Why are US troops stationed in South Korea.

I don't there is enough barrack room space in the US

I was stationed in Korea, and have some answers, with which others may not agree, but, oh well. Technically, the UN is still in Korea, there's been an armistice, but no peace treaty. Other UN contingents which were there in 1971 included English and Turks, who were mostly an honor guard, although there was a Turkish infantry regiment just south of the DMZ. There was a fairly notorious incident in 1971, in which some North Korean "laborers" beat a US Army MP severly with shovels--he was brought to our hospital by a Swiss officer.

So, again speaking in terms of a technicality--US troops are in Korea as a part of the UN presence. Yes, they are needed--they are more than just a trip wire which would get the US involved if "Joe Ching jumps," the expression we used for an invasion from the North. While i was stationed there, the 2nd Infantry Division was there, the 7th Infantry Division (since "removed," although the organic units were kept and simply transferred to I Corps), the 1st and 2nd battalions of the 72nd Armor (1/72 & 2/72, as they were usually referred to as), and the I Corps artillery group. These forces are crucial to the support of the South Korean defense. The North has no navy to speak of, so amphibious operations of more than sabotage level are not a consideration. If "Joe jumps," the US forces would contribute crucial forces for the delay of the North Korean forces while the South responds, as well as providing continuing support duing a war. Among the 37,000 of which you speak, the US Air Forces stationed in Korea are not counted. They do keep some offensive air assets in Korea, but mostly, the USAF personnel in South Korea maintain the bases into which the USAF would expand in the event of war.

So, the war never ended officially, and the troops are needed. While there, we used to say that the people hated Joe Ching, their own government, and the US troops--in that order. Sort of a case of the least of several evils. If any individual American was willing to make the effort, the Korean people were worth getting to know. Korea has changed immensely in the 30+ years since i was there, but i rather think they are pretty much the same people with regard to character. They were cheerful, friendly, hard-working (dog's sakes, the hardest working people i've ever seen)--in general a very likable people who did not necessarily hate GI's, but, rather disliked the notion of a foreign army on their soil. That being said, they seemed resigned to it, and considered it a necessity as does the South Korean government.

Setanta
What was true 30 years ago may no longer be today. The character of warfare has changed considerably. In addition the South Koreans have a 700,000 strong military which more than likely are equipped with the most sophisticated equipment the US can supply. Further, we the US troops are no longer welcome "guests" by a substantial percentage of the Korean citizenry or for that matter the present government.

Well, i did mention that 30 years may have changed much in the penninsula. I would like to know, however, where you get your information upon which to base the statement that "the US troops are no longer welcome 'guests' by a substantial percentage of the Korean citizenry . . ." As for their government, it would not surprise me to have someone demonstrate that they no longer welcome our presence. As for being equipped with the most sophisticated equipment the US can supply--i rather doubt that, more than likely, we give them some of the most sophisticated equipment with which we are willing to part. The US does not have a good track record for supplying our allies with the the best of what we have to offer.

If you had your own answers to this ready, why did you ask the question. Were you simply looking for an argument?

Maybe looking for a discussion?

Last night several journalists questioned the need for the troops (on meet the press or face the nation or something, I couldn't sleep).

They said we should have the liberty of deciding whether to intervene in case or war or not.

I like the idea of removing the troops. South Korea's sunshine policy doesn't jive with ours and if they want to do it that way we should let them but keep our troops out of harm's way. Since South Korea has a large army and we aren't too welcome there I say it's time to pull out. We have enough bases in Japan to not lose much in the way of strategic advantage (except in regard to DPRK).

There have been numerous protests by the South Korean citizenry Setanta. The last one was very substantial. I do not, however, have statistics about the population's feelings on the matter.

I'd not dispute the issue, Craven, if something concrete could be shown. I would point out that such protests were common 30 years ago, as well. The South Korean students seem to take street battles as their favorite contact sport. This did not mean, 30 years ago, that they mirrored the sentiments of the population at large. I can't disagree that we should leave if we aren't needed, or if we definitely aren't wanted, but i don't agree that our strategic position on the eastern pacific rim would be much the same if we withdrew.

It would definitely change but it, in what I envision, would go hand in hand with policy shifts. We'd wash our hands of it and only get involved if there is a chance of contagion (or proliferation of WMDs). We can still maintain a presence in Japan and mabe the slight retreat would be enought for DPRK to calm down and warm up to the sunshine policy.

.Setanta


I find that to be a very peculiar question. Are you under the impression that people who post questions should have no opinion or if they do express none. Were that the fact no one would be posting. The purpose of posting in most instances is for discussion.
As far as being welcome I can only judge that by recent events.

Withdrawl of UN/US forces from the Korean Penninsula is the very best way to insure that a hot war bill break out. The North will come South, and the ROK army will resist. Northern sappers and sabotage will strike behind ROK lines, and disrupt transportation/communications. The ROk will be outnumbered, and unable to withstand an assaulting force many times their own strength. Seoul will fall within weeks, and the rest of the country shortly thereafter. We won't be there to buy the time needed to marshal the necessary forces to successful repel the invasion and strike back at Pyong-Yang. The DORK will warn the outside against intervention in "internal affairs", and ready their launch vehicles. What warheads will be ready to ride? How many and what targets will they be programed to hit?

Once off the penninsula it would be very difficult to get back on. Where would the troops have to come from? The existing troops would probably be clear across the Pacific Ocean, perhaps a month away. The Marine Division at Okinawa is the best we could do, and they are too light to counter a massive dPRK armored assault. If the Marines begin to saddle-up, they might be hit by one of Kim's "non-existent" nukes.

Of all alternative scenarios, withdrawl of UN/US forces from Korea at this time is the very worst and most likely to trigger the resumption of a very, very bloody conflict.

Au, i made no comment on whether or not you were welcome here. It seemed to me, however, that i had been ambushed. I didn't like that feeling, and i still don't.

Au, i've just realized that your reference to "welcome" was with regard to Korean attitudes to American troops. Please disregard my comment about your welcome at this site.

Setanta
Sorry if I gave you the impression that I was attempting to ambush you. Certainly not my intent.

Ash,

I'm not too sure that DPRK is that interested in the South, I think they'd rather have economic improvement at this moment. But this is a what if that we can't really prove. I doubt we will withdraw.

It is worth noting, Craven, that just south of Soeul is the largest stretch of flat, arrable land in the Korean penninsula. The industrialization of the south is also a potential lure. I have little doubt that Kim would invade the south tomorrow, if he thought he could get away with it.

But does anyone really think he can get away with it?

Kim thinks that he can get away with it, and that's what counts in determining whether the North invades or not.

If we are present in force, an invasion from the North would probably fail. Existing UN/US/ROK forces could buy time for reinforcements to appear, and we would have air superiority in short order. If we were unprepared, the situation could be very dicey for awhile. If we were prepared and the attack came as a result of our having the initiative, the North could be defeated quickly and with a minimum of casualties.

I don't think Kim is that crazy but nevermind.

In addition to the 37,000 troops what weaponry is currently making the difference (because it obviously isn't the 37,000 alone)? Anyone have any stats on that?

Let's not be too specific as to the defenses south of the DMZ.