US Troops Out of South Korea

[Perknose]

This is an idea with major upsides and an idea whose time has come, as this FP article delineates:

The Korean Peninsula has lost its geopolitical significance, South Korea its helplessness, and America’s Korea commitment its purpose.

The Koreas are no longer a proxy battleground between superpowers. There was a time when U.S. withdrawal from a confrontation with a Soviet ally in Asia would have, analysts believed, signaled weakness a continent away in Europe. But the Soviets are long gone and the cause for American commitment with them. An inter-Korean war would be tragic and the body count enormous, but absent American involvement the fighting would largely be confined to the peninsula. The continued presence of U.S. forces, by contrast, virtually guarantees the spread of conflict.

A potpourri of broader claims is also made for maintaining U.S. forces. America’s presence supposedly constrains China, promotes regional stability, and deters an arms race. Let’s consider those claims in order. What sort of constraint is allegedly being posed to China? If the idea is to coerce it into assuming responsibility for North Korea in the event of its collapse, Beijing has shown no interest in attempting to swallow a Korean population likely to prove indigestible. And if the calculation is rather that Washington can persuade South Korea to pressure China on non-Korean matters, it’s easy to predict the unfriendly response Seoul’s Blue House would give if invited by the White House to join it in warring against China to, say, save an independent Taiwan, counter Chinese moves in the South China Sea — or, horror of horrors, defend Japan. Indeed, absent U.S. protection, South Korea and Japan might feel greater pressure to finally settle historical disputes so often misused by their nationalist politicians.

The U.S. security presence in South Korea is an expensive and dangerous commitment that America can no longer afford. Nor has it ever brought the United States much popularity in the country, where U.S. soldiers are a constant irritant to nationalists. The South is no longer a poor nation in need of protection from the specter of global communism but one more than capable of standing on its own two feet.

 

[Thebobo]

I agree and while you're at it remove

Guantanamo Bay Naval Base Cuba
Sembawang Naval Base
7 Military Facilities in Japan
Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia
+++

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Why stop there,? Pull all troops out of the Asia region, middle east, Europe (Germany & NATO deployments).

 

[desura]

Change can often be unpredictable. Yeah, South Korea is now rich and can afford its own defense. US troops there are kind of a tripwire.

And yet South Korea produces a big chunk of our great amazing gadgets. Without South Korea, I don't think we would be able to enjoy football games as well as we do now. US troops out of the Koreas when the North dissolves and they unite? Yes please. Until then, probably best to stick with the status quo.

I should also add that the Chinese are really stupid in propping up the Kims. If Korea united, it would likely be a bigger headache for the Japanese than the Chinese, because Korean nationalism wouldn't be divided anymore. And even if US troops were stationed along that border...it isn't that big of a deal or threat to them, or even a significant possibility. A possibility, yes, but the other benefits would be vast for them.

 

[cytg111]

Peace : First we trade, then we ally, then we mix and match our troops. We station our troops at eachothers not just cause war but to keep the peace and relations. Expand NATO, repeat until the globe is united.

 

[bshole]

This is an idea with major upsides and an idea whose time has come, as this FP article delineates:

I have thought so for years. Given that they could be wiped out in a single nuclear strike, they serve no purpose. They will NEVER be pulled though. That is a nonstarter. Way too much money on the line for military industrial complex for that. Millions of dollars of easy profit are associated with our troops being stationed there and the handful of Americans reaping that profit have more political power than the rest of the nation combined.

 

[Thump553]

Cut and run from a friend? Seems like the GOP is hellbent on destroying USA's power as the sole world superpower ASAP, just because.

We pull a couple Trumpie deals like this and, among other things, the rest of the world will abandon the dollar as the base currency. All of sudden our national debt is going to start costing the USA big time.

A cut off your nose to spite your face move.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Once NK invades SK and the resulting global depression is over we can start rebuilding infrastructure in the US!

Making America Great Again!.

 

[JSt0rm]

Why stop there,? Pull all troops out of the Asia region, middle east, Europe (Germany & NATO deployments).

well you elected a warmonger so thats a reason to stay and go to war.

 

[Commodus]

I say stay, but mainly because it's not so much a question of whether or not the North would lose (that much is guaranteed) so much as the damage it might do on the way out.

Like it or not, significant harm to South Korea (particularly Seoul) could be damaging to the global economy. Imagine if Samsung, LG, Hyundai and Kia were suddenly directionless, and lost some of their key factories? That'd have a ripple effect even on competing companies.

The aim isn't just victory... it's a swift, decisive victory. The kind where North Korea barely gets a shot in before the South and its allies are rolling tanks into Pyongyang. I'm not a big fan of the US' fondness for having a military presence all over the world, but the Korean peninsula is unique in that there would be very little time to react and minimize damage if the North started a fight.

With that said: the US would definitely want to limit its presence in the area after a victory. Make it clear that the future in Korea will be determined by Koreans.

 

[sandorski]

I think the timing is bad right now. As long as North Korea is being belligerent leaving sends the wrong signal.

 

[FIVR]

No all soldiers must stay. It will slightly discourage Trump from provoking the DPRK if he knows for sure 30,000 americans will die shortly after. I still think he'll do it, either way.

 

[Perknose]

Once NK invades SK and the resulting global depression is over we can start rebuilding infrastructure in the US..

Please come down off that ledge. US troops or not, NK knows invading SK would invite a retaliatory invasion of NK and the end of their little regime. It is, quite simply, not in their self interest to do so. And before you or anyone else tries to counter with, "Well, hurf burf, Kim is crazy" that is a tired meme we use, always in geo-political ignorance, when we don't understand the culture and aims of other countries and their leaders.

NK saw what happened to Iraq, because Saddam didn't have nukes. Their pursuit of nukes, like it or not, is in their rational self-interest as they see it. You can disagree, but it is folly to say they're crazy. Ignorant? Yes. Bloody butchers of their own people? Yes.

But hear this: The self preservation of their regime is their paramount self interest, and they will not ever invade SK precisely for this reason.

Read the article. It asks a very central question, "Does the presence of US troops as a trip wire increase the security of the region or make it less secure?" I believe the latter.

Now, I am not advocating an abrupt pull out. But, as the article delineates, SK is now prosperous enough to bulk up and provide their own conventional forces deterrent, all while remaining under the ultimate protection of the US nuclear umbrella, but without 30,000 of our young their as some fucking sacrificial trip wire.

You know who wants the US troops out? Much of the SK young, and perhaps the majority of the SK electorate, as we will shortly find out.

Cliffs: Your snark badly misses the mark.

 

[woolfe9998]

I wouldn't mind dramatically reducing our footprint there. I'd leave our anti-ballistic missile systems (i.e. THAAD) to protect SK and Japan from a nuclear strike.

But if we're going to do this, we shouldn't just go ahead and do it unilaterally. We should make it a bargaining chip for NK. Say we'll reduce our military footprint by 70% if they give up their missile program and submit to inspections. NK badly wants us out of there. You don't just walk away and give them what they want when you have leverage. NK's missile program is a threat to the US even if we aren't in SK anymore.

 

[woolfe9998]

Please come down off that ledge. US troops or not, NK knows invading SK would invite a retaliatory invasion of NK and the end of their little regime. It is, quite simply, not in their self interest to do so. And before you or anyone else tries to counter with, "Well, hurf burf, Kim is crazy" that is a tired meme we use, always in geo-political ignorance, when we don't understand the culture and aims of other countries and their leaders.

Why would you just pick up and walk? Offer to do so in exchange for concessions from NK. Just pulling out without leveraging it would be foolish.

 

[desura]

The article is really short and actually pretty vague. Not convincing to me, and it has lots of gaps.

The only condition warranting removal of US troops imo is Korean unification. Anything short of that could invite a northern attack on the south, making the situation worse.

China hates THAAD but the Chinese leadership is pretty stupid imo and it lacks fundamental morality. They cling onto old obsolete doctrines. I swear the Chinese often willfully take the path of evil due to their culture.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

well you elected a warmonger so thats a reason to stay and go to war.

Really??? John Kasich is doing all this. Freaking news to me.

 

[Balt]

I think the timing is bad right now. As long as North Korea is being belligerent leaving sends the wrong signal.

Agreed. Can't get into a pissing match with NK and then just pack up and leave. That would be a really shitty thing to do to multiple allies (South Korea, Japan, etc.)

 

[Amused]

The way I look at it...

Much like antivaxxers can't see the value of vaccines because they've never witnessed the diseases they prevent, these past few generations have no idea why we have a worldwide military presence (without colonialism) because they never witnessed the massive wars that resulted both directly and indirectly from isolationist policies.

Just another way to look at it. My WWII veteran father worked very hard to teach me this.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Please come down off that ledge. US troops or not, NK knows invading SK would invite a retaliatory invasion of NK and the end of their little regime. It is, quite simply, not in their self interest to do so. And before you or anyone else tries to counter with, "Well, hurf burf, Kim is crazy" that is a tired meme we use, always in geo-political ignorance, when we don't understand the culture and aims of other countries and their leaders.

NK saw what happened to Iraq, because Saddam didn't have nukes. Their pursuit of nukes, like it or not, is in their rational self-interest as they see it. You can disagree, but it is folly to say they're crazy. Ignorant? Yes. Bloody butchers of their own people? Yes.

But hear this: The self preservation of their regime is their paramount self interest, and they will not ever invade SK precisely for this reason.

Read the article. It asks a very central question, "Does the presence of US troops as a trip wire increase the security of the region or make it less secure?" I believe the latter.

Now, I am not advocating an abrupt pull out. But, as the article delineates, SK is now prosperous enough to bulk up and provide their own conventional forces deterrent, all while remaining under the ultimate protection of the US nuclear umbrella, but without 30,000 of our young their as some fucking sacrificial trip wire.

You know who wants the US troops out? Much of the SK young, and perhaps the majority of the SK electorate, as we will shortly find out.

Cliffs: Your snark badly misses the mark.

You have faith in Kim. You imagine a million man army as not existing, that after we leave Kim won't have forced reunification on his mind. You fail to undrestand that SK going under would do great harm to the global economy and the consequences of Kim acting could trigger a severe recession and perhaps a depression. At some point I would like us to pull out but right now? No.

Now the NK desire for nukes goes back a long way and ramped up in 1989 as a result of the end of the Cold War and Soviet age protection, which is no where near the Iraq War.

Cliff notes: Try learning about a situation before getting pissy.

 

[UglyCasanova]

I'm all for pulling out after the NK threat is eliminated.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Can SK bulk up their military enough to deter China's hunger for new territory without our help?

Because this:

And yet South Korea produces a big chunk of our great amazing gadgets. Without South Korea, I don't think we would be able to enjoy football games as well as we do now. US troops out of the Koreas when the North dissolves and they unite? Yes please. Until then, probably best to stick with the status quo.

It's in our national interest to protect access to Samsung EVO SSDs

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Remember: South Korea is perfectly capable of handling its own and deserves no protection, but NATO needs our support or Putin will literally bring back the Soviet Union and destroy such wonderfully successful nations as Lithuania and Moldova. Everyone knows this.

fwiw I don't have an issue with pulling out of South Korea, especially if that's what the majority of the country wants, it's just funny how there isn't a political issue on this forum that isn't capable of generating prodigious double-think.

 

[Jaskalas]

If South Korea wants us out of their business, then sure!
But leave it up to our host to change our arrangement.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

An inter-Korean war would be tragic and the body count enormous, but absent American involvement the fighting would largely be confined to the peninsula. The continued presence of U.S. forces, by contrast, virtually guarantees the spread of conflict.

Thus far (60+ years and counting) the continued presence of U.S. forces virtually guarantees the conflict will never start. As long as we're the toughest kid on the block NK looks at SK and says "Nope, not worth it". The second we pull out that changes to "cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war".

Now, as to the question of whether we belong there, I say no. Let the Koreans fight their own battles, they're not an important enough ally and that area isn't critical to our security. We have no business making that sort of commitment to an area where its not in our own interest. But lets at least be honest about why we will or will not withdraw. It has jackshit to do with the potential spread of a conflict. Our presence is good for the region, it keeps SK safe and NK cowering. It's just not good for us and if we pull out that is the one and only reason why. It's throwing SK to the wolves because we're tired of paying to protect them. We might as well be honest about it and stop trying to invent that idiotic "virtually guarantees the spread of conflict" bullshit to justify it.