In light of the worldwide military commitments of the United States and the need for troops on the ground, shouldwe retain one divsion of two brigades in Korea? The South Korean military is a capable and well-led force, it has amply modernize weapons systems and is guarding its own country. Should we remain there ?
thanks
DJ

Well, I participated in three Team Spirit deployment exercises when I was stationed on Okinawa - and I say yes, we should stay. The ROK Force is impressive, the ROK Marines downright scary in how courageous they approach the mission, but they don't have the numbers to stave off a concerted invasion from the North. Presently, I don't think we do either, but together we make a credible deturrant. Together is the key...

Gunnie

I was stationed there for 30 months and have to agree with Gunnie.

Well, are we staying on Okinawa or departing? Would not the current force be better placed within the US (say Fort Lewis, Washington) where they have access to better training facilities and could rapidly re deploy back to Korea if needed?

In a strickly political sense having American boots on the ground is a much greater deterant than having ROK troops alone. That is, I think I would think a lot longer and harder about about shelling the crap out of American and ROK troops than I would out of ROK troops alone. No offense meant to the ROK troops, just stating what I think is a political reality.
I don't know how the public would react if we had to move troops into Korea to defend the South but I am fairly certain I know how the public would react under the current circumstances if the North crossed the DMZ in force.

Just a couple of lunchtime thoughts...

Shaun

Totally agree with the others. We need to keep those boots on the ground there, because we are the deterrent from keeping the North from invading the South. Honest to god if we left, even if we kept forces on standby deployment at places like Ft. Lewis, North would invade in a heartbeat.

I loved my tour on Okinawa - but anti-US sentiment keeps on growing due to the actions of American Servicemen. The Okinawans are a great people, quiet and respectful, a joy to be around and pretty gracious hosts. They don't easily forget these transgressions. I learned alot - my whole tour there I lived off-base, and got to know my Okinawan landlord and the people in the community I lived in. We'd be welcome and are preferred over the Japanese - if not for the careless actions of some of our Servicemembers. They were disappointed that the US returned the island to the Japanese, preferring American administration over Japanese, even with all that comes with that. During my time there, they even considered the idea of Independence - creating their own flag in support of the idea.

I think we need a continued US presence on Okinawa - perhaps not as large as it currently is and more respectful of the concerns of the local population. You'd never believe how alarmed they'd become when B-52 bombers would deploy from Guam to Okinawa during Typhoon evacuations (the bombers would come in with their bombay doors opened to relieve internal pressure during landing in the stormy conditions - but that would set the locals off because of resentment/fears over nuclear weapons being introduced to the island), incidents of US Servicemen injuring, raping, or even killing local residents, Marine Harrier pilots would tear up local farmer's fields during practice, etc. But, at the same time, they nicknamed the SR-71 Blackbird "Habu" with pride because the aircraft was based there - "Habu" after the local snake and Sake source, and would even supplement the US Military Police during demonstrations against US Military presence on the island. The Civilian Guards really took good care of me while I was there as a Security Policeman.

A US presence really is important for that region. Returning our assets from this forward location would make defense in the area pretty difficult, in my limited knowledge of how our forces are deployed around the world. I'm not sure how fast US forces really could return to Korea from a Stateside basing - and once gone - if Okinawa would remain available for forward US basing. But, I do know that we could deploy from Okinawa and address any action in the region pretty quickly.

Increasing the anticipated US response time by pulling back forces from Okinawa would also increase "adventurism" in potential foes moving on objectives in the area too - an unwelcome side-effect to be sure...

Sorry for the long post...

Gunnie

Yes, I also think US should continue station in S.Korea, actually I think there is another factor, the US forces in S. Korea as well as Okinawa is also a deterrant for Red China to try anything funny to Taiwan... Just my 2 cents.

At the risk of turning this into a current events forum, I think Dave has a very valid point. Although I don't really think the Chinese want to mess Taiwan, until they have a navy that can control the straights, having Americans in theater is just one more deterrent. As far as the whole Taiwan thing goes, you better have control of the air over the straights before you try to land troops, and, I don't see that happening.

Sorry if this is too current or whatever.

Just my two "Getting ready to watch "Monday Night Football" points."

Mods, delete this if you want.

Shaun

Okay, well let me continue this discussion by posing two questions. Is there a chance that Korea will unite? Would China allow a unification of the two Koreas?
Fear not, we are discussing history.....
DJ

No chance unless it benefits China militarily, politically, and economically. I don't yet see all three things in place.

I see China aspiring to be a stand-alone superpower more than a power interested in building a "Chinese Bloc" or Pact like the old WarPac. A united Korea wouldn't really add much to China's prestige in that respect.

Politically, a united Korea wouldn't much increase China's prestige either. Regionally, I think Taiwan is still uppermost in China's political planning than a united Korea. A divided Korea keeps the US engaged in the region plenty enough without need for sabre-rattling. A united Korea might disengage the US enough and allow it to devote even more attention to Taiwan - which China doesn't want to happen.

Economically, North Korea is a disaster. A united Korea would be a liability for some time. Considering China's aspirations in their Space Program and in the world community - I doubt they'd be willing to shoulder the economic burden of jumping in there to bolster and sponsor a united Korea. If they really wanted to, they could have jumped in there long ago to stabilize North Korea's economy. No move yet - because I'm sure they don't want to do it alone.

If Korea reunified - it will likely be because they make the effort - and sponsored (politically, economically, and militarily) by an effort of all the regional partners, I think. I just don't see that happening yet...

Gunnie

hasent ther been stand offs between chinese forces and the north koreans? I know that there are around 2 million "unoffical" refugees just over the border in china due to famine
I cant see the koreans reuniting unless the north invades which I think they'd like to do
as at the mo they seem to be a bit touchy. and as for the cost of reuniting them look at germany it almost bankrupted them and that was with a better infastructure it also led to
a bit of anamostiy from the west germans seeing most of their txes going to improve
the eastern part so along way to go

I believe the Chinese closed their border and forceably returned North Korean refugees to the North...pity those poor souls. Gunnie brings up a point often overlooked with regards to China and that is the Formosa (Taiwan). Will there be a peaceful unification ala Hong Kong?
DJ

I don't get the overwhelming sense that the Taiwanese (Formosans a la Falklands/Malvinas) really want a reunification with the mainland government - especially the way China pursues it threateningly. My question would be would Taiwan ever become a flashpoint for hostilities between China and the US?

Gunnie

Gunnie--- appreciate your observation and question. First, is Formosa part of mainland China in the same sense as the Florida Keys are parts of the United States? I do not know. If they are then you have one set of problems to deal with. On the other hand if the island (which is quite large as I recall) is not a part of territorial China you have another issue. So first question is Formosa a part of territorial China?
thanks
DJ

Yes, Formosa is akin to the Florida Keys - even could say Puerto Rico, Hawaii, or Guam if they were closer to the Continental US. The impression China once (and perhaps still creates) is that Formosa is a "breakaway" province. The same situation Iraq felt about Kuwait. The Formosa Strait (also called the Taiwan Strait - naturally) isn't as wide as the distance say between China and Okinawa (the East China Sea) but is large enough for naval maneuver as the US Fleet has done in prior tensions between China and Taiwan.

The Taiwan Strait has a group of 64 (I believe) islands in it called the Pescadores (dubbed in the 16th Century in Portugeuse for "fishermen's islands - correct me someone from Spain or Portugal if I'm mistaken). All of these together are considered a county or province of Taiwan. After the first Sino-Japanese War, China ceded this group of islands to Japan in 1895. After we defeated Japan in WW II - control of the islands was given back to China.

This could also be a sore point, in that the island group is considered a Taiwanese county - but China lays claim to it...

Gunnie

Well, assuming we are correct and that the island is a "natural" extension of the Mainland, what is the US argument for prevention of the Mainland folks just moving into the island?
DJ

Not to sound too facetious...

The US argument for standing on Taiwan's side opposing the Chinese from steamrolling over the island is...

... because they asked us to help them. They formed a democratic style of government and leadership and don't want the type of administration found on the mainland. We helped them, and they want us to keep helping them through the maturation process.

I believe it's nothing more than that. We do not base forward forces there. We don't have a desparate need to keep open the shipping and commerce lanes from Taiwan - we already have the reach and basing of assets in Okinawa and Guam (formerly) to do that. There is little political to gain - and most in the US don't read headlines from that region unless were reaching a point of moving the US Fleet south out of Japan to "show the flag".

I am still an Isolationist in most of my thinking when it comes to foreign policy. I admit it, but I don't let it cripple my thinking. I do feel that the US is doing a good thing to act when it's simply asked to help. When the government or a leader of a country then campaigns against that, says "no", lobbys against US presence - then I think the US should follow suit and leave. That goes for Okinawa (even though I really think we should stay), and Taiwan too if and when that day comes.

I hope that the greatest legacy a nation like ours could aspire to attain would be the memory that when called - we came. When asked to stay - we stayed. When it was done and asked to leave - we left. All the while doing something positive. Probably too idealistic - but I'm a dreamer...

Gunnie

Gunnie--once again I appreciate your argument, however, are we willing to use force to support our goal of maintaining a democratic form of government in Taiwan? I don't know and I believe neither do the Red Chinese which is probably why they have never seriously threatened the island. I think we still provide them military aid.
DJ

I feel the same as you do too. I look at it like a standoff between the last two players in a round of Poker. The "bluff" is out there but the "call" for showing the cards hasn't been made.

I really don't think the US wants to go to blows with China over Taiwan. I don't think China wants to go to blows with the US over Taiwan conversely. Ultimately, there isn't much to be gained and a whole lot lost over philosophies. It's like a chess match. The wildcard in the mix sometimes appears to be Taiwan itself - I think they are more than ready to defend themselves if China makes an overt move. All sides know that compells the US to intervene. In the court of world opinion, both sides likely view a minor skirmish like this as bad or even worse than a full-out exchange between the US and China - making action quite unattractive.

So - we have this strange balance of "peace" in that area. If I were a Chinese strategist, I'd be more than willing to wait. I think they're eminently more patient than we are in the West. I don't think the present US society can wait 200 minutes before demanding "action", where the Chinese appear to be comfortable to wait 200 years to reach their goal.

If I were a US strategist, I'd also be willing to wait for the first move to decide upon response, though it would have to be a swift one. I'd have several options layed out so that I could bring the maximum amount of pressure - with the minimum amount of collateral damage. Problem is that would have to be politically, economically, and militarily and wouldn't necessarily manifest in ordering the US Navy out of Japan to strike. So, in the interim we continue to provide assistance in the form of some military aid - just enough to let the Chinese know were interested and serious - but not so much that it radically disturbs the present "balance" in the area. We keep the "question" open as to what extent the US would defend the Taiwanese government akin to tactical placement of a Knight on the chess board.

It's like the MAD Policy, on a smaller scale and without nuclear weapons.

Ultimately, what happens if China one day decides to invade Taiwan to take it back? I believe today we would respond in defense of the Taiwanese with ground troops dropped from the air after naval and air assets being brought into bear to interdict from bases in the region. A call would be placed to allies in the region for assistance if it's perceived that the struggle would last beyond a 30 day window. Whether or not the allies would participate or be called upon to assist depends on what actually happens inside of the 30 days. Like what happened in the Dominican Republic, I can easily see the 82nd or the 101st brought in to bear in defense of Taiwan. Bolstering that force would likely be the USMC from Okinawa forward basing. But I don't see the US employing a larger force than that. I don't see it escalating, I mean, and stalemate the likely outcome.

Stalemate wouldn't be a victory for either side - and likely considered a "loss" for the side that initiated hostilities in the first place. This makes the whole adventure pretty unattractive.

Gunnie

Gunnie-- Enjoying our discussion and I trust other will chime in with us on this subject. We are back to what to do about the North Koreans. As I summarize it, barring a catostrophic collapse, the South does not want to go through the agony that reunification would bring, the Chinese want to have a buffer state, the Japanese will live with the status quo and we will maintain troops there to have a physical presence within the Chinese sphere. It looks to me like (barring the usual stupid moves by the North), we are going to be in Korea for the foreseeable future.
What do you think?
DJ

Heh heh - that's the way I see it too. :-)

South Korea's economic prosperity makes reunification with the comparative disaster up North incredibly unattractive.

As long as South Korea is "friendly" towards the US and have "invited" our forces forward basing there - China wants the buffer zone of North Korea. It probably irritates them (China) but would really be bothersome if the united Korea was South Korean-managed and US-friendly. Why? Good question since there really isn't a big reason for aggression between the US and China presently that I could put a finger on.

From the Japanese perspective, I'd wager that it is advantageous for them to let the US take the counterrole to China. There's some deep-seated feelings that the East China Sea probably doesn't have a big enough span to settle between the two countries. Japan knows it can call upon the US for support in response to aggression from the mainland, so no need to shout too loudy themselves. Status quo works for the time being. I find it interesting that China is planning to launch their first astronauts into orbit on October 15th. The Japanese have flown into space - but not on their own launch vehicle. I wonder if the perceived technological edge will swing in China's favor in prestige - and would the Japanese respond.

And for the US, that area of Southeast Asia is something like West Germany was - in that it kept the US close to the Soviet Union. The European situation has changed. China takes the place of the old Soviet Union in Southeast Asia. Taiwan and Okinawa are parts of the places the US has a presence close by a potential new foe. I think US presence there will remain until the US has no concerns over Chinese aggression against the US.

Progress in the relationship between the two countries (and the collaspe of the Soviet Union) saw the rebasing of strategic B-52 assets from Anderson AFB in Guam back to the North American Continent - that had been slated to keep Sea Lanes in the region opened. B-52's with underwing loads of Harpoon missiles were an awesome sight. They looked like they could perform standoff attacks against entire fleets with a single bomber. They would have caused me considerable concern if I had to war plan a naval action in the region against US interests. The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Phillippines hastened a planned reduction of USAF and USN forces there as well. With all that, I don't think anymore reduction of forward forces is likely unless there's a quantum improvement in the North Korean situation.

I think the US is there for the forseeable future too...

Gunnie

This is a very good and intelligent discussion. Great work, Cav210 and gunnie. Just like to add my few thoughts as a Chinese/Taiwanese.

First of all, Taiwan has always been part of China, ever since maybe 200 BC or so. And there are two groups of Taiwanese now reside in Taiwan. One is like me, we trace our roots back to China, we are the sons and daughters of the Nationalists whom retreated to Taiwan after 1949. We were called "The Outer Provincer" by the local Taiwanese. And it's us whom bring the wealth, technology to this island some 54 years ago, and still florishing in most of the aspects of the Island life. Funny it was, it was not until maybe 1989 or something, the government dropped the slogan "Counter Attack to the Mainland". (I mean after all, reality is reality) We brought up think that we are Chinese, and just stay in Taiwan for the time being till one day we shall return, one way or another. Then there is the ingenious (sp?) Taiwanese, whom are mostly farmers, fishmen, hunters, etc, etc. They had provided great deal of labor service to the dfevelopment of the island, recently, they gain some political influence, and is mainstream in the movement so called Taiwan Independence. Them are viewed as a petit nuisance by most of the Chinese/taiwanese/Nationalists.

Now comes to unification of Korea, and the Japan Issue. I think the one country that afraid the most for the unification of Korea or even China will be Japan. I mean historically, Chinese people have no dislike towards Americans , the efforts of Americans helping the Chinese in the sino-japan war is still very well received and praised at both sides of the strait. However, Chinese's hatre towards the Japanese is always there. Japanese know that once China is free from the taiwan issue, they would like to settle old scores. And as a decendant of half Japanese (my mom is Japanese). I can testify that when I go to China, especially NanKing, I don't mention to anyone that I am half Japanese.

I hope US station in the area. it has been a stablizing factor in the region, and will continous to be.

Dave--thanks very much for your commentary which amply complements Gunnie's observations. We seem to always reac a conclusion that I would like to hear some background on. Why is the US presence a "stabilizing factor?" I understand trip wire, but why do we stabilize?
thanks
DJ

Hello DJ,

The way I see it, the stablizing factor has many facets. In the last 20 to 30 years, the stablizing factor laid more on the simple military might than anything else. the 7th fleet were in the strait (taiwan Strait), numerous times, first time, I believe it was at the height of the Korean War, Nationlist offered to invade CHina from the South, 7th fleet went there to prevent it from happening, and avoided the escalating of the Korean war. (My grandpa was at that time commanded an Armor Division which was on 4 hours alert, talking about hair-raising experience). Then again in the 60s and 70s, during the height of China's cultural revolution to prevent the mutual shelling turn into an all out of war...

But now the stablizing factor lays more in the sense of economics. I work for an American company, but I have maybe 20 to 30 Chinese suppliers, who do millions of dollars of business with us every year. Imaging China made a stupid movie, and hit an American flagged Container Ship, then it's game over for them in the sense of foreign trade and investment. We call china nowadays "The Nation of one billion businessmen/women" they are too deep in the capitialist game to risk anything stupid. I mean they have army sponsored night club for cry out loud...

Hence, the stablizing factor.