Mark Kleiman writes:
Does anyone have a theory about how announcing a plan to reduce troop levels in South Korea, without getting any sort of promise in return from the North Koreans, is supposed to be a good idea? I'm not asking for anything definitive, just a hint about how this could possibly come out on the plus side.
OK, here's a hint or two...
How about this (subscription required)?
For any of you who haven't paid your dues over at the Economist...here's the money graf:
Yet the bulk of the drawdown on the [Korean] peninsula will come from cutting support services that can just as easily be provided from elsewhere. The decision already taken to move American bases away from Seoul and the front line with North Korea, it is argued, will actually strengthen America's ability to help defend South Korea. So will the extra $11 billion already earmarked for military improvements there. Putting more heavy bombers on Guam, and possibly moving an aircraft-carrier battlegroup from the Atlantic to the Pacific, will enable America to respond swiftly and forcefully to any attack. All the same, the South Korean government has asked for a two-year delay in the withdrawal.
Kerry and bloggers can posture about the troop reduction in Korea to their heart's content. But Kim Jong Il well realizes that we aren't leaving with our tail between our legs so as to facilitate him rolling nukes off the assembly line.
Folks, the Cold War is over and keeping America's overseas forces clustered chiefly in Germany, Japan and South Korea is largely a legacy of the post-WWII settlement, the Cold War, and the Korean War.
History has chugged along, 9/11 happened, and having troops deployed nearer key trouble spots in places like the southeastern Balkans, Central Asia, and the Gulf are smart moves that need to be implemented.
Nor is NATO about to be torn asunder or said redeployments being undertaken solely in shortsighted vindictive fashion to punish Gerard and his ilk. The sprawling U.S. base at Ramstein isn't going anywere--there will still be tens of thousands of G.I.s milling about Germany.
But, of course, it's an election year. Hyperbole and posturing will often rule the day. How else to explain Kerry's take on the proposed troop reduction from S. Korea?
"Why are we unilaterally withdrawing 12,000 troops from the Korean Peninsula at the very time we are negotiating with North Korea — a country that really has nuclear weapons? This is clearly the wrong signal to send at the wrong time," Mr. Kerry said.
Kerry seems to have concocted a new hybrid in his criticism of Bush--accusing him of being both guilty of appeasement (Kim Jong Il will be emboldened when we pull out the 12,500 odd troops) and unilateralism (no consultation with Seoul)! Not content to solely portray the cretinous Crawfordian as a unilateralist warmongerer--he's a unilateral appeaser to boot!
Except, as the Economist article quote above well explains, the restructurings of our force posture on the Korean peninsula can't be fairly construed as some form of appeasement. And except that we are coordinating the moves with the South Koreans--ie., they aren't unilateral.
So folks--keep your B.S. detector on full alert on this whole troop redeployment meme. Jim Hoagland helps on this score too:
Despite the Kerry campaign charges that the reductions will disrupt alliance management, the specific reductions come largely at the prompting of NATO members and the South Korean government, all eager to regain valuable real estate and freedom from environmentally destructive military maneuvers. The changes have been under discussion for nearly two years."This is one time we cannot say we have not been consulted," a German official told me last spring.
If Gerard's guys are happy--surely all is well, no?
Posted by Gregory Djerejian at August 21, 2004 11:50 PM