Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: US to Handover Troop Control in 2009
Asia Finest Discussion Forum > Asian Culture > Korean Chat > Korean Serious Talk
northwestern_student
QUOTE

U.S. to Hand Over Troop Control in 2009: Rumsfeld
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld waves at Ft. Wainwright, Alaska, the 172nd Stryker Brigade's home base in Fairbanks, Alaska on Saturday ./Yonhap

Bush, Roh to Reach Accord on Korean Troop Control
Wartime Operational Control: the Balance Sheet
The Rocky Road To Wartime Control of Our Troops
Rumsfeld Downplays N.Korean Threat to South
2009 Troop Control Handover Would Magnify Tax Burden
Troop Control ‘Would Cost W1 Trillion in Opportunities’
Who Will Pay for the Chimera?
What ‘Independence’ Will Mean by Kim Dae-joong
U.S. U-Turn on N.Korean Threat Raises Eyebrows
We Have Only Ourselves to Blame
MDP Leader Wants to See Roh About Wartime Control
U.S. Defense Secretary of Donald Rumsfeld recently told Seoul the U.S. wants to hand over wartime operational control of Korea's armed forces in 2009, it emerged Sunday. That signals tough negotiations ahead since Korea’s proposed date is 2012.

Rumsfeld wrote to his Korean counterpart Yoon Kwang-ung on Aug. 17 saying Washington plans to hand over wartime operational control to South Korea in 2009, a government official said. It was the first time the U.S. defense chief has officially confirmed the open secret.

A government official said Rumsfeld mentioned 2009 because of the timetable for the U.S. Forces Korea’s move from Seoul’s Yongsan to Pyeongtaek, which is to be completed by the end of 2008, and the dismantlement of Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command. That suggests the U.S. plans to cut the cost of relocating USFK headquarters by leaving the CFC out of the list of bodies to be moved from the start. The CFC will become obsolete once Korea exercises sole operational control of its troops. The move will also facilitate Pentagon plans to revamp the USFK.

In the letter, Rumsfeld also proposed that two allies divide the upkeep cost of the USFK at an "equitable" rate, which pundits say means 50:50. Korea currently shoulders slightly less than 40 percent of the cost. He also pressed for a new bombing range for the USFK to replace a facility in Maehyang-ri that was shut down, and expressed hope that the two sides can sort out their differences over who should pay for the environmental cleanup at bases the USFK is vacating.
jaesan
First, this should be in serious discussion. Mod, can you move this ?

Second, the Korean gov't is retarded for going along with this. They should let US have the control much longer until S. Korea can experiment and perfect the strategies and the command line. They are rushing it too fast. No way in the world are they ready to take back the command. Plus it was a JOINT command, not unilateral command by US military. Kim Jung Il is going to have a field trip on this. The joint command called for immediate assistance of 80,000 extra troops from US military and all sort of new weapons in case of emergency. US military consistently deployed their newest weapons and system in S. Korea to both protect the country and to test the weapons. It was like S. Korea was catching glimpse of new technology.
cyan
Roh and his cronies are fools and the NK government has gotten to the minds of Roh's people very well.
jaesan
QUOTE(cyan @ Aug 31 2006, 02:27 AM) *

Roh and his cronies are fools and the NK government has gotten to the minds of Roh's people very well.


No dobt bro, WTF is wrong with that dude ? The dude is one of the major disappointment in modern S. Korean history. There is a saying among NYC Koreans that there are three days that Koreans regret the most. First, the day Park Chung Hee was assassinated, second, the day US intervened on behalf of Kim Dae Jung to save his @$$, and lastly, the day Roh's mother gave birth to Roh. embarassedlaugh.gif
flower pig
It is the US which is rushing things -- Seoul proposed 2012, Washington said 2009. Seoul has to go along with 2009 or they would look even worse.

Roh's tacit support for anti-Americanism, and the quiet complicity of the South Korean public, could only last so long without consequences.
northwestern_student
ehh? i thought that was a good thing
KJlost
Good thing for North Koreans maybe. The disintegration of the joint US-Korea force command means several things.

1) US Army, Naval, Air Force and Marine reinforcements will not be as easy or as assured as before. As someone pointed out, no Korean general or staff officers have experience in large troop oversea troop movement. They have little idea about setting up logistics, where and when to arrange the deployment and etc. While it is clear that North Korean armed forces are no longer threat to South Korean national existance, US firepower will be sorely missed when taking out those thousand guns aimed at the heart of the nation's capital.

2) South Korea does not have the necessary technology as of yet to make the transition for command smooth. Out forces do not have the advanced C4I command and communication systems. At the earliest, a Korean replacement will enter service in 2012.

3) We do not have the intelligence assets. Close to 90% of intelligence on North Korea comes from US intelligence assets based out of Korea or Japan. The raw data, then, is processed by intelligence staff manned by both Koreans and Americans. When the combined command dissolves and only Americans process the data, they will selectively share the information with us, rather than have out people see everything as well.


What's infuriating about President Roh and his cabinet (which includes that political puppet of Defense Minister!) is that they are doing nothing, absolutely NOTHING, to remedy these shortcomings. They are not launching new intelligence asset programs despite all their big-mouthed talking. When people express these concerns, most of Roh's people will turn and say that the Americans will still provide the intelligence data to the Korean forces. SO MUCH FOR THE INDEPENDENT COMMAND ASSHOLES!
.
northwestern_student
ehh...i don't think there's going to be major conflict in the korean peninsula soon. the handover will be largely symbolic
KJlost
The fact of the matter is, a leader of a nation should not treat national security without so little thought as the Roh government has shown so far. They've touched on something delicate and smashed it with a hammer, and now they're feeling the backlashes. Of course, the Korean public will have to be the one to bear the weight of their mistakes, so they can speak crassly of it. I seriously hope someone gets jailed for this.
flower pig
I hate to say it but I can't say that I feel a whole lot of sympathy for the SK people on this one. Roh used a vicious campaign of anti-Americanism to get elected, and Koreans ate it up. For 4 years he put NK's interests ahead of those of his closest ally. With the exception of a few newspaper editorials, nobody spoke out against this. Suddenly they are surprised the US is tired of it?
KJlost
Tell me then; are the Americans in the government surprised at sudden emergence of anti-Americanism in South Korea? If they are, they are about nearly as incompetent. The US government also shares lot of the blame in the deterioration of the alliance because of their inflexible response to changing South Korean demands. I've seen people claim that US mentality on the Korean situation has not changed since the 50s.
northwestern_student
this is what chosun ilbo had to say about it. i guess it's better to leave the military matters in the hands of professionals, not politicians.

QUOTE

Are They Out of Their Mind?
Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon on Friday told the Kwanhun Club, an organization of veteran journalists, “When we withdraw wartime operational control of our troops from the U.S., it will contribute to creating a positive environment where we can discuss a peace framework on the peninsula” with North Korea. That, he said, would pull the rug out from Pyongyang’s “persistent propaganda that it cannot negotiate a peace framework with a South Korea that doesn’t even exercise operational control of its troops.” The same assertion is made in a report on the issue Cheong Wa Dae provides on its website.

Defense Minister Yoon Kwang-ung told the National Assembly a fortnight ago that the North's assertion that it cannot discuss a peace framework and disarmament if the South has no operational control of its forces "has a reason. It's necessary to understand that reality." That shows what is behind the government’s plan to take over sole exercise of operational control: the perception that the North could then no longer refuse to recognize South Korea as the dialogue partner on security issues.

If we exercise operational control of our troops, Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command will be automatically dismantled, and with it the CFC's deterrence of the North, whose integrity, promptness and efficiency have been assessed as the best in the world. Yet the defense and foreign ministers, even as they tear down the country's security framework, boast this is good for inter-Korean dialogue.

The Kim Dae-jung administration, in launching the Sunshine Policy, at least had the courtesy to pretend it was anchored in firm security. "The issue of withdrawing operational command was never raised lest it should burden the Korea-U.S. alliance," Kim's national security advisor said. But this government acts as if things will be just dandy even if our security is ruined, in the same spirit that informed President Roh Moo-hyun’s remark during his candidacy that if only South-North Korea relations improve, the rest will take care of itself. Once the handover of operational control gets underway, do they intend to accept all other North Korean demands? Will they scrap the National Security Law, redraw the Northern Limit Line, the sea extension of the armistice line, and throw out the U.S. Forces Korea?

Then there is Seo Joo-seok, the senior presidential secretary for national security. "Since the U.S. idea of transferring operational control in 2009 is also reasonable, we'll negotiate flexibly," Seo said Friday. The president said early last month Korea could exercise sole troop control “even now.” At about the same time, the defense minister in a letter asked his U.S. counterpart not to hand it over until 2012, but was told to take it back in 2009. That is why the presidential secretary is talking about a “compromise.”

We should exercise sole control of our troops when they are capable of overwhelming a threat from the North, and no sooner. But in terms of that delicate judgment, the supreme commander of the armed forces, Roh Moo-hyun, says 2007 would be fine; the defense minister says not before 2012; and the presidential security advisor says 2012 is correct but 2009 is also nice. They are talking about national security as if they were haggling in the market.

The only sane government organization is the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses. In a report to the Foreign Ministry late last year, it said North Korea is still superior to South Korea militarily. “Though it is short of capability to unify the country through a total war, North Korea has the capability and means to use its military strength politically through limited provocations," it added. That is tantamount to saying the president, defense minister and presidential security advisor are lying when they say our deterrence of the North will remain intact even if we solely exercise operational control between now and 2012.

An artificial deadline for the handover risks creating the impression in the U.S. that the alliance is useless, the report says. In the absence of assured trust, the handover “could be regarded as a virtual dissolution of the alliance." The report accurately predicts the present situation, where the U.S. is thinking about withdrawing its forces from Korea, shifting from an assessment that the North Korean military threat is clear, present and enduring to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s remark this week that there isn’t much of a threat at all. But the presidential security advisor assures us the USFK will stay and the Korea-U.S. alliance will not crack.

Forty-eight million South Koreans have entrusted their country to a bunch of lunatics who play football with its security.

YManchun
QUOTE(northwestern_student @ Sep 1 2006, 11:11 AM) *

this is what chosun ilbo had to say about it. i guess it's better to leave the military matters in the hands of professionals, not politicians.


Exactly, as I've said multiple times on this forum, the hands of national security should be under professional's and expert's control; not amateurs and idiots.

Anyways, a related pic. I have no photoshop skills whatsoever; so this will do.

IPB Image
flower pig
QUOTE(KJlost @ Sep 1 2006, 10:27 AM) *
The US government also shares lot of the blame in the deterioration of the alliance because of their inflexible response to changing South Korean demands.


Really? SOFA has been re-negotiated twice in the last 10 years with another round of negotiations going now. I wonder then why so many Koreans are unaware of any of the significant changes which were made, in reponse to SK demands. I wonder why so many don't know about the many apologies made, and money paid by, the US government after the school girls incident.

The answer is the media and politicians, both of which do more than just exploit anti-American feelings; they actively fuel them and use lies, innuendo, and misinformation to do so. I mean, the atmosphere is now such that Korea losing a sports match is put by many in the same category as dead schoolgirls.

Being the superpower means we are damned if do, damned if we don't. Yes, we gave support for Park and Chun's dictatorships, and we get blamed for it. On the other hand, if we had given them no support and withdrawn our troops, we would have been blamed if there had been another war. So I say, if you want our troops, that is great, but if you want to bash us in the press and not speak up when people tell lies about us and burn our flag in the streets... that's great too, just don't expect our troops to stick around.
PervertBurger
NK could whoop SK and Seoul would fall or at least be heavily damaged.
Mua
QUOTE(PervertBurger @ Sep 3 2006, 08:38 PM) *

NK could whoop SK and Seoul would fall or at least be heavily damaged.

you are talking from experience right? idiot.
PervertBurger
QUOTE(Mua @ Sep 3 2006, 02:26 PM) *

you are talking from experience right? idiot.


Whats up with the name calling? You shouldn't take this place too seriously. Opinions are opinions right? Thats my opinion. Don't waste so much energy embarassedlaugh.gif
somegirlsarebiggerthanothers
QUOTE(PervertBurger @ Sep 3 2006, 02:38 PM) *

NK could whoop SK and Seoul would fall or at least be heavily damaged.


yeah Seoul would be heavily damage but I don't think NK would win. Initially they'd probably have some success but they dont have the military infrastructure and equipment needed to sustain a war. South Korea is way more advanced technologically with better equipment and supplies.

some north korean soldiers aren't even being fed enough. i don't think they have much spirit if they're hungry.
Mua
QUOTE(PervertBurger @ Sep 3 2006, 10:09 PM) *

Whats up with the name calling? You shouldn't take this place too seriously. Opinions are opinions right? Thats my opinion. Don't waste so much energy embarassedlaugh.gif

energy? right, lol...this is serious chat, we talk serious here. Youre opinions are groundless, dont put your opinions here without giving any credible reasons.

QUOTE(somegirlsarebiggerthanothers @ Sep 3 2006, 10:21 PM) *

yeah Seoul would be heavily damage but I don't think NK would win. Initially they'd probably have some success but they dont have the military infrastructure and equipment needed to sustain a war. South Korea is way more advanced technologically with better equipment and supplies.

some north korean soldiers aren't even being fed enough. i don't think they have much spirit if they're hungry.

the army is being fed well enough, kim is making sure of that, its the peasants and workers who are starving
jiggyiggy
I had some friends stationed in S. Korea and they said they hated it there, not only were they always working 12 hour shifts, but the a lot of the locals let you know that you weren't welcomed. I can understand people being angry by the rape incident but soldiers like anyone else commit these sorta crimes from time to time even in the states.

The pullout also makes sense because the Cold War is over and NK won'
t be getting any support from China or Russia if it decides to attack SK. A lot of people want a similar pullout from Japan and let the Japanese look after their own defences too. Similar troop withdrawals are also being made in Europe and most of the military's attention is focused on the middle east/central asia.
somegirlsarebiggerthanothers
QUOTE(Mua @ Sep 3 2006, 04:28 PM) *

energy? right, lol...this is serious chat, we talk serious here. Youre opinions are groundless, dont put your opinions here without giving any credible reasons.
the army is being fed well enough, kim is making sure of that, its the peasants and workers who are starving


im currently reading a book that i bought. its regarded as the best book written bout north korea and the kim regime.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312322216

anyway, there are interviews in there with NK defectors who were in the army and they said that high ranking officers are being fed fine but the soldiers are not. they aren't starving but they're not getting the nutrition they need to become combat effective. the NK border guards at the 38th parallel are especially chosen for their height and girth to show that NK soldiers are being fed well but the sad fact is that most of NK soldiers are underweight and not nearly as tall as their southern counterparts.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2009 Invision Power Services, Inc.