Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

China-Japan-Koreas

U.S. Academic Warns of 'Hasty' Troop Control Transfer

2013-10-13

Full operational control of South Korean troops should not be handed over to Seoul in haste and out of political considerations, a U.S. academic says. Michael O'Hanlon, a fellow at the conservative Brookings Institution,

Conservative?

made the recommendation in an article titled "Don't Rush the U.S.-Korea Command Change" on Tuesday.

"In Korea, our preeminent concerns need to be unity of command and effectiveness of our combined deterrent against a still very potent North Korean threat," he said. "Ensuring fair burden-sharing is not the principal prism through which this issue should be viewed."

The original decision was a political one, because then-President Roh Moo-hyun was "playing the nationalism card,' O'Hanlon said, and "found a willing accomplice for the transfer plan in U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who wanted a more expeditionary American global footprint and felt that U.S. forces in Korea were too anchored to the peninsula."

As usual, Mr. Rumsfeld had a good take on the problem...

But he added the current "command arrangements are a remarkable testament to allied effort over the decades If it is to be changed, that should happen carefully and as slowly as military leaders on both sides think prudent."

I think he's arguing for a glacial time scale, or maybe even geological...

He cited the "tragic failed hostage rescue attempt in Iran in 1980" and "roughly a quarter of all American fatalities" from friendly fire in Iraq in 1991 as examples of a "failure of unified command" and poorly coordinated military operations.

"Command structures that are bifurcated or otherwise ambiguous in certain ways can raise the risk of such tragedies in the future," he added.

Easy. Put the South Koreans in charge of defending their country. We can leave air units there to help. But let the ROK bear the burden. That will unify the command in a hurry.

Posted by:Steve White

#6 IMO read, POSSIBLE CHINA-VS-JAPAN/PHIL/ASEAN/
INDIA IN VERY NEAR FUTURE.

Lest we fergit, BENCHMARK YEAR 2018 ...
> 1990'S SINO-RUSSIAN "WAR AGZ THE US IS NOT ONLY POSSIBLE BUT DESIRED".

Russia = perhaps as early as 2016-2017 NLT 2022
China = perhaps as early as 2014, i.e. FYI AKA THIS YEAR???

> US GMD-TMD set up among Amer's East Asian allies, espec in NE Asia.
> US' ALLIES EXPRESS DESIRE TO DEV OR ACQUIRE THEIR OWN NUKES ["China fears"].
> POTUS OBAMA = Perts, MSM-Net-labeled "WEAKEST US PRESIDENT SINCE JIMMY CARTER", OR "WORSE THAN CARTER".

POTUS OBAMA "DOING A SYRIA" IN EAST ASIA = CHINA WINS, LIKE IRAN + SYRIA'S BABY ASSAD???

Posted by: JosephMendiola 2013-10-13 20:33

#5 Well gents, if tea party = extreme right wing, than Brookings etc...

Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2013-10-13 13:59

#4 You bet. I had rewire my jaw...

Posted by: Steve White 2013-10-13 13:58

#3 I'm still trying to get over the "conservative" Brookings Institution remark.

Posted by: Pappy 2013-10-13 13:04

#2 Oliver North once quoted a Col in the SKOR army. The Col suggested the US troops back off the line and let them finish the war.

Posted by: BrerRabbit 2013-10-13 08:27

#1 OR we can buy off the little fat bastard with a boatload of expensive Whiskey and perfume.

Posted by: Spereting Tingle4064 2013-10-13 05:16

00:00