U.S. Troops Pulled South in Korea

[Timber Loftis]

Damn those imperialist US bastards. How dare they abandon their post as world's policeman.

Ahem... I mean: "Damned if you do, damned if you don't."

Oh, lookee, with this post I suddenly became a trio of muppets. One more and I'm gonna start a barbershop quartet. (Good riddance to horrible surprised-looking Apophis avatar!)

[ 06-06-2003, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Rimjaw]

Originally posted by Ryanamur: From a strategic point it makes no sense. By having US Forces close to the DMZ, the reds cannot fire artillery without prompt and immediate (and excessive) repreasal from the US. If US troops are stationed too far behind the lines: 1- they are no longer an effective immediate deterent 2- they cannot return fire effectively 3- they cannot take part in the conflict as they were not attacked (well they can, but it's going to be a much harder sell... and after Irak, the world will want clear-cut proof before it accepts US involvement) and the list goes on. The bottom line is that US troop are like foam on top of a gazoline leak... it prevents the explosion.

1 - As long as US Forces are still deployed in South Korea they would still be a deterrent. Maybe the saber rattling would be less loud compared to being deployed near the DMZ but this would be for the greater good because......

2 - Stationing troops outside of artillery and rocket range would prevent units from becoming decisively engaged along the border. The North Korean military is deployed for offensive operations, not defensive. Having in-theater troops in position to not be decisively engaged in the opening hours of a war, allows them to take offensive initiative and strike north at a place and time of their choosing.

3 - If North korea invades, a major US ally would be under attack and futhermore US interests would be threatened. I don't see what why it would be so hard to take part in the conflict. The Gulf was a totally different thing, that was a US led invasion of Iraq.

[ 06-06-2003, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: Rimjaw ]

[Ryanamur]

Originally posted by Rimjaw: quote: Originally posted by Ryanamur: Originally posted by Rimjaw: [qb] From a tactical viewpoint it actually makes some senese. Stationing them so close to the DMZ puts them within range of North Korean artillery fire. If the Reds did attempt to launch an invasion, US Forces would be the first to get hit and likely suffer major losses. From a strategic point it makes no sense. By having US Forces close to the DMZ, the reds cannot fire artillery without prompt and immediate (and excessive) repreasal from the US. ...

OK, people seem to be missing the point:

"With US troops very close to the DMZ, North Korea will not launch an attack because the risk of repraisal is too great."

Rimjaw, it would be more like the 1st Gulf War...personally I see the second gulf war as just finishing the first properly.

[Attalus]

Hey, look what I started. I think it makes sense to leave troops in SK, but not on the DMZ. Maybe if there is increased skirmishing, the nti-Americans will realize what we have been doing for them. But, I doubt it. Next time they have an antiwar rally, they can remember where the next war might be, and what happened the last time NK invaded SK - Seoul was occupied.

[Ryanamur]

Originally posted by MagiK: Rimjaw, it would be more like the 1st Gulf War...personally I see the second gulf war as just finishing the first properly.

Actually, no, it wouldn't be like the 1st Gulf War. Irak was alone with no backing of the Security Council. North Korea is a strong ally of China, and you can rest assured that China would veto anything coming through the Security Council... even if it meant going to war with the US.

That's were the problem is. In the 50's we couldn't finish the job in Korea because China got involved. Do you believe it would be any different now?

By removing yourself from the front line, you actually open the way to 2 things:

1- North Korea, with China's backing can start hostilities without fear of immediately pulling the US in.

2- South Korea might do something totally stupid, like launch a preamptive strike, which would totally KILL any argument the US might have in gaining UN support.


The problem here is that the Bush administration fails to recognize the importance of North Korea in US foreign interests... again, another thread of it's own.

[Djinn Raffo]

Ryanamur, China is trying to move forwards not backwards. If N. Korea tries any shit you can be sure that the Chinese will not be very supportive of their N. Korean friends.

[Timber Loftis]

I disagree that China would back N.K. to its own disadvantage vis-a-vis the US. Current Chinese diplomatic actions certainly refute this. China has learned to enjoy a favorable balance of trade with the US too much. Money talks, BS walks, and all that.

Originally posted by Ryanamur: Actually, no, it wouldn't be like the 1st Gulf War. Irak was alone with no backing of the Security Council. North Korea is a strong ally of China, and you can rest assured that China would veto anything coming through the Security Council... even if it meant going to war with the US. Like the 1st gulf war in the sense that it would be the USA going to war against a nation that attacked an ally of the USA That's were the problem is. In the 50's we couldn't finish the job in Korea because China got involved. Do you believe it would be any different now? By removing yourself from the front line, you actually open the way to 2 things: 1- North Korea, with China's backing can start hostilities without fear of immediately pulling the US in. 2- South Korea might do something totally stupid, like launch a preamptive strike, which would totally KILL any argument the US might have in gaining UN support. The problem here is that the Bush administration fails to recognize the importance of North Korea in US foreign interests... again, another thread of it's own.

For insight to the rest of this re: China...see Timber Loftis' post. I think he hit it on the head.

[Ryanamur]

Originally posted by MagiK: [For insight to the rest of this re: China...see Timber Loftis' post. I think he hit it on the head.

I don't know man. I'm a bit reluctant to apply a westernized way of thinking to an Asian nation. Granted, if we were talking about Canada, the USA, France, UK, Germany (maybe even Russia), I could see it. But from China, I doubt it.

One thing for sure: History always repeats itself... I don't care how you look at it, it always does.

Anyway, to go back to the original topic. I think that US forces closer to the DMZ would provide much more stability to the region than simply moving them closer to Seoul. At least they didn't just pull out!!!