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

[GePap]

I am sorry, but the firt part strikes me as a sort of stereotype: yes, the Chinese are great at laying down long term plans, like:? Their eventual humiliation at Europeans, then Japanese hands, internal revolts, warlordism, and so forth? The past 200 years have been crap for China, unless you are now going to tell me this is all part of a 400 year old Chinese plan for world domination.

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.

And they have had vocal and appricientive support from dozens of regimes, some of them our 'friends'.

The Chinese only move when they think issue affect them, but thier rnage of what they think affects them is narrow. Certainly HR's afect the speically when pesky people outside might use it to undermine foreign investment into China, which the ruling party needs. They act decisevly about anything having to deal with Taiwan, since they claim it: they are the same about any issues that may deal with the South China sea. And certainly they care about japan, and would not like to see Japan return to local hegemon status, if it militerized again. But outsid3e of those topics, the Chinese don;t do much.

Wat about Central Asia: after all, it borders China, China has the Uighus to worry about, and China will need lots of oil in the future, But all the same the rulers in beijing seem rather laid back about what the do there. Russia and the US both extablish bases, send troops, thisd and that: and China?

The Chinese do care a lot about the things they believe affect them: but thier list of what they think affects them is much shorter than the list for any of the other UNSC members.

[Drake Tungsten]

I am sorry, but the firt part strikes me as a sort of stereotype: yes, the Chinese are great at laying down long term plans, like:? Their eventual humiliation at Europeans, then Japanese hands, internal revolts, warlordism, and so forth? The past 200 years have been crap for China, unless you are now going to tell me this is all part of a 40 year old Chinese plan for world domination.

Even the best laid plans don't compensate for a huge technology gap.

But outsid3e of those topics, the Chinese don;t do much.

What about their military operations against Vietnam? What about attempts to exert influence on Mongolia? Why would China help prop up North Korea if they didn't have interest in the peninsula? Why would they be building up their force projection capability if they didn't plan to exert power outside their borders? The signs are subtle, but they're there nonetheless.

Wat about Central Asia: after all, it borders China, China has the Uighus to worry about, and China will need lots of oil in the future, But all the same the rulers in beijing seem rather laid back about what the do there.

What are the Chinese suppose to do about it? Sure, they would love to extend their influence into Central Asia, but they know they can't challenge the Americans or the Russians yet. They aren't stupid. Don't mistake patience for a lack of interest.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Even the best laid plans don't compensate for a huge technology gap.

Oh, you mean the dynasty in power since the mid 17th century,and a foreign one at that, had laid out vast plans for Chinese world domination that got waylaid? Can you tell me of a single Geo-political strategic Chinese plan that came to fruition, or that China ctively attempted to push forward, even if unsuccesfully?

What about their military operations against Vietnam? What about attempts to exert influence on Mongolia? Why would China help prop up North Korea if they didn't have interest in the peninsula? Why would they be building up their force projection capability if they didn't plan to exert power outside their borders? The signs are subtle, but they're there nonetheless.

1) China was at odds with neighbor USSR, Vietnam (which was an old historical adversary) was a pro-Soviet Communist reigme. When this pro-Soviet regimes begun to take actions against a pro-Chinese communist regime (Khmer Rouge), China acted.
2) What influence? Does China send troops in, vast amount of money, set up bases? hmmm, mongolia is a vast yet almost empty neighbor: why wouldn't China want to have influence of some sort on a neighbor?
3) Perhaps China fears what the end of NK could bring about: or what the NK would do if brought up against the wall. And it is ncie to have the US in SK and Japan: keep the Japanese from any funky: "lets build a military again" notions.
4) China is the only UNSC member with no semblence of a blue water fleet. Its nuclear deterent force is obselete and too small. they have less ICBM's and more limited ranges than the UK or France. Aquiring a modern ariforce invariably gives you power projection. The true sign of Chinese global desings would be the attempt to aquire basing rights elsewhere. The US has them, UK and France have them, the Soviets and then Russia has them. China doens't have them, and I have heard nothing about China trying to get many. Which is the last state China attempted to gain basing rights from?

What are the Chinese suppose to do about it? Sure, they would love to extend their influence into Central Asia, but they know they can't challenge the Americans or the Russians yet. They aren't stupid. Don't mistake patience for a lack of interest.

Can;t challegne the Russians? What do the Russians have to offer? The Chinese have enginners as well, and a more vibrant eocnomy than Russia. The Chinese have as much to offer as the Russians: but they don;t offer anything. The Russians had a consistent policy against the Taliban. China was aginst the Taliban, then by 200 had decided to accomodate, then they simply dropped this come 9/11..they had no clear, long term policy towards Afghanistan.

[Drake Tungsten]

Can you tell me of a single Geo-political strategic Chinese plan that came to fruition, or that China ctively attempted to push forward, even if unsuccesfully?

Do you know anything about Chinese history? They didn't come to be such a huge country by sitting on their asses.

Can;t challegne the Russians? What do the Russians have to offer?

More modern military technology. The Chinese can't beat the Russians and they want to stay on good terms with them so they can purchase (and copy) Russian equipment.

Which is the last state China attempted to gain basing rights from?

Myanmar and Pakistan?

http://in.news.yahoo.com/030521/43/24hau.html

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EF17Df05.html

[DanS]

I think China mainly is thinking internally with a long term goal of returning to being a great power. But NK is an easy client for them to run. Mainly all they have to do is continue the flow of fuel, and keep out of the way. NK spends all of its time and energy being a thorn in the side of the US.

[Drake Tungsten]

I think China mainly is thinking internally with a long term goal of returning to being a great power.

I agree. There are many things they must achieve on the domestic front before they can effectively implement their strategic plans in the region.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Do you know anything about Chinese history? They didn't come to be such a huge country by sitting on their asses.

Hmm, I wonder what diabolical shceme those Brazilians got? Cause look how big their country is!
China has been centered around 2 big river valleys for millenia. China has had intermitent control fo areas beyond those valleys (such as Tibet, Mongolia, Vietnam, so forth), but it has also been conquered repeatedly by outsiders. Chinese hisotry does not point to nay plan: it does point to a very unique amount of cultural cohesion among such a large area.

More modern military technology. The Chinese can't beat the Russians and they want to stay on good terms with them so they can purchase (and copy) Russian equipment.

The state of Central Asia are too poor to buy and have no need to get top notch Russian tech. chinese arms would more than fully meet thier needs, as it has most of Pak's needs. What those sates want most is good contracts for their oil and gas, and cold hard cash to fix crumbling infrastrcuture, maintain repressive internal regimes, and fight insurgents. All of which the Chinese can afford just as well as the Russkies.

Which is the last state China attempted to gain basing rights from?

Myanmar and Pakistan?

http://in.news.yahoo.com/030521/43/24hau.html

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EF17Df05.html

Wow, China's first baby steps into global power projection. Maybe in a couple of decades they will equal France!

[Drake Tungsten]

The state of Central Asia are too poor to buy and have no need to get top notch Russian tech.

I meant that the Chinese want to buy Russian weapons.

Wow, China's first baby steps into global power projection. Maybe in a couple of decades they will equal France!

Lay the sarcasm on as thick as you want. It'll help you ignore the evidence for a Chinese strategic plan you claimed didn't exist.

[GePap]

And the Russian want to seel weapons to the Chinese: it is a mututal relation there. russia's arm industry needs it's Chinese clients.

As for the "evidence": Interestingly it all deal with India, which happens to be, guess what, a large neighbor if China! As the second piece notes, China and India have not had such rgeat relations since 1962: India sieds with the USSR, and China already helped Pak with its nukes and is a big seller of arms. As for "bases" that will be able to house Chinese subs: fine, which subs? China has decades to go in making a worthwhile Blue sea navy: besides, if China expects possible trouble with India, it makes sense to have bases in the Indean Ocean, no?

So basically you take the idea that China may be trying to maintian a favorable balance vis a vi its territorial neighbors are evidence of a great Geo-political strategy? What about good old fashioned realpolitik?

[Q Classic]

good flame, lacked one thing. a suggestion. I was waiting for one but then at the end nothin=[. u would convince more people if "continue to be blackmailed" wasn't the suggestion. which I think is why u r running into the resistance.

wow, obviously read by someone who can't understand plain english.
1. you call this a flame? whatever. that one-liner i wrote above is a flame.
2. if you actually read it, you would see that i'm not for appeasement or buying that ****er off.
3. the reason why i'm running into resistance has more to do with the fact that i'm korean, and obviously one of the ungrateful and sneaky slant-eyed bastards who hates all americans and loves his stalinist north korean brethren so much that i'm willing to be ****ed up the ass by them simply because i think that's the best solution to everything.

How popular is the Sunshine Policy in the RoK at the moment, Q^3

from what i understand, and what i gather from my relatives, among the older people any respect for what is in effect the sunshine policy (names have changed) has vanished like the horsehair hats of old korea--if it was ever there in the first place.
among the younger people, you have it split. some still think it'll work, while the rest are wavering on it, not sure if it's actually that good of an idea. none of them want a military resolution to this, nor do they want to keep being the victim to a bloodsucking scumbag--particularly since crazy kim is hitting these new south koreans where it hurts them most--their pocketbooks. the economy's been looking a lot less rosy in recent months, clouding growth in one of the only sunny economic spots in the asia-pacific region right now.

I don't even think keeping troops there would be necessary at all. I mean if there actually is some combat about those lands, you can still let the SK guys control the north. What Lancer said up above was about whether or not the south will actually support military action. But if the **** eventually hits the fan, they won't reject annexation of the north just for their past opinion, at least I doubt it. Q^3?

south koreans want reunification all right. but they're as thickheaded and stubborn as the north koreans, which is a good thing in this case. they will not tolerate being reunified by force and then thrust under the boot of a tinpot stalinist dictator. you can bet if nkorea did succeed (i have serious doubts in the north's capacity to obtain victory) that there would be a lot of trouble in the southern half. a people that had been chained for centuries under a stifling yangban caste system, then crushed into the dirt by japanese militarism followed by the iron fist of juntas who've now finally found affluence and democratic freedom won't go willingly back into poverty and domination.
as for keeping the troops there, it's a psychological barrier. the north doesn't really want to spill american blood, because it knows that they're done for the instant it happens. even if it is just one soldier killed by an errant northern bullet.
speaking from a realist and american point of view, i say keep them there. we don't want china to try and exert more influence there--if we can contain china, we should, for as long as possible. a regional hegemon should not--and does not--tolerate any peer competitors.

Donald Rumsfeld is right to consider redeploying our forces away from the DMZ. 37,000 troops on the border are not on the last very long as an effective fighting unit against massed artillery. So positioned, the US forces would be in a much better position not only two react to a North Korean invasion, but also to be in a position for an offensive into North Korea.

ned is right on the money. 37k troops that close to the d-less dmz would be no more than a speed bump--a pointless waste of americans. placed further away, outside the range of the artillery, not only would kim jong-il lose his american 'hostages', but the americans would survive long enough to strike back valiantly.

There was in interesting op-ed in the NY Times today, and at its core, it says that when the US thinks about KOrea, they don;t really give a damn about Korea. In essence, korea is just space between Japan and China, both of which, obviosuly, matter to the US, so because Korea is where it is, we defend it, but we could actually not give a damn about IT, only what it represents to what actually matters (Japan, China). And I have to say there is something to that: how much of even this thread cares more about China and Japan than whether Korea ends up a flattened glassy strech of wasteland?

korea's never been thought of anything but a shrimp between whales, at least to foreigners and its neighbors. russia wanted it to put it on the map in east asia. china wanted it to exert influence over japan; japan wanted it to exert influence over china, and be closer to it. america wanted it to keep an eye on the chinese and the russians. few outside of korea gave a damn about it, and they still don't, not outside of strategic considerations.
besides, in the first half of this century, america didn't give a **** about korea. america and britain all but gave japan a blessing to go ahead and occupy it.

There is no indication that this is primarily anti-Bush. There seems to be a large cadre of those who want to rewrite history to be anti-US, especially in the governing party. This attitude is in the ascendancy and it really isn't in our power to fight. Best to deflect it.

all these protests didn't occur until after bush came to power. the biggest factor in the discontent before the tragic accident was the fact that bush didn't inform kim daejung that he was abandoning clinton's korea policy before he did so. after the accident, it was, by and large, focused on that. then it was bush's hankering for an iraq war, which led to a bitter fight in the national assembly over whether to send troops or not. in the end, troops are to be sent.
in case you didn't know, skorea was one of the first to send its regrets in the aftermath of september 11, and was one the location of one of the largests outpourings for american support during that time.
add to that virtually everyone there seems to dislike bush but adore clinton, dislike bush but love american culture, americana, and americanisms, dislike bush but like american business...
i think it's safe to say that it's more anti-bush than anti-american.
yes, there are those who are virulently anti-american. but aren't they present in almost every country? the american media has fixated on the fringe in korea and made it seem like the mainstream. it doesn't help that the fringe became more vocal and had the benefit of being more vocal at a time of high anti-bush sentiment...
as for the governing party holding anti-american and anti-us views... howso? all i see are desires, however misguided, wanting to be accorded more "respect" in a relationship in which they feel junior.

We have no territorial ambitions in northeast Asia. We are not like Imperial Japan. As for SE Asia, there's even some talk about building bases in Vietnam (yes, it surprised me a lot).

we don't have territorial ambitions in northeast asia, nor do we really have them in iraq. what we need are safe havens to project power to deflect and control any threats to our security--not to occupy other countries.
having troops in japan will make it exceedingly difficult to have america help defend korea on the ground. that's what i mean by being unable to project power. air support and naval support are just fine and dandy, but they are not the ones that will win a war in a mountainous and forested korea.

But I think China does have ultimate control over their client state.

the relationship is much more distant than america's relationship to skorea, or of the former ussr to its satellite states.
during the cold war, nkorea played china and the soviet union off against each other (as korea did for many centuries between different foreign powers) and was independent largely to an extent like tito.
following the collapse of the ussr, nkorea has been somewhat reticent in going to china as a full client: if anything, china has become the only reliable ally to nkorea, which is fiercely independent (it follows a policy of juche or self-dependence--which is why it's one of the most isolated regimes in the world)...
china is, however, the one nation with the most influence in nkorea. china's the one the north currently depends on for much of its necessities. in that case, it is less of a client and more of a dependency.

Like it or not, they do depend critically on China for their existence beyond a not-quite-subsistence agricultural economy.

actually, they're not able to sustain their own population. being in the more mineral-rich but less fertile half of the peninsula, they relied heavily on electric irrigation, chemical fertilizers and pesticides to feed the populace. when the soviets collapsed, it led to a complete collapse of the nkorean industrial infrastructure: no pesticides, no fertilizers, and little or no irrigation.
they don't really have food anymore.

Again: the Chinese did not "make this mess"

if we're going to assign blame for this mess, there's more than enough to spread around. it goes to:
koreans:
king kojong for being a spineless and a weakling;
queen min for being so caught up in internal politics that she crippled the country;
minister yi wan-yong for signing the annexation treaty with japan;
great leader kim il-sung for setting up an evil police state;
dear leader kim jong-il for continuing that heinous regime;
president yi sung-man (syngman rhee) for being so aggressive and idiotic--he wanted the first korean war;
president kim dae-jung for buying the sunshine policy with his cronies in the hyundai group.

americans:
president teddy roosevelt for giving the blessing to japan in a gentleman's agreement for japan to annex a korea "unable to govern itself";
president franklin delano roosevelt for suggesting a joint trusteeship to rebuild korea--all but inviting the soviets to come in;
president harry s truman for being unwilling to win the war at any cost (this one... i'm willing to forgive);
secstate dean acheson for deciding that the 38th parallel was "a nice place to divide it";
ex-president jimmy carter for sticking his big fat butt where it don't belong;
president bill clinton for going along with it;
president george w bush for flip-flopping so much on his non-existent policy.

japanese:
everybody in the military government, such as masatake terauchi and ito hirobumi, including the emperor.

chinese:
chairman mao for sending "volunteers" to decimate korea even further;
every chinese premier and leader since who allowed the abomination to continue;
hu jintao for being spineless and unwilling to deal.

russians:
stalin, for sending his damned red army into the country;
every soviet leader since who allowed the sore to fester.

so let's not talk about who's mess it is, because it's everybody's ****ing mess. no need to point fingers when we need to find a joint solution.

as for whether china has a plan or not: all the east asian countries have a plan. whether they come to fruition or not is a different matter, but... china's undeclared master plan is to bring back the epicenter of the world, politically, economically, and culturally, to china so that eastern learning can radiate outwards from the forbidden city.
japan's was to become the dominant economic power of asia and show both china and korea that it's not a primitive and backwater country (long-held view in both places), but a mighty nation in its own right (btw: that's a good part in why japan has an 'emperor').
korea's was to continue as being an independent and balancing force between everyone else, and be left alone enough to attain its enlightenment on its own terms.
thus far, only japan's seems to have succeeded, but at an enormous--and horrific-cost.

[Drake Tungsten]

As for "bases" that will be able to house Chinese subs: fine, which subs?

How about these 66 subs?

Why don't you just give up, GePap? You're obviously out of your element in this discussion.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

good flame, lacked one thing. a suggestion. I was waiting for one but then at the end nothin=[. u would convince more people if "continue to be blackmailed" wasn't the suggestion. which I think is why u r running into the resistance.

wow, obviously read by someone who can't understand plain english.
1. you call this a flame? whatever. that one-liner i wrote above is a flame.
2. if you actually read it, you would see that i'm not for appeasement or buying that ****er off.
3. the reason why i'm running into resistance has more to do with the fact that i'm korean, and obviously one of the ungrateful and sneaky slant-eyed bastards who hates all americans and loves his stalinist north korean brethren so much that i'm willing to be ****ed up the ass by them simply because i think that's the best solution to everything.

not very polite to be offended by the fact that I called it a good flame(more a compliment to me). and not give an answer. =[

[yavoon]

though I guess to be fair u've always shown animosity towards me no matter how inane my position is.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
How about these 66 subs?

Why don't you just give up, GePap? You're obviously out of your element in this discussion.

Out of my element?

Have you examined the quality of those subs, and where they are deployed? As one who has the habit of rwading Jane's listing of world Navies every so often, most of those puppies are Romeos, ancient, they have about 3 nuclear subs, and those arent even running very much.

NO, China does NOT have a good Blue water navy of any sort.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by 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.

So tell us Drake, what is this grand strategic plan?