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.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
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."
A better solution is to hand over command to the ROK senior general and to remove US ground forces. They aren't needed anymore. The Norks can't and won't invade; and the ROK understands that it just has to wait until the Norks implode. We have better uses for our ground forces elsewhere. We can leave an air screen if needed but even there the ROK can fly F16s as well as our guys, and that's all they need to stop the Norks.
What about the Chinese when they get rambunctious?
They won't. It's not in their best interests to get into a public display of force. They won't mess with the South, they'll co-opt the ROK -- indeed, the ROK would be happy to be co-opted and left alone to make money and enjoy life.
He suggested the decision was made from political rather than sound military considerations. "The main drivers included secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld and then-South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun. The motives of both men were less than sound," O'Hanlon wrote.

"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.
Nonsense. The only promise the ROK needs is the one that says we'll back them up if the Norks uses such weapons. If the world doesn't believe that then it doesn't matter who is in command. The Chinese need to understand that if the Norks use a nuke, so will we. That's all that needs to be said.
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  

00:00