U.S. to pull out most forces from Korean DMZ this year

Lefty Wilbury

Active Member
Nov 4, 2003
1,109
36
36
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_3.html

U.S. to pull out most forces from Korean DMZ this year
Special to World Tribune.com
EAST-ASIA-INTEL.COM
Tuesday, April 13, 2004

The U.S. military will withdraw most if its forces from the Demilitarized Zone separating North and South Korea this year, an official announced today.

The withdrawal means the United States will no longer have combat troops anywhere on the DMZ except at Panmunjom, where a U.S.-Korean battalion, commanded by a U.S. army lieutenant colonel, remains on guard in what is known as the Joint Security Area.

Therefore South Korea, which has a 600,000-member military, will face North Korea's armed forces, the world's fifth largest with 1.1 million soldiers, most of whom are concentrated near the DMZ.

The United States will turn over Observation Post Ouellette, which provides a view into North Korea, as part of a force reshuffle, the official said. U.S. forces will no longer guard the border, except except for the troops at the JSA in Panmunjom.

South Korean forces will take over Ouelette, just as they have replaced U.S. forces everywhere else along the DMZ since the Korean War ended in 1953. South Korea officials, however, want the U.S. to keep its troops in the Joint Security Area as symbols of America's commitment to defend the South.

The 2 1/2-mile wide, 151-mile long DMZ, is considered one of the last remaining symbols of the Cold War. However it is still an active war zone with mines, barbed wire and tank traps.
U.S. troops guarding the inter-Korean border have served as a strategic "tripwire" because they are presumed to come under fire during a North Korean attack, thereby prompting U.S. intervention in South Korea's defense.

The United States has about 37,000 troops stationed in South Korea, but has long kept fewer than 200 soldiers along the DMZ, at Observation Post Ouellette and Panmunjom, said U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Deborah Bertrand, a spokeswoman for U.S. Forces Korea.

Details on the timing of Ouellette's turnover and the eventual troop level at Panmunjom are still being decided in consultation with South Korea, Bertrand said, adding: "It will be this year."

U.S. Gen. Leon J. LaPorte, joint commander of the U.S. Forces Korea and the United Nations. Command overseeing the cease fire that ended the 1950-53 Korean War, has briefed Congress on U.S. plans to give South Korea more autonomy in its defense.

He said the "Republic of Korea will replace all United States personnel directly involved in security patrols, manning observation posts, and base operations support" along the DMZ, except for Panmunjom, where the United States will maintain command over a battalion of joint U.S.-South Korean forces.

The United States is currently reviewing its military posture in South Korea as part of a global realignment overseen by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld who wants greater flexibility and more emphasis on technology and Special Forces.

Earlier this year, the United States agreed to transfer about 7,000 U.S. forces and their families from its sprawling Yongsan Base in downtown Seoul.

It has also decided to close half of its bases in South Korea — 28 combat and support facilities and three training ranges — and return more than half the land occupied by U.S. forces to South Korea by 2011.

South Koreans have long complained that the U.S. military occupies prime real estate and that its bases near densely populated cities contribute to crime. But the majority support the presence as a deterrent against the North.
 
I believe the South Koreans are more then capable of defending themselves against the North.
 
We have been in Korea far to long for such a Gross Dollar Cost to the US people.

Koera is well worth the money we spent on it, to save her, Korea.

Korea is a big girl, we can defend it in say smaller ways now.

Best wishes to the korea and their people, may the North see the light, .......... either when the atomic bomb goes off, or they make peace with the south.
 
South Korean forces will take over Ouelette, just as they have replaced U.S. forces everywhere else along the DMZ since the Korean War ended in 1953. South Korea officials, however, want the U.S. to keep its troops in the Joint Security Area as symbols of America's commitment to defend the South.
ever been to korea and seen an anti US protest? not real cool when your outnumbered hundreds to one. that last line there sums it up for me; we'll do this for now, but we want to know your going to be there to hold our hands.
 
Well, they don't want us there anyway...maybe they will think a bit differently when the American soldiers arent there to protect them.
 
Originally posted by Johnney
ever been to korea and seen an anti US protest? not real cool when your outnumbered hundreds to one. that last line there sums it up for me; we'll do this for now, but we want to know your going to be there to hold our hands.

Johnney.... I travel to Korea often. There have also been large PRO-USA DEMONSTRATIONS in recent times (within the last two years).

I was recently on the subway in Seoul and a gentleman walked up to me and asked, "are you an American?". At first, I didn't know what to say (fear) but then I said, "yes". He reached out, shook my hand and said, "thank you". It happened to me two more times during my trip there.

I have been traveling to Korea for 20 years. I lived there for three. This is the FIRST time anything like this has happened to me. It was nice to see that not all the world is against us.

They are a good partner in peace and I am glad to see that they are finally capable of taking the role they are.
 
Originally posted by -=d=-
Lots of the Pacific Theatre is re-organizing. Just wait...You'll be surprised. ;)

You are very correct on that... It is a necessary, but dangerous move. We cannot forget that China is foaming at the mouth to take Taiwan and if they perceive that we are too busy in the ME to care about Taiwan, it might give China the idea that it is okay for them to take Taiwan. I also worry that NK might jump on the bandwagon and try taking the south.

We have a very fine line to walk....

A good friend of mine is now a full-bird and has been quoted on CNN a few times.... he is SF and was involved in the Philippines and what is going on there (that is one of the wars we don't hear much about and that we are kicking some butt in). That entire theater of operations is changing....
 
Originally posted by -=d=-
If it were dangerous, we wouldn't be changing. There will be adequate coverage...easily.

:D

Adequate coverage depends on the situation. Even with what we have there now, there is not enough "adequate" coverage. The difference is, our being there shows a level of committment to the region. If things change and we pull out of the region, then some might see that as a sign of our considering the region unimportant (which, might happen since oil is of a vital interest to our country and frankly, rice is not....)
 
Originally posted by freeandfun1
Adequate coverage depends on the situation. Even with what we have there now, there is not enough "adequate" coverage. The difference is, our being there shows a level of committment to the region. If things change and we pull out of the region, then some might see that as a sign of our considering the region unimportant (which, might happen since oil is of a vital interest to our country and frankly, rice is not....)

There are smarter planners than you and I working these issues...

If North Korea knows as much as you do, they'd know that the Brigade (minus) we had stationed there, would have been nothing more than a speed bump for it's 5? divisions. So instead of a speedbump, NK's army would hit a yellow-turtle in the road (S.Korean forces). Makes no difference. The US Army will still maintain strategic presence in theater.

As I said...There will be adequate coverage.
 
Originally posted by -=d=-
There are smarter planners than you and I working these issues...

If North Korea knows as much as you do, they'd know that the Brigade (minus) we had stationed there, would have been nothing more than a speed bump for it's 5? divisions. So instead of a speedbump, NK's army would hit a yellow-turtle in the road (S.Korean forces). Makes no difference. The US Army will still maintain strategic presence in theater.

As I said...There will be adequate coverage.

I am quite familiar not only with the US forces in Korea but also with the Korean military and their defence industry.

I am not only speaking of Korea. As I thought was clear, my points were expanded to include the entire region.

Furthermore, I am mainly talking about perceptions. Unless you know of something I don't, we cannot yet control how NK or China thinks or perceives matters.

Instead of trying to win a debate that does not exist, just admit there is some validity to the points I have made.

Of course the US forces in Korea were nothing more than a speedbump - if even that! Frankly, from all the docs I ever read, the main reason for our being at places like Camp Greaves, etc. was so that if/when the NK's did attack, American blood would be spilled early enough in the campaign that the American people wouldn't have enough time to cry "bring our boys home before it is too late" as it would have already been too late. We were sacraficial lambs to ensure that America would not abandon the south.

It does not matter how "intelligent" the folks are that are making the plans.... if they don't have the people there, or if things go awry, it COULD turn into an ugly situation. That is the only point I have been trying to make.

Sure, the Korean military is strong enough to defend itself in a conventional war. But if NK uses nukes and almost simultaneously China decides to take Taiwan, we would be in a world of hurt no matter what.
 
If you'd like to worry about things fine - my only participation in this thread is to tell people without personal knowledge of Military planning to relax a little bit.

I hate quoting myself, but I will again.

The US Millitary will hold a signifigant presence in the region. If you'd choose not to believe me - fine! Hold true to your fears. This is not about debate or winning - it's about somebody (me) who does Planning for a LIVING tellling somebody (you) to relax, because the US Military won't leave bases uncovered, so to speak.
 
Originally posted by -=d=-
If you'd like to worry about things fine - my only participation in this thread is to tell people without personal knowledge of Military planning to relax a little bit.

I hate quoting myself, but I will again.

The US Millitary will hold a signifigant presence in the region. If you'd choose not to believe me - fine! Hold true to your fears. This is not about debate or winning - it's about somebody (me) who does Planning for a LIVING tellling somebody (you) to relax, because the US Military won't leave bases uncovered, so to speak.

You need to get off your highhorse. I too am quite familiar with the Asian theater. Enuff said on that...

I was very clear that we have a fine line to walk. That is all. Where did I say we would not hold a presence in the region? Again, I am talking about perceptions but you can't seem to understand that.....

You seem more worried about trying to impress us with your credentials than trying to maintain a civil discussion on the issue. You allude to claims I have never made.
 
Originally posted by freeandfun1
You need to get off your highhorse. I too am quite familiar with the Asian theater. Enuff said on that...

I was very clear that we have a fine line to walk. That is all. Where did I say we would not hold a presence in the region? Again, I am talking about perceptions but you can't seem to understand that.....

You seem more worried about trying to impress us with your credentials than trying to maintain a civil discussion on the issue. You allude to claims I have never made.

Wow...don't be an asshole. When haven't I been civil? If you are offended at my previous posts, then you are a legal retard. Up until right NOW, I haven't insulted, nor insinuated anything remotely personal. But based on this last post you made, I can safely write you off as a dick. :)

ASIAN theatre?? what is THAT? You are just making up terms now, aren't you? :) haha :D


I didn't claim you said anything - what I'm trying to get thru your thick head is "Stop with the worry-talk".

I do this shit for a living. If you'd like NOT to believe what I say about "The US Forces will NOT be in a compromising position after re-organization" then fine. It's looking more and more like you live for worry.

Worry-on then. Tell your ulcer I said "hi!".

Have a nice day.
 
Okay.... let's review since you seem to have a short memory. Cheese and rice.... and you say you are in military planning.... GOD help us!

Lots of the Pacific Theatre is re-organizing. Just wait...You'll be surprised.

Reply: You are very correct on that... It is a necessary, but dangerous move. . . .

We have a very fine line to walk....


If it were dangerous, we wouldn't be changing. There will be adequate coverage...easily.

Reply: Adequate coverage depends on the situation. Even with what we have there now, there is not enough "adequate" coverage...

hmmmmmmmm...... no sign of worry yet, just discussing the topic at hand and pointing out a fact.... why else do we plan for wars in two different theaters of operations? In the past they were always Germany and Korea. Now it is Iraq, Afganistan, and Korea. Kinda expanded a bit.....

There are smarter planners than you and I working these issues...

Never said that there weren't.....

If North Korea knows as much as you do

hmmmmm..... being a little condescending are you? The first step toward arrogance perhaps??

... they'd know that the Brigade (minus) we had stationed there, would have been nothing more than a speed bump for it's 5? divisions.

Reply: Of course the US forces in Korea were nothing more than a speedbump - if even that! Frankly, from all the docs I ever read, the main reason for our being at places like Camp Greaves, etc. was so that if/when the NK's did attack, American blood would be spilled early enough in the campaign that the American people wouldn't have enough time to cry "bring our boys home before it is too late" as it would have already been too late. We were sacraficial lambs to ensure that America would not abandon the south.

There was much more in that post that makes it clear that I am not worrying as much as I am DISCUSSING the issue.... isn't that what these threads are for?

If you'd like to worry about things fine - my only participation in this thread is to tell people without personal knowledge of Military planning to relax a little bit.

Never really said that I was worried as in "afraid". I am just worried about PERCEPTIONS as perceptions, generally, rule. So from that standpoint, yes, I do worry a bit, but not all that much. And nothing like you try to make it sound.

Once again, I was very clear that we have a fine line to walk. That is all. Where did I say we would not hold a presence in the region? Again, I am talking about perceptions but you can't seem to understand that.....

I too have some very indept knowledge into the region and our military actions/plans there so I am only offering an opinion based on my experiences.

I didn't claim you said anything - what I'm trying to get thru your thick head is "Stop with the worry-talk".

Again, condescending. There is no worry talk in my posts. Just observations. Am I not allowed to profer an opinion? You know nothing about me, so don't assume that I don't know of what I am talking about either. When you assume.... well, you know what happens when you ASSUme.....

an-nyong-hi chum-se-yo!
 
Originally posted by freeandfun1
Okay.... let's review since you seem to have a short memory. Cheese and rice.... and you say you are in military planning.... GOD help us!



Reply: You are very correct on that... It is a necessary, but dangerous move. . . .

We have a very fine line to walk....




Reply: Adequate coverage depends on the situation. Even with what we have there now, there is not enough "adequate" coverage...

hmmmmmmmm...... no sign of worry yet, just discussing the topic at hand and pointing out a fact.... why else do we plan for wars in two different theaters of operations? In the past they were always Germany and Korea. Now it is Iraq, Afganistan, and Korea. Kinda expanded a bit.....



Never said that there weren't.....



hmmmmm..... being a little condescending are you? The first step toward arrogance perhaps??



Reply: Of course the US forces in Korea were nothing more than a speedbump - if even that! Frankly, from all the docs I ever read, the main reason for our being at places like Camp Greaves, etc. was so that if/when the NK's did attack, American blood would be spilled early enough in the campaign that the American people wouldn't have enough time to cry "bring our boys home before it is too late" as it would have already been too late. We were sacraficial lambs to ensure that America would not abandon the south.

There was much more in that post that makes it clear that I am not worrying as much as I am DISCUSSING the issue.... isn't that what these threads are for?



Never really said that I was worried as in "afraid". I am just worried about PERCEPTIONS as perceptions, generally, rule. So from that standpoint, yes, I do worry a bit, but not all that much. And nothing like you try to make it sound.

Once again, I was very clear that we have a fine line to walk. That is all. Where did I say we would not hold a presence in the region? Again, I am talking about perceptions but you can't seem to understand that.....

I too have some very indept knowledge into the region and our military actions/plans there so I am only offering an opinion based on my experiences.



Again, condescending. There is no worry talk in my posts. Just observations. Am I not allowed to profer an opinion? You know nothing about me, so don't assume that I don't know of what I am talking about either. When you assume.... well, you know what happens when you ASSUme.....

an-nyong-hi chum-se-yo!

this proves it - you're a retard :)
 
Originally posted by dilloduck
Pulling our troop out of harms way to make them worry about the possibilty of us nuking them ?

Fankly, that is what the NK's are claiming.... and they are using it as an excuse to continue their nuke program.

Furthermore, SK has delayed deploying their promised troops to Iraq specifically because they are worried about their force protection situation. Although they do want us to pull off the DMZ, now that we are clearly doing it, they are getting scared. I honestly believe, from the people I have talked to in Korea about this, that they are scared our pulling off the DMZ is just one more step towards pulling entirely out of Korea. -d- might not want to admit that, but it is the case.

A few months back I posted a link to an excellent analysis of Kim Jong Il's thought processes in regards to this matter.... If you can find it, it is a good read.

All I was doing was expanding the dicussion to include the entire region and to point out the difficulties that go into making decisions such as this.

I thought about this a bit last night after my back and forth with -d- and I tell ya, when a military planner says, "don't worry", that usually means, worry. Either that, or he is not a good planner as you should always worry about every possible contingency as a planner.

He keeps stating that "we have it covered". Well, the only way we TRULY have it covered is with nukes. So is he exposing something in his comments?

China's population, as of 1996, consisted of approximately 103,613,000 males in the 15 - 24 y/o age group. That means today, that number would be approximately 23 - 32 in age. The perfect age for military service. So I am not sure how he can be so confident that our 100,000 troops or so in the entire region are sufficient, without the use of nukes or chemical/biological weapons if they decided to mobilize against Taiwan.

Billy Kristol said it best on FOX this morning.... we are carrying out a George W. Bush foreign policy (that I agree with) with a Bill Clinton sized military. I truly am beginning to think the higher ups are relying way too much on technology.

Now, do I think that war is imminent on the Korean peninsula or over Taiwan.... NO! So from that standpoint I am not worried. But as I tried to outline in previous posts on this subject, we have a fine line to walk as perceptions mean a lot in that part of the world and we don't want either the NK's or the Chinese to get the wrong ideas based upon our actions.

But then again, I guess I have no room to comment since I don't work with or for Mr. -d-....
 

Forum List

Back
Top