US pulling troops out of DMZ

[Almighty Colin]

US pulling troops out of North Korean "demilitarized zone". Will station them further South.

[Ironhorse]

Smart move. I guess they don't want to get overrun again

[Mike AI]

Yeah, very smart.... no one wants to be a speed bump.

Being put back is a good thing, would give time for us to mobilize but more importantly bring our airpower in.

[PornoDoggy]

Mike, the distance we are falling back is fairly insignificant as far as "giving us more time to mobilize", and won't make much of a difference as far as air power goes either.

What it WILL do is reduce the possibility that some incident short of an invasion along the DMZ will involve Americans, which could get quite ugly quite fast in view of the tensions right now. Some South Koreans fear that such a move could make the North Koreans MORE likely to cause incidents; others take a even more cynical view, and wonder if/fear that we are trying to disengage enough that we can make a deal with the North Koreans that may not have South Korean interests in mind.

[JR]

I love it when PD whips out that Liberal optimism to spread a little sunshine.

[PornoDoggy]

The source of much of my information for my first post was stratfor.com, a firm that prepares commercial intelligence summaries. The founder of the company has been a guest on Lou Dobb's Moneyline, on several MSNBC shows, and is generally about as liberal as Torone AI, er, Mike.

Besides, a doctrinaire liberal response to Colins original post would read something like

"The war pigs are not pulling back far enough. They should all be brought back to the United States and be given jobs in organic farming; the money spent for weapons should be redirected to developing tofu for everyone. If we can just UNDERSTAND the North Koreans, karma will return to pastel colors and all will be well."

I personally think it's a good idea for the first reason I gave - "reduce the possibility that some incident short of an invasion along the DMZ will involve Americans."

[Ironhorse]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jun 6 2003, 10:32 AM
I personally think it's a good idea for the first reason I gave - "reduce the possibility that some incident short of an invasion along the DMZ will involve Americans."

That's a very good point Porndoggy, I wonder though if it weren't in US interest to get N Korea foaming at the mouth and spilling into S Korea thus giving another Coalition of the Willling a good excuse to take care of that pesky dynasty? After all that exactly what happened last time and it's likely what's needed to get UN approval for military action.

Given adminstration resume and portfolio I think this scenario is more likely.



Last edited by Ironhorse at Jun 6 2003, 01:58 PM

[PornoDoggy]

I think it's fairly safe to say I don't have a very high regard for the Bush Administration, but I think that's even too cynical a view even for them. Huge numbers of South Koreans would be in grave danger in the event of any kind of hostilities - and you'd have to be pretty cold-blooded to risk the destruction of the capital of an ally for such a purpose.

Remember, too, that part of pulling our forces further South will take some political pressure off South Korea. One of the bases that will be closed is the one in downtown Seoul that attracts so much attention.

[JR]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jun 6 2003, 12:02 PM
Huge numbers of South Koreans would be in grave danger in the event of any kind of hostilities - and you'd have to be pretty cold-blooded to risk the destruction of the capital of an ally for such a purpose.

Huge numbers of South Koreans are not in danger now? they have been in danger since the 1950's.

The choices seem to be really ugly PD and i dont think that there are any good solutions to solve the problem there. Nuclear blackmail is an ugly thing. Stalinist regimes killing their own people is an ugly thing. Facing the problem is always a lose/lose situation politically no matter who is in power unless the N Korean government decides to do a 180. Had Clinton bombed the reactors in 93/94 the world would have been screaming about that too.


Japan has made some pretty strong statements recently and so has S Korea and China. It seems that the preferred course of action is going to be steady and consistent pressure combined with continued isolation.

It seems pretty hopeless on the diplomatic front since there is not exactly a North Korean opposition party favoring a democratic transition. instead, there is a long list of generals commanding the 4th largest army in the world in what looks very much to be a do or die situation.

the question in my mind is ... "do we want them to have nuclear weapons"
i think we all agree on the answer

preventing it from happening is certainly going to be dangerous and scary.
not preventing it from happening can be much worse.

if the situation is dangerous now... it will be much more dangerous when they finish processing 8000 spent fuel rods for nuclear bombs.

[PornoDoggy]

"Huge numbers of South Koreans are not in danger now? they have been in danger since the 1950's."

I don't disagree at all. My comment was directed only at Ironhorse's suggestion that the troop relocation was some sort of move on part of the Bush Administration to provoke a confrontation - as if they are offering the South Korean capital as some form of bait for the North Koreans.

[Buff]

They need to pull the troops back even further, like all the way back home to the USA. Get them out of Japan too. Let the Japs, South Koreans, and Chinese worry about North Korea. Of course the Chinese won't be too worried.

Also get our troops out of Europe.

[Ironhorse]

There is no way the current US garrison in Korea can stop the North Korean army if it decides to attack, that's a paper tiger army. The smart general lets the fight come to him, defensive/counter-offensive operations have proven throughout history to be at an advantage. The only way to put more troops on the peninsula without global riots is if it's in response to an agression.



Last edited by Ironhorse at Jun 6 2003, 07:23 PM

[PornoDoggy]

First of all, I don't think the current Admininstration would give a fine flying fuck about "global riots" over us putting more troops in South Korea.

There is the pesky little fact that South Korea is a soverign nation and probably hasn't asked for the troops, nor would they be very happy about us forcefuly expressing our desire to have them ask for it. They would likely point out - quite correctly - that North Korea would regard it as a deliberate provocation and act accordingly. Since they have neither Muslims nor oil, and are a democratic nation, I don't see how there is much we can do about that.

As far as "The smart general lets the fight come to him, defensive/counter-offensive operations have proven throughout history to be at an advantage." - true statement in the abstract, without the least bit of relevance to the Korean situation. Not a very good place to pick a war. Particularly bad situation to pick a war to prevent nuclear proliferation in view of what the military contingency plans for a war in that theater have consisted of since at least the early 1960s, if not before.

I would HOPE that those of you who can read will realize I haven't said we should never use military force in Korea. I think that those fine folks caught up in the enthusiasm of the military victory in Iraq and the appearance of victory in Afghanistan would do well to consult a map, Jane's Fighting Forces, and a strong dose of reality before they assume that a military option similar to Iraq exists in Korea.