|
|
 |
 |
Nov 16, 2003
You gotta love the Korean press...
The U.S. has threatened to move the two headquarters to Osan-Pyongtaek if sufficient land, about one thirds of the current size, is not allotted to them.
Either they scream how the US bastards are demaning to keep too much of the base or they are running away from their committment in Seoul.
Thankfully, or maybe not, I've only read one person over the last few months who said why the US has to keep some troops in Seoul ---- because without a few thousand Americans in the crowded capital, American blood, so the theory goes, would not die in the initial bombardment of Seoul by the North Koreans, and thus the Americans might take the opportunity to pull out of Korea altogether, especially after they started the war with a limited strike on the North.
I'm sorry I don't have the link to the commentary by a former Korean ministry official who laid out this idea said to be flowing around the Korean government.
But, after reading the paragraphy above, I thought, "Aren't their plans to move the central government administration buildings out of Seoul already???"
Posted at 02:54 am by koreasojourner
Nov 15, 2003
I won't commit often on US issues beyond Korea, but I have to wonder how in the world America made it through WWII, through Korea, through so long in Vietnam???
A week or so ago, the swing in the media was people coming back from Iraq saying the situation on the ground was much better than the media was portraying. (The US media. I'm sure in Europe they were saying the US media was only painting a rosy picture).
Now, the sky is falling.
I have been disgusted with the media throughout the 1990s and increasingly so, because the news value has been lost.
What happened to investigative reporting? 60 Minutes backing off a story on the tobacco companies a few years ago is just one sign of the death of real journalism.
News in the US has become pop corn or cotton candy journalism. It is shallow and with a short attention span.
Anyway, back to Iraq, the war began when? And how long did major fighting take place?
For myself, I'm THRILLED......thrilled beyond belief......no gas or biological or other chemical weapons were used! That seemed like a real almost 50/50 posibility before the war began.
I was also worried about a few months......M-O-N-T-H-S.......of bloody street to street fighting through the larger Iraqi cities, especially Bagahdad.
I was afraid both for the Iraqis and the US, because I figured the fear of US deaths would case a go slow approach where we blasted street by street away before sending too many troops down it, thus causing a much higher civilian death rate.
But what happened? The war was over before anybody seriously considered with less death and destruction on both sides than anybody ever expected.
But the media has moved on from hinting at a quagmire with any perceived set back in the actual war to saying we are in a quagmire with each pro-Hussein or insurgent strike....
Its too short sighted....
For Pete's sake, we're still in Bosnia!
We're still sitting in South Korea! We still have training deaths in Korea!!
Of course security needs to improve in Iraq, but who in the world thought Iraq was going to be a peaceful, no attacks what-so-ever place ---- at this point in the timeline ---- before military action took place?
Who in their right mind could possibly be saying Iraq should have already been completely pacified by now!?!?
But that isn't what they are saying, is it?
No......that is the slick-ness of the media and pundits (I guess like myself) these days.....
When you hear people saying the Bush administration didn't have a plan for post-Iraq construction and each new attack there proves it.....
they aren't about to unveil for your years a logical, realistic plan of their own that shows how they would have already pacified all of Iraq or how they could do it if in power right now.....
No.....you won't hear a plan out of them altogether.
---big sigh---
This isn't a political issue for me. I'm not beating up on the press and others because I want to defend Bush.
I was neutral on Iraq before the war. I hated the no-fly zones as bullshit politician's non-answer answer. They were meant to protect the ethnic groups north and south. But if we cared that much about them, we should have finished the first war in Iraq.
But what would have happened if we removed the no-fly zones and those groups had been attacked and slaughtered???
I was not against the war in Iraq, because I figured we'd have to fight them one day in the future anyway. Hussein or his sons or group were not going to lose power. Eventually, the no-fly zones and sanctions would have to be lifted. And it was most probable he would attack a neighbor, because he still had regional ambitions.
And if he moved for Saudi Arabia, ever industrial nation on earth would have told the UN (read US) "you have to stop this aggression!" because of ---- yes ---- oil.
But most of all, right now, what drives me nuts is how people either pretend war is a Sunday morning football day ---- something that should begin after church and end around 11 PM the same day ---- or they are really stupid enough to believe it is within the power of even the world's most powerful nation to pacify a nation like Iraq virtually overnight.
And to close, one thing I can't get through my thick skull is why the media is so obsessed with "how slow" and "poorly" things are going in Iraq.....
when they have Afghanistan right over there to look at.
Things in Iraq are like Christmas compared to Afghanistan.
The chances of ultimate success in Iraq right now are 1,000,000 to 1 compared to Afghanistan.
There has been some progress in Afghanistan, but it is by far still a very uphill climb there and a big fat mess.
I would not bet any of my money Afghanistan won't still be a huge problem in 10 years.
But I'd take out a loan from the mob to bet Iraq will be much better off. Posted at 12:33 am by koreasojourner
Nov 13, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38195-2003Nov13.html
Last month, South Korea proposed sending a contingency of about 3,000 peacekeepers to Iraq, which would be the third-largest foreign force after the United States and Britain. U.S. officials, however, have been pressuring Seoul to significantly increase that number and, more importantly, to include combat forces.
As recently as Wednesday, Defense Ministry officials in South Korea had suggested that they were prepared to comply with the U.S. request to send a force that included infantry. The United States keeps 37,000 troops here as a deterrent to North Korea.
But with the South Korean government facing increasing domestic resistance to the occupation, Yoon Tae Young, Roh's spokesman, said that Seoul was not inclined to send combat troops. The president's intention was for South Korean peacekeepers to "focus on assisting rehabilitation while leaving security to Iraqi police and military," he said.
I have a good idea for the US.
I can't decide if Roh is really stupid enough to believe "I'll send 3,000 non-combat forces and let the Iraqis provide the protection of them" or not.
He could be counting on the US to either reject South Korea's offer outright or the US will provide for the security forces needed to protect the 3,000 or less SK non-combatants earmarked for Iraq.
So what can the US do?
I would tell them this ---- Thank you for the troops. We are a little worried how they will survive under "Iraqi supplied" security forces. We along with the Brits and smaller contingents are already spread thin.
We can't protect 3,000 Korean non-combatants with our existing forces. Many of them need to be rotated out after being in Iraq for a long time.
Wow on US! What can we do?!
Oh.......I've got it!!..... Along with the 3,000 South Korean non-coms, we'll take 5,000 to 10,000 of our well trained security forces out of Korea too!!
They are already familiar with working with Koreans. They maintain a high state of readiness in Korea due to the North Korea threat.
They are perfect troops to work with the 3,000 Koreans in Iraq!!
We can use some from the Yongsan garrison and other bases USFK has earmarked for consolidation and relocation.
Hasn't Korea been demanding the US get out of its crowed cities and expensive real estate?
I think this would work for both sides.......if we listen to what they have been saying.....
Posted at 09:47 pm by koreasojourner
ain't that easy....
http://www.nola.com/newsflash/international/index.ssf?/base/international-3/1068719641119490.xml
I don't want troops in South Korea - for a variety of reasons. It is dangerous. The Cold War is over. There is no sense getting into a pissing contest over Korea with China in Cold War II. Japan is a better strategic defensive position. And most of all, SK has a culture of hate for the troops and they can afford to man and pay for their own defense against North Korea -- a dangerous but pitifully poor and starving nation kept alive, in large part, but South Korea.
Having said that....I'm not crossing my fingers.....even with all the talk of the last year or so.
He has questioned, for example, why the 37,000 U.S. forces stationed in South Korea cannot be more readily available for use beyond the Korean peninsula. They have stood guard near the Demilitarized Zone separating South Korea from communist North Korea since the end of the Korean War in 1953.
Washington and Seoul have been negotiating for months on details of a plan to consolidate U.S. bases in South Korea. That is a lengthy, two-phase process that the Bush administration believes can substantially shrink the U.S. force there — possibly cutting it by as many as 12,000 troops.
Rumsfeld would not discuss any numbers. Addressing only the broad policy goal, he said the hope is to move away from arrangements not suitable for current security challenges like fighting terrorism.
"That requires much more agility, it requires access to a larger number of locations" for U.S. forces globally and it requires moving away from static defenses, he said. In this context Rumsfeld did not specifically mention Korea, but by almost any definition the U.S. defense there is static.
Well, that is true for the US needs, but in reality, South Korea is still locked in a serious Cold War.
Even if they won't admit it publically or even to themselves these days.
South Korea doesn't have to worry much about China or Russia paying for another Northern adventure, so it technically should be able to defend itself with its dominance in people, industry, and wealth, (and why not say US air power as well)...
But we all know SK will never pay for it. Not because they believe the North doesn't warrant the expense due to its threat level....
but because they will demand the US pay for it by keeping USFK in place.
If the US tries to take troops out, South Korea will scream bloody murder. And many people, including many in the US, will listen to them.
They have a point of sorts. A somewhat legitimate line of argument --- but one that covers up the fact they can defend themselves..
The argument goes something like, "You divided us into two nations and helped arm us to the teeth. It was also fine for you to stay here as long as it suited your national geopolitical economic advantage, but now that your threat is gone, you will leave us to face a madman with WMD and awesome firepower!!"
Of course, for those of us who watch Korea, we would expect God to make SK's head explode for making such a huge whopping 180 degree turn around ------ in short, having to admit they fear the North greatly and use this fear against the US ---- after at least 5 years of saying the North was wonderful and the US should cool its "hardline" policy and accept the nicer and friendlier Pyongyang regime......
But the argument will still sell well in much of the world.
You also have to plug in the Japan Fear Factor ---- for some reason I have never understood, many experts take it for granted leaving Korea will mean leaving Japan.
I highly doubt it. Rumsfeld mentioned realignment in Japan as well, but I think it is a very safe bet even if we leave Korea and pull some troops out of Japan, the bulk will stay there.
We will not want to leave East Asia altogether.
And more importantly, nobody will want to see Japan rearm into a world class military their economy can support, including much of the Japanese people.
So there will be much pressure abroad to "not abandon" South Korea. And it will be a political factor at home.
It is far, far from clear to me that reason will NOT win -----
That the US government and/or people will decide that heavily industrialized and fatanstically wealthy (compared to the North) South Korea can easily provide 95% of its own defense with an offer of US air cover in the event North Korea invades...
will not be the conclusion the American people will be led to accept....
I think it is more likely the "abandoning" Korea idea will win and the troops will stay.
The power of the status quo is heavy --- especially when we will have South Korea pleading and yelling for troops to stay and laying a heavy guilt trip on the US which many in government and the experts in the US will agree despite efforts by the contemporary military and Bush administration.
The only way our politicians will bypass the political difficulties in taking our troops out will be if the American people become energized by the reality of South Korea's power and what they have been doing for far more than a decade....
But I can't see that happening.......
But I do believe with this kind of thing.......with the way the US-SK alliance has been and the environment in East Asia as a whole....
if the wind does change direction.........it will increase to hurricane strength fast.....
What I mean is......there is a boat load or two of very recent history in the US-SK alliance that ---- if the American people really understood -------- would lead to US troops being pulled in a heart beat.....
In short, the best thing South Korea has going for it is the almost complete ignorance of the American people about our committment there.
As long as significant numbers of US politicians, the State Department, academic experts, and the media continue to find it too difficult to "bash" South Korea ----- feeling squeemish about showing anti-Americanism and the nature of the US-SK alliance ----
the "abandoning" Korea idea will win. In fact, I expect people in the above named social sectors of the US will be co-champions of this idea with the South Korean people.
But if they don't, for some reason, or if some others are able to get out in print and video the recent history, what these groups have a tendancy to say won't matter.
We saw a brief little glimpse of this at the very start of 2003 when most of the US media got half a clue about the anti-Americanism so rampant in 2002 in South Korea.
But the media coverage was shallow - not passing beyond the contemporary demonstrations, and the US-SK alliance was firmly protected by the usual crowd of media, academic experts, former State Department and government people, and the US military and Korean government.
And if what was going on throughout most of 2002 couldn't get American society to focus on details in South Korea, I don't know what would.....????....
So to sum up ---- I don't think the right combination of will, determination, and public support will be around to see US troops pull out of South Korea anytime in the near future.
Too many elements will work against it.
Posted at 04:03 am by koreasojourner
Nov 12, 2003
The Attack on the Italians
A comment by a member of the Iraqi governing council on the attack against the Italians yesterday said exactly what I was thinking concerning what the South Koreans are talking about in sending troops.
The man said that the Hussein loyalists and insurgents are putting tension on the chain to find the weak links, then attack them.
So with the US and British troops having the experience and resources to adjust and put forward force to protect their soldiers, places like the UN areas and Red Cross and now Italian troops are hit as well as the less experienced and equiped Iraqi para-military forces.
And now the Roh administration is paying more attention to Korean politics / and US requests / than the situation on the ground in Korea..
They sent two "fact finding missions" which have led incredibly to Roh asking to send several thousand "non-combatants" who would need protection by other forces just like the 600 non-coms have been by the Italians.
Today, we heard Roh is considering sending 50/50 combat troops and non-coms.
Politics. Stupid, stupid, stupid politics.
Don't send the troops!
Don't send them if you aren't going to send enough to do the job --- which was supposed to be securing an area of Iraq.
And for God's sake, please don't send them if you aren't going to provide enough fire power to defend themselves....
Maybe SK has some confidence that if they don't provide enough combat troops, the US will figure out a way to make up the difference by either providing the necessary secruity with American troops or other coalition partners.
Posted at 03:35 pm by koreasojourner
Something Marmot (main site linked to the left) wrote today hit on something in my mind these last couple of weeks.
If you ever wanted to see how politics gets soldiers killed, you should watch what South Korea is doing right now.
Even I can see it, and I've never been a soldier.
The Roh administration tried to please those opposed to the Iraq war by sending "non-combatants" (translate "good guys") instead of combat units.
Of course, it satisfied nobody.
The idea was to free up US soldiers by South Korea leading a group to secure an area of Iraq for the Iraqis.
The idea was *NOT* to send a group of Koreans that would require the US (or somebody) to use up more combat troops to secure THEM --- which would be more difficult to do for several thousand "non-combatants" than the 600 Korea sent before.
Nor was the idea to send Koreans as target practice for the Hussein loyalists....
So now, from what Marmot noted, the US has said "No" to taking on several thousand Korean non-combatants...
The Roh administration is again trying to "split the difference" between what the Americans want (and as Marmot notes what Koreans who desire "influence" in global affairs want) and those anti-American elements in the guise of pacifists who are fighting the dispatch want.
They are trying to fudge around the numbers between how many "non-combatants" and combat soldiers they will send to Iraq.
It seems right now they are trying to keep it at 50/50.
This is how people get killed through politics.
The first criteria for sending troops should be whether they can get the job designed done or not.
The second should be whether they have enough force to protect themselves while doing the job.
If neither of those two can be met, for whatever reasons, the troops should stay home.
Korea is steadily heading down the road to sending its soldiers into a hostile area without the ability to protect themselves much less securing an area of Iraq for the Iraqi people.
It is natural soldiers will die in a combat zone, but they are not supposed to be die because politicians tie their hands and send them places without adequate forethought for the MILITARTY situation....
because they are too fixated on the POLITICAL one......
Posted at 12:21 am by koreasojourner
Nov 11, 2003
Just a quick reflection as we near the end of another year --
I never considered myself a chest-thumping patriot, by any means, until I travelled abroad, and I still don't. I have more than a healthy dose of skepticism on everything -- with the exception of my wife --
But one thing has bothered me over the years ....
Why is it people - especially too many in the "educated" class - can so readily recognize the flaws in everything the United States does or comprises...
but have such a hard time seeing the ills in the rest of the world???? Posted at 11:19 pm by koreasojourner
I feel sorry for the migrants in the news these days who aren't getting paid because they will soon be deported.
Usually, I'm not a big fan of illegal immigrants.
The US is a nation of immigrants, and I'm for liberal quotes of new immigrantion from developed and developing and under developed nations all, but I don't like the idea of giving benefits that reward people who broke the law --- especially in consideration for all those who try to follow the rules.
That being said....
my heart does go out for those illegals in Korea who are being robbed.
Mostly because I went through the corrupt hakwon system for years and was robbed and put in some bad situations.
One of my schools didn't pay me more than 50,000 won a week after I arrived when I was promised full air fare. I had to quit shortly after one month when he didn't pay me at all, and I found out the other teacher was owed 4.5 million and the Koreans about 1.2 million a piece.
I lived for three weeks with no hot water, no cooking gas, no phone, and worrying about the landlord showing up and kicking me out of the hole I was living in.
And what is worse, I know these illegal immigrants most likely put up with much worse in their time in Korea than I did those two months.
And now, I bet most of them will end up being deported back to the nations they left desperate to earn money with nothing in their pocket but lent....
I don't support illegal migrant labor, but I also reserve great disgust for businesses that exploit such labor. Whether it is Wal-Mart or a Korean sweat shop.
I don't blame Korea for deporting these people, but the workers damn sure should get paid and have the legal ability to fight for their back wages.....just as I wish I had as a legal worker getting screwed in Korea Posted at 06:21 pm by koreasojourner
"We're a third world nation!!! --- agriculturally ---"
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200311/200311110014.html
Chile currently has FTAs with 28 countries, of which Korea is the only trading partner that has been unable to pass its FTA bill (and the only FTA in progress for Korea), due to resistance from farmers and civic groups.
Chile can now understand the life of trading with Korea.
And Korea is starting to feel the effects of its conditioned response to foreign trade long developed through its relationship with the US.
I thought, and there is still a chance, Korea might be able to switch gears in its trade style when dealing with other nations - besides the US.
But it seems not. It seems they are going to apply the same kind of negociating tactics and agreement following they are used to.
At the recent WTO talks, I'm sure some of these nations like Chile didn't walk away with a very good feeling about South Korea when they listened to them say over and over "We're a third world nation....(in agriculture)!"
If Korea keeps dealing with these economically weaker nations the same way it does the US --- and the way it has worked the FTA with Chile ---
it will quickly wear out its welcome in those less developed nations.
The US has conditioned itself to accept South Korea's bullshit over the long years of development and security ties.
China, on the other hand, thumped South Korea hard during the Garlic War --- telling SK if it expected to make hundreds of millions of dollars on high end exports to China, it had damn well better learn to accept some loss in garlic and agriculture.
Chile and other nations South Korea is going to try FTAs with don't have the muscle to twist SK's arm like China.
But once South Korea erodes the relatively good will of these economically smaller nations, Korea will pay the price.
Posted at 12:14 pm by koreasojourner
Nov 7, 2003
The South Kollowing the North?
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200311/200311070013.html
I'm still disappointed with the South sending Hwang to the US then placing two Pyongyang style "minders" with him forcing him to mute his criticism of the North to the point of getting into a Korean-style "scuffle" with the staffers of US Congress people, because "the bastards" wanted to talk to Hwang without the KCIA censoring him.
Pitiful.
My reaction is exactly what one of the people from the defense forum that invited him to Korea --- I thought South Korea was a more mature democracy and nation -- I knew they had their petty insecurities ---- but even after living there for years, I didn't think they were this insecure.
Anyway, today's article linked above is on the troop dispatch issue, and it reminds me of another typical South Korean strategy. And I wonder is it isn't following Pyongyang too.
We've seen with the Yongsan base relocation epic, the South is great about ranting over an issue, sitting down at a table and demanding things, then signing an agreement ------ with no intention of ever fullfilling it.
They have made this a specific feature of USFK-SK relations. How many Yongsan relocation agreements and affirmation of previous agreements have they signed over the years?
How about the other base consolidation and relocation plans signed some time ago?
And now the same strategy with moving 2 ID --- "Oh yeah. That's a good idea. Get your bases out of our metropolitain areas. We agree with that. Just start doing it in some unspecified time in the future we will agree to later....."
And now we see it with the Iraq troop dispatch.
They say they'll send troops, then they want to send noncombatants, but they don't like the idea of having those put under US controll. I wonder how they would feel if we put the 3,000 noncombatants in an area so they can provide their own security??? Makes a lot of sense, no?
Then they want to delay sending them until next April, a half year away, and at some point in that time, for some reason , they'd find a way to push the date further back, and then further back, and then further back....
I guess we could call this strategy the "KEDO" factor.....
Signing agreements that never get off the ground floor but acting surprised when someone else suggests that you admit the reality and "scrap the deal" in name as well as fact.
Posted at 05:47 am by koreasojourner
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
