US troops presence in Korea

[Bhodi_Li]

This started on a different thread, but I think that there is enough potential discussion that it warrents it's own.

Should the US maintain armed forces in South Korea? Why? What is the purpose of the armed forces currently stationed there? Can this goal be met in another way? What should the relationship between the soldiers and the local population be (i.e. should soldiers be prosecuted by the Korean government for offenses committed outside of US bases)?

Anyone with direct experience? Been stationed in Korea, or have lived there as a civilian? What is the current Korean opinion of US troops in Korea? This will vary with age groups and with the political relationship with North Korea (i.e. US troops are much more welcome when there is saber rattling across the border).

I have my own thoughts and reasons on this, but I would like to hear what others have to say about this. Later on, I will break down current locations of troops and how the US Military designates areas within the country. I would also like to keep this civilized, since this can also be an emotional issue due to previous events in Korea, to include the accidental death of two girls in Area 1.

[younggiftedandblack]

Hey BL. I was never stationed in Korea, but was at Yokota Japan for 3 yrs.

As far as I know. Not too many troops want to be there, in fact you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who does (U.S. Troops) This old head who I kick it with a bit and who use to be in the military says it has alot more to do with keeping South Korea from invading the North rather then vice versa. I don't know how true that is. My personal belief is we're over there because that's about as close to China we can get. I'm just guessing.

Should we stay over there? No. It seems the populus doesn't want U.S. troops there and the troops don't want to be there.

[rice cracker]

North Korea seems to hold quite a threat to the US. IMO as a layman the best place for US troops to be right now is in South Korea keepin an eye on things. I know it's not welcome by Koreans, but shit, since I'm a bit drunk I'm going to just have to be selfish and say good. Be there. Keep shit safe for Americans.


I may regret this in the morning.

[younggiftedandblack]

Originally Posted by rice cracker

North Korea seems to hold quite a threat to the US. IMO as a layman the best place for US troops to be right now is in South Korea keepin an eye on things. I know it's not welcome by Koreans, but shit, since I'm a bit drunk I'm going to just have to be selfish and say good. Be there. Keep shit safe for Americans.


I may regret this in the morning.

Ahh nothing like being drunk to bring out how peoplereally feel.

I really don't see how the troops being there will keep us any safer honestly. In this day and time we have the capabilities of being able to quickly deploy anywhere in the world. It's so bad now the Army is paying extra for troops to extend their stay there.

[Jeff Yu :)]

AFAIK, doesn't the US only have one or two divisions stationed at Korea? At most 30,000 troops out of a 300,000+ plus stationed at the DMZ, I dont' think it would be too big of a deal if the US simply pulled out. South Korea has a modern and well-trained military, while North Korea's is Soviet-era, and this time China won't help them out. If war did break out, Seoul would be completely screwed when all the artillery guns stationed at the border start raining down on it, possibly with NBC weapons, however, the South Korean military would then proceed to kick commie ass.

[Nadjanema]

I don't know about that man. I mean, maybe they could, but North Korea likes to flex its muscles, and I think S Korea might come into a bit of a problem there. I mean, it doesn't really matter what era your stuff is from, if the thing is killing, it's doing its job. That and soviet-era weapons tend to be less conventional than modern stuff.

[Jeff Yu :)]

I don't think we really need any troops stationed at South Korea.

Quick lookup of the respective countries' orders of battle:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...orea-orbat.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...d/rok/army.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../dprk/army.htm
The US has 1 or 2 divisions in South Korea, coming to about 37,500 troops. South Korea has about 50 divisions guarding their country, coming to about 560,000 troops. North Korea has 700,000 troops. I'd say that the US presence there isn't too significant, and is mostly just symbolic. It's no problem to withdraw them. If war breaks out, the South Korean army will do well enough, there's a US carrier in the region, US airplanes stationed in Japan and Guam, and the US will have enough time to bring in their troops from Japan and Okinawa.

[Mo'Taka]

Originally Posted by younggiftedandblack

This old head who I kick it with a bit and who use to be in the military says it has alot more to do with keeping South Korea from invading the North rather then vice versa. I don't know how true that is. My personal belief is we're over there because that's about as close to China we can get. I'm just guessing.

Should we stay over there? No. It seems the populus doesn't want U.S. troops there and the troops don't want to be there.

That's what happened before the Korean war we wouldn't sell south korea heavy weapons because we knew they would try to invade the north. Personally, I do think it's time to pull them out. The reason why they don't want us out is because of the money that troops put into the korean economy. But even no matter how good the south korean military is, you can't ignore one million commie troops. Especially when SK's manpower is so low.

[Mr.Lum]

Originally Posted by younggiftedandblack

Ahh nothing like being drunk to bring out how peoplereally feel.

I really don't see how the troops being there will keep us any safer honestly. In this day and time we have the capabilities of being able to quickly deploy anywhere in the world. It's so bad now the Army is paying extra for troops to extend their stay there.

US troops discourage conflict out that way says my uncle. he used to be in Korea, he said its basicaly to keep them "out of each other's asses"

[Martino]

Originally Posted by younggiftedandblack

My personal belief is we're over there because that's about as close to China we can get. I'm just guessing.

I can think of one US base that is in a country adjoining China ... I don't think S. Korea is intended to be a potential launch pad of any US aggression towards China.

Originally Posted by rice cracker

North Korea seems to hold quite a threat to the US.

Ironically, tensions only really resurfaced after President Bush's 'Axis of Evil' speech. Prior to that, South Korea's 'sunshine' programme was showing some real fruits.

Originally Posted by Jeff Yu :)

I don't think we really need any troops stationed at South Korea.

Perhaps they are there for another reason? A longer term regional gameplan?

Originally Posted by younggiftedandblack

This old head who I kick it with a bit and who use to be in the military says it has alot more to do with keeping South Korea from invading the North rather then vice versa.

Again, that would seem at odds with South Korea's 'sunshine' policy. Politicians want the two countries to come together through dialogue rather than force. Koreans don't want to fight Koreans.

[Nadjanema]

Originally Posted by Martino

Again, that would seem at odds with South Korea's 'sunshine' policy. Politicians want the two countries to come together through dialogue rather than force. Koreans don't want to fight Koreans.

Well, even if they unified, there's bound to be some kind of power struggle. One side wants X to lead, the other side wants Y to lead. Before you know it, there's (ta-da) war.

[Martino]

Originally Posted by Nadjanema

Well, even if they unified, there's bound to be some kind of power struggle. One side wants X to lead, the other side wants Y to lead. Before you know it, there's (ta-da) war.

Like East and West Germany?

I'm sure most North Koreans want to be South Koreans. A gradual unification process between North and South could do nothing but weaken the grip of the Maoists - and there WAS a thaw between the two sides in 2002.

And all the better if the leadership could be assured that they wouldn't be treated as criminals ...

Of course, if the leader of the free world puts you on a list of 'evil countries', and starts attacking other countries, that would encourage you to start building the sort of weapons that would discourage such an attack, wouldn't it?

[Nadjanema]

Originally Posted by Martino

Like East and West Germany?

I'm sure most North Koreans want to be South Koreans. A gradual unification process between North and South could no nothing but weaken the grip of the Maoists. And all the better if the leadership could be assured that they wouldn't be treated as criminals ...

Of course, if the leader of the free world puts you on a list of 'evil countries', and starts attacking other countries, that would encourage you to start building the sort of weapons that would discourage such an attack, wouldn't it?

I wouldn't be too sure about that Martino. I mean, we get rid of Saddam, give people there the right to vote, and what happens? It's too big a change, too fast. Suddenly, people have all this freedom, and they don't know what the **** to do with it, so they would rather have Saddam back, who is what they are used to.

I agree though, a gradual process would work, but if we pull out and get rid of the DMZ too fast, Korea, North and South, wouldn't know what the **** to do. So we can't really just airlift them out overnight.

As for the list of evil countries, I think 80% of America would agree that Bush is a moron. The other 20% are probably in comas or too young to know anything about politics. That guy Dubya was whacking a wasp hive with a twig with that speech.

[Martino]

Originally Posted by Nadjanema

I agree though, a gradual process would work, but if we pull out and get rid of the DMZ too fast, Korea, North and South, wouldn't know what the **** to do. So we can't really just airlift them out overnight.

Too bad President Bush didn't do that training course on world diplomacy and international relations after he was sworn in. France will never forget America's juvenile reaction to French opposition to the war. 'Freedom' Fries? Powell's veiled threats that France will be punished for disloyalty?! France helped create America!

[Kuchana]

Originally Posted by Martino

Too bad President Bush didn't do that training course on world diplomacy and international relations after he was sworn in. France will never forget America's juvenile reaction to French opposition to the war. 'Freedom' Fries? Powell's veiled threats that France will be punished for disloyalty?! France helped create America!

Oh give me a break!! If we're going to bring that into this, we might as well say that America rebuilt western Europe literally; France for one.

Originally Posted by Martino

Again, that would seem at odds with South Korea's 'sunshine' policy. Politicians want the two countries to come together through dialogue rather than force. Koreans don't want to fight Koreans.

Sunshine policy my butt. When Clinton was in power, he was in fact doing nothing but appeasing the N. Koreans by giving them food when it was their own responsibility to do so for their own people. This gave them the incentive to focus on their weapons program instead of focusing on the needs of the people. Now we dispense with that policy and they sulk like little kids. Please.