Article

2006-08-04 China-Japan-Koreas

S. Korea to get war control over U.S. troops in 3 years

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-08-04 09:18|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Those realities include growing South Korean military capabilities, Seoul's pro-engagement policies toward the communist North, and anti-American sentiments among South Korean leaders.

How about we just very quietly ruck-up and get the PHUECH out? Sixty sum years, should be long enough.

Posted by Besoeker 2006-08-04 09:25|| 2006-08-04 09:25|| Front Page Top

#2 Exactly. Give 'em op control of American troops? Like hell. Get out now, and let the sniveling bastards do their own dirty work.

Posted by mojo">mojo 2006-08-04 10:20|| 2006-08-04 10:20|| Front Page Top

#3 Don't expect the press to get it right. Control by law [U.S.C. Title 10] is an unbroken line in the chain of command between the President and the lowest level ranker. We coordinate, we cooperate with allies, but by law we can not subordinate.

Posted by Uloter Grinenter8414 2006-08-04 10:44|| 2006-08-04 10:44|| Front Page Top

#4 We need to leave. Our Troops are not a merc force.
Deploy them where they are needed elsewhere.

The South has the wish to reunite. The North wants to on it's terms and under a communist government. We are not going to stop the morons in the south who wish to reunite under any cost. So lets get out and get it over with and arm Japan to the teeth.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2006-08-04 10:47|| www.sockpuppetofdoom.com]">[www.sockpuppetofdoom.com] 2006-08-04 10:47|| Front Page Top

#5 Not even the U.N.?

I heard awhile back some U.S. Soldier refusing to don the 'blue helmet' of the U.N. for some peacekeeping duty somewhere. This was under Clinton.

I'll bet that would be one of the first laws the Donks want to change.

Posted by CrazyFool 2006-08-04 10:48|| 2006-08-04 10:48|| Front Page Top

#6 Note that these Air and Naval units that will make up our 20000 can be redeployed very quickly to other regions vs the current troops on the border that are locked into place by being on the front line.

Posted by Oldcat 2006-08-04 10:56|| 2006-08-04 10:56|| Front Page Top

#7 the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity

This is suspect. We will never give any nation control of our soldiers. I believe we would have to rewrite some laws to make it possible and that would never get through congress. This is an emotional hot button for most in uniform and for our law makers. I wonder why a story like this would be leaked out at this time.

Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan 2006-08-04 12:45|| 2006-08-04 12:45|| Front Page Top

#8 I heard awhile back some U.S. Soldier refusing to don the 'blue helmet' of the U.N. for some peacekeeping duty somewhere. This was under Clinton.

Yeah, CF, the soldier is Michael New. His website is mikenew.com. He's still fighting his dismissal for refusing to wear the UN uniform. Basic stance of course was that he swore to defend the US, not the UN. He was willing to serve in the mission assigned to him, just not in a UN uniform. He's lost every round so far (since 1995) but to his credit he keeps on fighting.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-08-04 13:44|| 2006-08-04 13:44|| Front Page Top

#9 I would hope that no one would make such an idiotic decision. Bad move to cede authority to anyone for our troops. This is asking for all kinds of trouble.

Posted by JohnQC 2006-08-04 16:32|| 2006-08-04 16:32|| Front Page Top

#10 Michael New

The little intricacies of 'military justice'. While the law says he wouldn't be under UN control, the uniform is something prescribed by his command authority. If the command authority proscribes a specific uniform, that is the uniform the troop wears. So refusing to be in the proscribed uniform is in fact a disobedience of a lawful order. Yes, we understand his intent, but the issue shifts from obeying the Secretary General of the UN which is non-applicable since the American law does not permit it, to an issues of disobedience which means hes unlikely to get relief from anyone inside the Pentagon and only possible by Congress or the President. No one said life is fair.

Posted by Uloter Grinenter8414 2006-08-04 22:18|| 2006-08-04 22:18|| Front Page Top

23:19 Snease Shaiting3550
23:16 Snease Shaiting3550
23:05 Manolo
22:42 rammer
22:39 gorb
22:31 Jimbo
22:30 Alaska Paul
22:26 Uloter Grinenter8414
22:24 RD
22:21 Jimbo
22:18 Uloter Grinenter8414
22:08 Fordesque
22:04 long hair republican
21:59 Fordesque
21:38 Skidmark
21:35 Skidmark
21:35 rich
21:34 Skidmark
21:31 Jackal
21:18 Fordesque
21:16 Jackal
21:14 bombay
21:11 trailing wife
21:06 Captain America