What are the arguments for and against US forces in Korea?

[GePap]

A Thorn on the side of the US? I personally don;t buy that angle at all. China's leaders have a full plate at home to deal with: the threat from their own people is vaslty greater than anything the US might do, and the key to saving their skins is continued economic growth, so that they can say "hey, we make this wonderfull world possible: don;t wreck it with irresponsible democracy". They need the US for that, they need a peacefull Japan for that, they need SK money for that. They keep NK funded to avoid the problems that would come from not doing it: for 600 million they buy themselves a quiet, if tense Korean penninsula, they keep the US in the area, lessening any calls for Japan's rearmement, they get a regime that needs them on their borders and Korea split in two, and they keep a humanitarian crisis out of manchuria. That is a lot to buy for 600 million a year. no?

The core of this isse is not China's "gran dstrategic plans" (they have none), but the NK's regimes immense insecurity, and sadly they know they have just enoguh to make it worth's everyone's while for them not to do anything crazy.

[DanS]

Imagine, if you will, the reverse situation in Taiwan. Imagine if Taiwan were developing nuclear weapons. China would try to get the US to tell the Taiwanese to stop. The Chinese would make it clear that if they did not stop, it would me war with Taiwan and possible war with the US.

This already happened 20 years ago or so. Taiwan was told to stop by the US and presumably Taiwan did so. I don't know if China told the US there would be war, however.

The situations are very comparable. Major power war is possible if the minor powers under the protection of the major powers act irresponsibly and are not controlled by their protector.

I agree with this. But I think China does have ultimate control over their client state. They just don't see it as in their interest to assert this control.

[GePap]

To the notion that NK is "China's client":

If so, why didn;t China use the opportunity of "having a client" to base tens of thousand of troops in NK? Afetr the armistice in 1953,. just a few year later, all Chinese forces gone.

And what about NK during the 70's and 80"s, when China and the USSR saw each other as possible enemies? Whom would NK have backed? neither side had any troops there, hand't had mroe than advisers for decades: both gave NK aid. So would NK have backed it's "patron" China in such a war? Or it "patron" the USSR? And if the Soviets where the main patrons, when did China all of a sudden become NK's patron?

This was a large part of that article in the NYT, and history add evidence. In 1945, both the US and USSR sent troops to korea. By 1948 the major Soviet forces gone. IN 1950 till 1953 major Chinese forces go into NK, byt mid 1950's, gone. US forces never left SK. At the armistice signing there were three parties, the Chinese, the NK and the US. There was no SK representative even though as Q correclty pointed out, SK forces made the bulk of UN forces, and the war was being fought on SK soil. Why not?

China has more infleunce on NK than anyone else, but NK is NOT a client state. The longer we work under such a delusion, the worse things will be. China can't "solve this".

[Atahualpa]

Pro: M.A.S.H.

Against: Yet another war

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
To the notion that NK is "China's client":

If so, why didn;t China use the opportunity of "having a client" to base tens of thousand of troops in NK? Afetr the armistice in 1953,. just a few year later, all Chinese forces gone.

And what about NK during the 70's and 80"s, when China and the USSR saw each other as possible enemies? Whom would NK have backed? neither side had any troops there, hand't had mroe than advisers for decades: both gave NK aid. So would NK have backed it's "patron" China in such a war? Or it "patron" the USSR? And if the Soviets where the main patrons, when did China all of a sudden become NK's patron?

This was a large part of that article in the NYT, and history add evidence. In 1945, both the US and USSR sent troops to korea. By 1948 the major Soviet forces gone. IN 1950 till 1953 major Chinese forces go into NK, byt mid 1950's, gone. US forces never left SK. At the armistice signing there were three parties, the Chinese, the NK and the US. There was no SK representative even though as Q correclty pointed out, SK forces made the bulk of UN forces, and the war was being fought on SK soil. Why not?

China has more infleunce on NK than anyone else, but NK is NOT a client state. The longer we work under such a delusion, the worse things will be. China can't "solve this".

GePap, think then about it this way - China can prevent a solution by "implying" it will intervene once again if war breaks out.

We all know from history that just such an implied threat prevented a final solution in the case of Vietnam. Was Vietnam a client state of China?

Yes it was.

Is NK a client state of China?

Yes it is.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GePap
The problem I see MtG is that to assume that China can at will just reing in NK is just part of the view of Korea as space for China and Japan (and the US) to bicker about.

The Chinese have a simple counter - I'm sure their intel types have penetrated the DPRK fairly well, at least to estimate total energy consumption wrt Chinese exports, so that the DPRK doesn't have much excess capacity in storage. (We can do that sort of analysis from space, but the PRC would have to do it closer and dirtier.) In event of war, after Yongbyon and any other know ballistic missile site, the very first targets will be fuel storage, electric substations and emergency generators. The DPRK will lose fuel and electric generation capability, and all it's modern military elements will shut down - no electricity means no air defense radar, no ballistic missile launches, no industrial production, etc.

The issue isn't so much the role of the Koreas, but the ability of one little dork to push on all his neighbors plus the US. Kim can push a little, but he can't push so hard that everyone else unifies in the perceived need to deal with the problem.

Earlier this year, the Chinese "accidentally" shut off the pipelines for about three days, and apologised profusely for this horrible accident, but it woke up the DPRK to the hard reality of that vulnerability. Like it or not, they do depend critically on China for their existence beyond a not-quite-subsistence agricultural economy.

NK has a huge lever they can use aginst the Chinese: the same lever they have against the US, making trouble. A huge war on the Korean penninsula would not do much direct damage to China, but the after effects (massive economic disruption, particularly among some of the principle foreign investors in China, japan and SK, and a flood of refugees, plus a Sinlge Korea, as opposed to Two) would be very dangerous to China's current leaders. As much as everyone hates the current status quo, everyone also benefits from it (except the NK people). Q is right that in just keeping the status quo, you invite a huge explosion later. But no one wants to bear the cost of the huge explosion it would be NOW anyways, except perhaps a few people who think that the North will just cave in and die ala Iraq. I am not so sure about that.

I don't believe for a minute the north will cave in and roll over anything near as easily as Iraq did. Nobody can take that chance, either, because unlike Iraq, the DPRK has most of it's artillery pre-sighted, dug in (often as not into the sides of mountains) and prepositioned on the front, where it can do real damage. The Iraqis had no such capability.

To get the Chinese to play ball, obviously we have to convince them we'll help clean up their mess, so we have to give them something - lots of somethings, most likely. The status quo is not sustainable in the long term, but it is in the short term.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GePap
The core of this isse is not China's "grand strategic plans" (they have none)

This is what I'd expect to hear if Mohammed Saeed al Sahaf started working for Xinhua.

[Drake Tungsten]

The core of this isse is not China's "gran dstrategic plans" (they have none)

I enjoyed this statement as well, MtG. If any nation on Earth has a "grand strategic plan", it is the Chinese. They have a way of focusing on the long-term that makes me envious. If only our country would act so wisely.

[GePap]

So what is the great Chinese plan? It would be nice to see evidence of an active Chinese foreign policy with a plan, but for the most part, they simply don't get involved unless it has something directly to do with them.

Lets see, China's great plan in Central Asia is:?
Or their great plan for South East asia: get the Spratly's, and then?
And then thier plans for Middle East Oil: sell and buy form both Arabs and Israelis, yes, exactly!

Or their plan for Latin America: buy off those that still recognize taiwan as China;

And finally their great plans for Europe and Africa:????

Now if you have evidence of Chinese activity that makes it seem like there is some sort of plan, it would be nice to see, cause I don;t myself see any.
The most you see is China helping Pak as a counter to India, but now China is strenghening relations with India, so.

To get the Chinese to play ball, obviously we have to convince them we'll help clean up their mess, so we have to give them something - lots of somethings, most likely. The status quo is not sustainable in the long term, but it is in the short term.

Again: the Chinese did not "make this mess", nor are they the ones to solve it. All NK has to do in regards to China is tell them: "you cut of our supplies for long enought to be a threat, and we start a war..so deal with it". What are the Chinese going to do with that? Call his bluff? To what gain?

Again, NK depends on China like it does with no other state, nut NK has an independent policy, and China will not do somehting that may lead to a war with very serious consequences for itself.

[Ned]

On today's talk shows, the commander of our forces in Korea make two statements which I thought were interesting. First the redeployment of our troops away from the border gives them mobility they do not have currently. Second he said that the combined US and South Korean forces today are vastly superior to the North Korean forces if one looks at the relative capabilities of each force rather than just their numerical numbers.

In answer to the question of whether this redeployment placed the US forces in a better position for offensive operations into the North as stated by North Koreans, the commander stated that the positioning was more like that of a middle linebacker able to plug the gaps. In truth however, it does appear that the redeployment better positions our troops for offensive operations.

It is interesting how we can send signals to North Koreans while at the same time denying that we are doing so.

[Drake Tungsten]

Now if you have evidence of Chinese activity that makes it seem like there is some sort of plan, it would be nice to see, cause I don;t myself see any.

There have been numerous articles on the subject. Hell, Foreign Affairs even released a reader containing the best of them. Go find The Rise of China at the library and all your questions will be answered.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
Again, NK depends on China like it does with no other state, [b]ut NK has an independent policy, and China will not do somehting that may lead to a war with very serious consequences for itself.

This statement is undoubtedly correct.

What China needs to understand is that not getting the NK's to change course is the path to war. As of today, I am not sure they understand this.

If China is supportive of the peace efforts, it would convince the NK's that they have no hope of China's support if war breaks out due to NK's aggressive acts with regard to nuclear weapons and missle tests.

[GePap]

There is aidfference Drake between people telling me things I might disagree with and coming up with ones own answers based on evidence. I have no porblem with others coming up with thier answers: but I myself don;t see the great evidence for any notion that China has a plan now, anyomre than they ever had a plan for anything.

The Chinese are the only member of the SC that does not even have bases outside of it's soverign territory. It keeps mum at the UN about almost everything. China does not even try to exert diplomatic pressure on the one neighbor it has the most power over (even if this neighbor is no client). The Chiese are like the japanese, important people in the room with Nothing to say, but at least the Japanese have money to give. The only thing the Chinese spend on is undermining what little diplomatic recognition Taiwan has.

[Ned]

The certainly, GePap, China does not want war with the United States.

[Drake Tungsten]

The Chinese are the only member of the SC that does not even have bases outside of it's soverign territory. It keeps mum at the UN about almost everything. China does not even try to exert diplomatic pressure on the one neighbor it has the most power over (even if this neighbor is no client). The Chiese are like the japanese, important people in the room with Nothing to say, but at least the Japanese have money to give. The only thing the Chinese spend on is undermining what little diplomatic recognition Taiwan has.

You're confusing patience with a lack of an agenda. The Chinese have a grand strategic plan. They know what they need to do to achieve it. They also know that, at this time, it is most beneficial for them to bide their time. They have to achieve certain things before they can push their agenda more overtly (like building a blue-water navy, for example). The Chinese are the best long-term thinkers on Earth. Keeping quiet for a few years (or decades) is no problem for them if they think it can help them achieve their long-term goals.

It keeps mum at the UN about almost everything.

You're wrong on this. The Chinese were instrumental in rallying third world support to undermine the UN human rights regime, for example. They are just careful to exert their influence behind the scenes, manipulating the system while staying out of the public eye.