korea and will give you some idea on the importance and relevance to foreign affairs and relations.
This is fascinating. I recently read this extensive journalistic piece on Reddit (humorous and slightly crude: http://tinyurl.com/mojvuvr) about a traveler's experience going into North Korea, and how culturally shocking it was to see the United States portrayed as the white devil and murderer of North Koreans. Apparently the failures of North Korea (food shortage, resource shortage, no internet, no running water and electricity in portions of the country) have all been propagandized as the fault of the United States. Oh the irony considering that at the hands of the "Kim Jong" lineage thousands have died. Would something to happen again in the magnitude of the Korean War, I think it'd be wise to have a foothold in Southeast Asia or the Pacifics just to make sure that-as you stated- the mass military doesn't do something irrational. I think it's wise to aid the progress of democracy and the successes of South Korea, as we promote the same in the U.S for our own citizens. The way I see it Kim Jong Un is running a dangerous board-game, and happens to be someone like his father and forefather with little regard over casualties in his country.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very intriguing post! I would argue, that based on those military statistics, that no US force within South Korea is needed by any means. Yes it provides a certain level of security/deterrence from North Korean belligerence, and this can be seen through the spectrum that any attack on South Korean interests would be an attack on American interests as well. However, barring recent events in Syria, the US still seems resolved to 'Pivot to Asia' militarily, and the US still maintains large military installments in and around Japan. To me this makes South Korean installments moot, and drains unnecessary resources. I would argue that North Korea would have to take a much harder look at the broader situation before attacking simply because of an American withdrawal.
ReplyDeleteI personally agree with this post and feel that a U.S. military presence in South Korea is not only symbolic of our solidarity of the nation, but also a measure taken as a means to deter the North from further aggressive behavior. However, the nature of war on the Korean peninsula should war break out would not be one that requires significant numbers of personnel. The current 28,500 U.S soldiers in South Korea is arguably an unnecessary allocation of military commitment and we would be better off supplying them with money and weapons. Just last week South Korea held a military parade showing off their newly acquired missile defense system capable of destroying North Korean threats up to 500 miles away. This illustrates the South's military capability and ability to maintain its own defense. Here is a link to that article.
ReplyDeletehttp://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/01/20768728-seoul-shows-off-missiles-designed-to-target-north-koreas-weapons?lite
I think the idea that the US presence is a provocation is greatened by a public parade of enhanced military capabilities and missiles. Perhaps this was not the wisest time for such a display considering the recent threats from the North and that their capabilities without a doubt trump South Korea's so it can't be considered a serious deterrent. I also agree with the notion in the Al Jazeera article that it would be extremely costly to the US should a war breakout because our involvement will be forced to be significant if for no other reason than American casualties. It also seems that South Korean civilians have called for a reduction of troops suggesting we have overextended our necessary presence and that they are not in enough fear of attack that they feel the amount of troops is appropriate.
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting thought, in the video Hagel says that he, "doesn't want to be the Secretary of Defense that was wrong once". It is probably taken out of context, but his reputation and fear of being viewed as weak should not be as important of a consideration as other strategic factors and wise spending of military resources.
I think that right now in the Asia Pacific, the United States' main objective should be to help bolster the defensive capabilities of Japan and South Korea. With the budget cuts in Pentagon spending, the U.S. may not have the ability to back Japan and South Korea as much as they have been. In the situation that the U.S. is not able to maintain as strong of a presence in the Asia Pacific, Japan and South Korea should be able to take on some of the weight in balancing power against North Korea and China. The problem, however, is that South Korea and Japan are not the best of friends because of historical ties. The inability of Japan and South Korea to cooperate, although they share the same interests in terms of North Korea, may prove to be detrimental in power balancing in the Asia Pacific should the U.S. limit its presence. If the U.S. could possibly establish a healthy relationship between South Korea and Japan and also push for the two countries to become more independent with their defensive capabilities, the threats from North Korea could be handled properly without too much of the United States' help. I actually mentioned this issue in the blog I posted this week. It will be interesting to see how the U.S. chooses to carry things out in this region.
ReplyDeleteI find this topic extremely interesting and it's something I enjoy reading about whenever articles do come up. I agree with what you wrote that it is important to keep a military presence nearby in case North Korea does take any action, but as a few have already said, I think that we have by far enough troops nearby if anything were to happen. Knowing that North Korea is going to react to any move we make and interpret any move as hostile, I feel that having a larger than necessary number of troops allocated to the region with the sole purpose of being prepared for North Korea is provocative and could potentially lead to a security dilemma style of a problem where each actor continually reacts to a reaction. This may not be something that our government would allow to happen but avoiding unnecessary provocation is a good place to start if we want to diminish the chance of the US acting as world police, a role that many don't seem to fond of.
ReplyDeleteI can see how losing a significant percentage of South Korea's military can be pretty unsettling for South Koreans and their allies. If the United States were to move out of South Korea by any significant amount, the shift of military power in South Korea may cause a reaction in North Korea. Since they are such a large military power, who likes to break international norms, how will they react to the United States moving out of South Korea?
ReplyDelete