Submit your comments on this article | ||||
China-Japan-Koreas | ||||
Rethink Plans for Korean Troop Control, U.S. Academics Say | ||||
2010-03-12 | ||||
The decision by the U.S. to hand full operational control of Korean troops to Seoul by 2012 needs to be reconsidered, said Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the conservative Brookings Institution. In an article for the Los Angeles Times headlined "Divide, and be conquered," O'Hanlon on Wednesday points out that once wartime operational control is handed over to Seoul in April 2012 as scheduled, the two countries will have separate command systems. "If the plan is implemented, the long-standing system whereby a U.S. general would command both countries' armed forces in any wartime scenario against North Korea is to be dissolved. Instead, a new approach would have each country in effect command its own military units," he said. "But to my mind, the basic concept of dividing command never made sense and perhaps should even be repudiated."
"Frustrated by South Korea's resistance to various U.S. diplomatic ideas of the time, as well as the difficulty in deploying U.S. forces in Korea elsewhere in a manner that would help with his concept of a more flexible American global military system, Rumsfeld may have seen the idea as a way to weaken and downplay the U.S.-South Korea alliance," he said. "For his part, Roh was anxious to assert Korean prerogatives, especially against a U.S. administration with which he often clashed. So he liked the idea of a plan that would seem to advance South Korean sovereign rights." But he said now presidents Lee Myung-bak and Barack Obama "have established a reasonably solid relationship." "As such, any consideration of a delay in [the handover] -- or even a fundamental rethinking of it -- should be seen as a sign of confidence and maturity in the alliance rather than the opposite," he concluded. Meanwhile, in an article for the Asia Foundation's Center for U.S.-Korea Policy, Bruce Bechtol, a professor of international relations at the U.S. Marine Corps Command and Staff College, also called for a delay of the handover. "It is extremely important to note that while the South Korean military is highly capable of combating a traditional conventional forces threat from North Korea, it is still heavily dependent on the capabilities of the U.S. military to deter and defeat the highly evolved North Korean asymmetric threat," he said. The "asymmetric threat" refers to the North's putative nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
| ||||
Posted by:Steve White |
#6 Anonym, this is from a SKor paper, their grasp of the politics of American think-tanks are clearly a little wonky. And yeah, I'd call the current incarnation of the Brookings Institution neo-liberal if it's anything. Christ, though, this is the most nakedly partisan pile of crap I've ever seen O'Hanlon ever pinch out on the pundit's throne. Transitioning power to the SKors was fine when there was a Republican and a SKor leftist in office, but now that it's a semi-conservative SKor prime minister and the Lightbringer, let's stop that sucker cold? Nerts to that. It makes sense or doesn't make sense, regardless of the personalities. And I'd vote in favor of the SKor lead over this command-by-committee rubbish. |
Posted by: Mitch H. 2010-03-12 15:14 |
#5 The ROKs are more than capable of handing the NORKs with some of our air power for support. The large US force is simply not needed in South Korea anymore. |
Posted by: DarthVader 2010-03-12 13:31 |
#4 "...conservative Brookings Institution...???" Conservative from whose point of view? William Ayers? Angela Davis? Kim Jong Il? |
Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-03-12 09:42 |
#3 The term of reference "asymmetric" has now been replaced in the Joint Pubs by "irregular" warfare. |
Posted by: Besoeker 2010-03-12 03:36 |
#2 If the world doesn't believe that then it doesn't matter who is in command Personally, I'd be a little hesitant to entrust my nation's security to Obama. |
Posted by: SteveS 2010-03-12 02:32 |
#1 Get all the US command structure, etc out away from the DMZ for the most part. Keep some well maintained airfields and USAF down around Pusan, and put REFORGER (REFORKOR?) type stocks there, and keep an active a heavy mech infantry brigade+ in the perimeter. Keep a battalion of stryker infantry as part of the force structure, rotated to the N as a screening force. Avoids having to establish a bridgehead, yet can lift in a full heavy division (plus) within a week (another brigade within a few days), and the USAF can surge to Pusan from Japan, Guam, etc for air superiority. Cheaper, yet nearly as effective. |
Posted by: OldSpook 2010-03-12 00:22 |