Home  >  ROK Military / U.S. Military

Issue of U.S. Troop Withdrawal from ROK Resurfaces in Opinion Piece

Interesting.

I remember hearing many people (American and South Korean alike) call for the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from the ROK during the Roh Moo-hyun years. Some of the calls coming from South Korea in particular were clearly based off anti-American sentiments while other people simply felt the absence of the U.S. military in Korea (or at least a reduced presence) would help the ROK become more self-sufficient militarily. At the time, I remember having conversations with people who had very convincing arguments, claiming that even though ROK troops were capable of defending the nation, the U.S. would be willing and able to assist South Korea in a military situation without having troops stationed in the country. (Incidentally, U.S. troop sizes were cut in the ROK to assist with deployment demands in Iraq between 2004-06.)

But in light of recent developments involving North Korea, I find it interesting to once again, hear calls for a full U.S. withdrawal from the peninsula. In an opinion piece penned by a (former?) military service person, a man calls on President Obama to pull U.S. troops out of Korea in a sign to Kim Jong Il that the U.S. is serious about North Korea’s latest actions. The writer suggests we withdraw our troops from the peninsula and let the other five nations in the region deal with the problem on their own, without U.S. involvement. (I wonder what South Korea and Japan would think of that.)

He writes:

About 10 years ago, I was watching a forum on North Korea (I believe it was on C-SPAN) that consisted of the U.S.A., China, Russia, Japan and North and South Korea. The Russian’s reply when asked about the American army in South Korea opened my eyes and brain [sic].

He said North Korea wanted the U.S. Army there because the Russians had more than 50,000 artillery guns within range of 38,000 U.S. soldiers. Their thinking is that having the U.S. soldiers there is like having hostages. As long as our troops are under their guns, America will never attack first.

If you recall, when President Bush was thinking about reducing the size of U.S. forces in South Korea to send more to Iraq and moving the balance of the troops to the southern part of South Korea, the first thing out of the mouth of North Korea’s leader was calling such a move a provocation to war. At that time, I knew the Russian diplomat had spoken the truth.

Note: The writer said the Russians had more than 50,000 artillery guns within range of 38,000 U.S. soldiers. I assume he means, North Korea, although I suppose they could be Soviet-era weapons made in Russia. Or am I wrong?
This issue of whether or not to completely withdraw U.S. forces from the peninsula has been hashed out before within Korea circles, but considering the current happenings involving the DPRK, it’s interesting to see the topic resurface right now. It’s the timing of this suggestion that caught my attention, although I don’t agree with the reasoning behind it.

4 Responses

  1. Looks like they changed “Russia” to NK in the article.

    Still, it’s a question that I’ve thought about before. My guess is that China will demand a US pullback in return for NK reunifying with the South, although the extent is hard to guess.

    Possibly the US needs to realign towards a regional security goal rather than being a tripwire for the NK-SK conflict. In their current positions, US troops serve both missions, but the latter is becoming less important and may ultimately become a liability if other types of conflict arise.

  2. Oddly enough, as someone who also served with the military in South Korea, I’m in complete agreement with all but the last twenty words (North Korean WMD proliferation is our business, no matter how much we wish it weren’t). In this new report, the Commanding General of USFK predicts that the North Koreans will use insurgent tactics against Americans in the event of war, which should be pretty obvious given North Korea’s inability to beat us in a conventional war.

    So I ask you — is a population that’s capable of displays like this and this, and which has such an active cadre of North Korean agents, really a safe place for Americans to be in the event of war?

  3. I find it amazing that on the one hand Gen Sharp can say “IEDs could target civilians as well as US and South Korean forces,” then talk about tour normalization and bringing more families to Korea. There is no logic between the ready to “fight tonight” doctrine while in the mean time make sure you take the kids to the water park at Humphreys. How do you tell your family that a tour in Korea will be great? The schools in Yongsan are being expanded and the Child Development Center is one of the best in the world, just pay no attention to the crazy little man with the nuclear bomb and the insurgents with IEDs? The current crisis does not fit with the agenda, but it won’t stop the command from bringing a few thousand more families and making Area I tours command sponsored. The true hostages are not the US soldiers, but the thousands of dependants living in range of the artillery and rockets.