Pat Buchanan on US Troops in South Korea

[Yeahman]

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_11_06/buchanan.html
In the Korean War of 1950-53, the United States sent an army of a third of a million men. One thousand U.S. soldiers died every month in Korea, compared to the 1,000 who die each year in Afghanistan and Iraq. Americans are not going to send another army to fight for South Korea. Nor should we.

The Cold War is over and South Korea, with an economy 40 times the size of the North’s, with twice the population and the latest in U.S. weapons, should undertake its own ground defense.

Before plunging into Vietnam, LBJ said, “American boys ought not to be doing the fighting that Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves.” That was a valid argument then. Why not now?

If the United States gave Seoul notice that all U.S. troops would be off the peninsula in a year and we were exercising our right to withdraw from the 1950s mutual security treaty, those U.S. troops could be returned home, and we would find Seoul suddenly far more receptive to Bush’s diplomacy than it has heretofore been.

[LaiSteve66]

I agree with him, but we know the troops aren't there for "defense".

[yoMAMA]

he's got a good point.

but then north korea will then take over south korea in a hour.

:p

[BigLew]

I agree with him, but we know the troops aren't there for "defense".

Nope, they're over there to get some of that chop sockey poon tang!

[BeTheReds]

he's got a good point.

but then north korea will then take over south korea in a hour.

:p

Um, no. North Korea may have more manpower, but they have outdated weapons (I mean really, Soviet 1970's era tanks). They might be able to destroy Seoul with all the artillery there, which they can do right now, and 30,000 us troops are insignificant compared to the 600,000 South Korean ones, with modern weaponry.

No, I have to disagree, even without US support, the South would still kick the north's ass if war breaks out.

[haplesshobo]

I agree with him, but we know the troops aren't there for "defense".

Just look at the number of american troops in SK; it's too small to be considered a threat. You'd need to bring in much larger numbers.

[LaiSteve66]

^duh!

[friedfishribs]

Pat's off his rocker if he thinks he's coming up with new ideas. Modern American warfare is based on avoiding land wars using American soldiers. We fund and arm surrogate soldiers and proxy armies, and back them with heavy air support. Take Afghanistan for instance, the primary land combat was done by Afghan warlords after U.S. bomb runs.

With 30,000 soliders in South Korea and many large-scale military bases in the surrounding region, we certainly have an invading force, but they won't represent the front line - the native people are always the cannon fodder for American militarism. And threats to move U.S. soldiers out of South Korea always find mixed reception in Seoul - not because the soldiers are welcomed as a potential deterrent, but because evacuating U.S. personnel is a sign that Bush might launch a preemptive strike on North Korea.

The funny thing about the Vietnam war is how there would have been no combat whatsoever had American not intervened. The Asian boys had already overthrown the U.S.-backed South Vietnam dictator, and they were greeting V.C. with open arms. The Vietnam war, and the foreign policy that led up to it, represent an American battle against democracy.

[Yeahman]

Pat's off his rocker if he thinks he's coming up with new ideas.
I must have missed the part where he said that it's a new idea. Can you point it out for me?

[friedfishribs]

He's bringing it up as if proxy armies aren't already embedded into American foreign policy. Sure, this isn't news to any of us, but it certainly hasn't yet reached the American public consciousness.

[capacitor276]

Wait, I'm confused: Why do people care what Pat Buchanon says?