You'll go where and do what? Korean government protests US 8th Army commander's statements on possible future USFK regional role

At a press conference Tuesday, 8th army commander Lt. Gen. Charles C. Campbell talked about potential future roles for the USFK. Here is the Chosun Ilbo's version of it:

Campbell said the future Korea-US alliance should be based on cooperation, just like Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon has said. Campbell said in the 21st century, the range of operations [of Korea-U.S. allied forces] could be expanded to cover the Northeast Asia region. He said allied forces could carry out humanitarian support and peace keeping operations within the Northeast Asia region.

I wish I had a transcript of that part of the news conference, because the Korean government's reaction was swift and strong:

A core government official said Thursday, "Right after Gen. Campbell uttered those statements, a high-ranking Korean government official protested to USFK saying, 'Gen. Campbell's statement contain much basis for misunderstandings and are mistaken'... After making our protests, USFK explained, "[Campbell] just pointed to a hypothetical path of development."

The official said, "From our position, because of China, peacekeeping activities in Northeast Asia and USFK serving as a mobile Northeast Asian strike force are burdensome... We are now considering plans stipulating systemic provisions for the U.S. to deliberate with out government prior to sending USFK anywhere."

Another government official said, "USFK exists for defense on the Korean Peninsula, and while the North Korean nuclear crisis isn't being resolved, how can one talk of changes in the character of USFK?" He added, "Gen. Campbell might have to take responsibility for what he said."

Like the true red-meat right-winger I am, I always like to back my side but I think the Korean government has a point here. After all, its called USFK, not USFNEA. Yes, the alliance promotes regional stability but it promotes it by keeping the Norks in check. As long as the North Koreans are a threat, I think that there is no reason to go looking for other things for the USFK to do. If/when North Korea is no longer a threat to regional stability, then I think the days of the USFK will be numbered anyhow, so there still wouldn't be any reason to to look for a new USFK role.

I also want to go back to something that was said by one official:

"From our position, because of China, peacekeeping activities in Northeast Asia and USFK serving as a mobile Northeast Asian strike force are burdensome... We are now considering plans stipulating systemic provisions for the U.S. to deliberate with out government prior to sending USFK anywhere."

Right now, most people would agree that there are two potential flash points for a war in Northeast Asia: Korea and China-Taiwan. In those facts, there is a dilemma for Korea. They want the USFK around for a potential conflict with North Korea but they fear what would happen in the event of a Chinese attack on Taiwan. The Koreans fear that if the US supported Taiwan, then the USFK bases in Korea could be subject to attack by China, even more so if the Chinese thought that USFK troops might be directly redeployed in support of Taiwan.

For those reasons I think that Gen. Campbell's statements were ill-advised, even if he were speaking hypothetically. If the US wants a force that can quickly be sent to anywhere in Asia, then I would suggest that the 2ID be redeployed to Guam.

Comments

[Scott-in-Japan]

Was Campbell saying this to provide support to Taiwan? In light of China's most recent poo-pooing of Taiwan (and it's President), was Campbell's statement a quick way to say to China 'back atcha'?

[The Yangban]

Scott,

It's possible, but I think that he was just thinking out loud.

I wish I had the transcripts. That would tell a lot.

[Sperwer]

I get to see and talk to Boomer every now and then, so I'll ask him what he actually said next time I see him.

In the meantime, as an increasingly sanguinary conservative myself, I think it's important to bear in mind that the first three letters in USFK are USF - United States Forces. This is our nation's blood and treasure that's being put on the line here, and (frankly) if our national interests warrant doing so, we shouldn't have the least hesitation in pulling our irons out of Korea and putting them to work where they will serve our national interests best - whether that's Iraq or as part of a NE Asian regional security force. If that means changing a letter in an acronym, well..... After all, Korea isn't shy about asserting its self-interest in every issue involving the alliance. In fact,it's self-indulgent whingeing is getting exasperating. If it wants to be treated on an equal footing in foreign affiars/security matters, it's going to have to start both shouldering the full cost of its own defense without complaint and taking up invitations like Campbell's to be a player in the gigger ponds to the extent that it is able.

As for Korean complaints about the "burdensomeness" of such an arrangment and their incipient demands for prior consultation (veto?), do they expect to be taken seriously given their rhetoric of "independence" and "equality" in the US/ROK relationship and the pusillanimity of shameful delays in dispatching 3000 men to Iraq after promising to do so?

Campbell in effect has challenged them to walk the walk. And I think we're going to see more and more of this from the US vis-a-vis Korea given Korea's status as the world's 12th largest economy, especially if Korea keeps whingeing about it's pride and honor.

[jtb]

How dare he make them think about standing up on their own two feet? That would force them to choose finally, publicly, and for the foreseeable future about Uni on the Dear Fatboy's terms...

[anonamous 1]

I have recently read on the internet that there are various types of psychological operations all around the world. They are also being conducted in democratic countries but there are no policies known by the public about these operations and psychological research.

How can a country be democratic if its conducting secret psychological research on its own citizens?

Is that citizen in the wrong democracy?