Tweet
What are the arguments for and against US forces in Korea?
At first, I was hesitant to feel comfortable about moving most of our troops out of Korea, but now I feel like we should leave post-haste. We argue a lot about whether or not to keep 150k troops in Iraq, but we haven't had a good discussion about our 37,000 permanent station in SK for many, many years.
There are some reasons for removing our troops from Korea:
1) SK should provide the meat for their grinder, not the US;
2) SK should bear more financial burden for its own defense, thus giving them a fuller appreciation of the trade-offs with regard to the collapse of the NK regime;
3) The US can provide a security umbrella without substantial numbers of troops;
4) A substantial portion of the population doesn't want us there, and our continued presence inflames nationalist passions against the US;
5) Our troops aren't treated well (racism, hypernationalism, etc.);
6) There would be symmetry with how China deals with its client (no Chinese troops in NK); and
7) Our interests with regard to China are adequately met with our bases in Japan.
Against this are at least the following points:
1) It looks like we are abandoning the relationship with SK;
2) We would no longer have troops on land near the border with a potential long-term strategic competitor, China;
3) We would have less of a say over how SK is defended;
4) Perhaps a majority of SKs still want us there; and
5) It is cheaper for the US to provide defense for SK than it is for SK to provide it.
Then there is the question of whether we should stay, but move our forces elsewhere--such as away from Seoul and the DMZ. This looks to be what we are doing, in part. I can't tell whether this is just cover for an actual pullout, however.
If you have anything to add or a point to expand upon or contradict, please do so and I will edit in any salient points.
Background info: The US will spend 3.5% of its economy on defense while SK spends about 2.7% of its economy on defense. SK's economy is about 25x the size of NK's and has at least twice the population.
There are some reasons for removing our troops from Korea:
1) SK should provide the meat for their grinder, not the US;
2) SK should bear more financial burden for its own defense, thus giving them a fuller appreciation of the trade-offs with regard to the collapse of the NK regime;
3) The US can provide a security umbrella without substantial numbers of troops;
4) A substantial portion of the population doesn't want us there, and our continued presence inflames nationalist passions against the US;
5) Our troops aren't treated well (racism, hypernationalism, etc.);
6) There would be symmetry with how China deals with its client (no Chinese troops in NK); and
7) Our interests with regard to China are adequately met with our bases in Japan.
Against this are at least the following points:
1) It looks like we are abandoning the relationship with SK;
2) We would no longer have troops on land near the border with a potential long-term strategic competitor, China;
3) We would have less of a say over how SK is defended;
4) Perhaps a majority of SKs still want us there; and
5) It is cheaper for the US to provide defense for SK than it is for SK to provide it.
Then there is the question of whether we should stay, but move our forces elsewhere--such as away from Seoul and the DMZ. This looks to be what we are doing, in part. I can't tell whether this is just cover for an actual pullout, however.
If you have anything to add or a point to expand upon or contradict, please do so and I will edit in any salient points.
Background info: The US will spend 3.5% of its economy on defense while SK spends about 2.7% of its economy on defense. SK's economy is about 25x the size of NK's and has at least twice the population.
Comment