Aspen Security Forum: Peace on the Korean Peninsula?

An hour and 20 minute video on the Korean Peninsula with the first part featuring a discussion between GEN Brooks in Seoul via video and Gordon Chang followed by a panel discussion with some critical commentary.

GEN Brooks' remarks are an example of a general officer who knows how to speak to the media.  They should show this video at the Capstone course for new general officers.  He faced one of the most complex problems to discuss in public and I think he was masterful.

https://youtu.be/ttcK6zDpNxg

3:30 – 4:50 PM MDT
Peace on the Peninsula?
Is peace at hand on the Korean Peninsula? Denuclearization and reunification, miraculously, now seem possible. Is this prospect real or a mirage?

Vincent Brooks, Commander, United States Forces Korea; Commander, United Nations
Command; Commander, ROK-US Combined Forces Command
Suzanne DiMaggio, Senior Fellow and US-Iran Initiative Director, New America Foundation
Woongsoon Lim, Deputy Chief of Mission, Embassy of South Korea to the United States
Michael McCaul, Chairman, House Committee on Homeland Security
Sue Mi Terry, Senior Fellow and Korea Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Moderator: Gordon Chang, Columnist, The Daily Beast

Should the US retrench from South Korea? (pro and con)

I have to give a lot of credit to Robert Kelly for trying to articulate both sides of the debate on this issue.  Few authors, even academics, and certainly not pundits really try to argue both sides of an issue.  Unfortunately , despite his best attempts, it is clear that Robert Kelly's retrenchment bias does show through but his arguments are an interesting read nonetheless.  He never really articulates US interests and why it would be bad for there to be a war or catastrophic regime collapse on the peninsula.

Excerpt:

Whether the US should stay or go is a perennial issue, that surprisingly, doesn't get discussed much. This is probably because if you really supported a US withdrawal, you would not be taken seriously in much of US or Korean foreign policy establishments.

US foreign policy is dominated by a hawkish, interventionist consensus of neocons and liberal internationalists for whom the US positions in Japan and Korea have become ends in themselves as symbols of US hegemony (in neocon-speak, that's read as: 'global basing means we're f****** awesome!').

If he was really going to debate both sides of the issue he would have laid out the realist perspective on maintaining the ROK/US alliance which I think might be different than the hawkish, interventionist consensus of neocons and liberal interventionists.

The irony is that the biggest proponent of retrenchment was Donald Rumsfeld.  The entire OPCON transfer and relocation of US forces was his attempt to drive US forces from the peninsula.  And although they do not know it or would not admit it all those in favor of the OPCON transfer are really in favor of US retrenchment and are just supporting Donald Rumsfeld's vision for the ROK/US alliance.

My Lowy Debate on whether US should Retrench from South Korea, part 1: Yes

Posted on September 1, 2014

http://asiansecurityblog.wordpress.com/2014/09/01/my-lowy-debate-on-whether-us-should-retrench-from-south-korea-part-1-yes/

This is a re-up of a debate couplet on the US position in South Korea, which I wrote for the Lowy Institute. Part one, the reasons for US retrenchment, is here (and below); part 2, the argumentsagainst a US departure, ishere. And that pic is me and my North Korean minder at the North Korea side of the DMZ. Note the KWP pin above his breast pocket.

Whether the US should stay or go is a perennial issue, that surprisingly, doesn't get discussed much. This is probably because if you really supported a US withdrawal, you would not be taken seriously in much of US or Korean foreign policy establishments. US foreign policy is dominated by a hawkish, interventionist consensus of neocons and liberal internationalists for whom the US positions in Japan and Korea have become ends in themselves as symbols of US hegemony (in neocon-speak, that's read as: 'global basing means we're f****** awesome!'). In tandem, the Korean discussion,for all its lazy anti-Americanism, assumes a permanent American presence to the point of irresponsibility. But all this misses the real hole at the center - the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the North Korean conventional threat (and before you say, 'heh wait, they could blow up Seoul,' recall that South Korea easily has the resources to ramp up in a big way; it just doesn't do it).

Read Both sides at the links below:

Should the US retrench from South Korea? Yes

20 August 2014 9:30AM

http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2014/08/20/Should-the-US-retrench-from-South-Korea-Yes.aspx

Should the US retrench from South Korea? Part 2: No

22 August 2014 12:00PM

http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2014/08/22/Should-the-US-retrench-from-South-Korea-Part-two-No.aspx

"The U.S. Army in Korea: Strategic Landpower at the Forward Edge of Freedom”

"The U.S. Army in Korea: Strategic Landpower at the Forward Edge of Freedom”  

“The U.S. Army in Korea: Strategic Landpower at the Forward Edge of Freedom” (Torchbearer Issue Paper, August 2014) begins with a discussion of the unpredictability and danger of the North Korean regime. As long as it continues to operate as it does, the vital interests of South Korea and the stability of the Asia-Pacific region as a whole will be constantly threatened. Since 1950, the United States’ alliance with South Korea has been in transformation to meet the mutual security interests of both nations. The relationship continues to grow and evolve, standing as a critical deterrent to the dynamic North Korean threat, supporting regional engagement with partners and enhancing responsiveness to contingencies through rotational deployments and multinational training exercises. Eighth Army is an integral part of USFK, constituting the largest military contribution to the alliance and providing the majority of American servicemembers stationed in South Korea.

http://www.ausa.org/publications/ilw/DigitalPublications/Documents/tbip-eightharmy/index.html. You will need the latest version of Adobe Flash Player to view the paper.

Relocation of USFK Headquarters to Go Ahead

Yes, it is logical to move USFK and 8th Army as planned.  But as I have mentioned there are three reasons that the ROK/US Combined Forces Command should remain (and the ROK press should learn the correct title for the command and use it so as to remind the Korean politicians and population that it belongs to Korea with equal control as it does to the Untied States - it is the ROK/US CFC and not a US command because it answers to the Military Committee which is made up of representatives of National Command and Military Authorities (NCMA) of both nations).  (On a positive at least the press is starting to differentiate between the different commands and is no longer saying such incorrect things as USFK controls ROK forces.)

1.  No new facility for the ROK/US Command exists or was planned to be built because the mythical and inaccurately named "OPCON Transfer" was in reality the dissolution of the ROK/US Combined Forces Command so it was to cease to exist.

2.  Since it the command is 50% ROK and 50% US even if a new ROK/US CFC was constructed in Pyongtaek (Camp Humphreys) it is unlikely the ROK would station the senior ROK military personnel who are members of the ROK/US CFC at Camp Humphreys.

3.  In order for the ROK/US CFC to be responsive to the Military Committee it should remain located near the Ministry of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff for effective coordination and synchronization (and we should not forget that the primary consideration in the operational planning directives for the ROK/US CFC is the defense of Seoul.)

However, as I have previously mentioned, once USFK and 8th Army depart Yongsan, Yongsan Army Garrison should be turned over from US Army control to ROK military control.  It should be renamed (perhaps the Admiral Yi Sun Shin Garrison) and maintained and operated by the ROK military.  US personnel making up the US portion of the ROK/US CFC would remain on the installation as part of a US tenant organization (which would be relatively small as compared to when USFK and 8th US Army were present).  This should have the potential to reduce domestic political friction over the perceived occupation presence of US forces in Seoul and end the longest continuous stationing of foreign troops in a single location in Seoul.  Yes there would still be some US forces there but no longer would US forces control Korean terrain in Seoul.

Relocation of USFK Headquarters to Go Ahead

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2014/07/30/2014073001650.html

Han Min-koo

Korea will consider keeping the Combined Forces Command in Seoul, but the plan to relocate the U.S. Forces Korea headquarters will be implemented as planned, new Defense Minister Han Min-koo said on Tuesday.

The government will keep its promise to relocate USFK headquarters from Yongsan in Seoul to Pyeongtaek, Gyeonggi Province further south of the border, while taking into account of the changing security situation, and the threat from North Korea, Han added.

In his first meeting with reporters since he took the job, Han said, "Once full operational control of Korean troops is transferred to Seoul, the CFC was supposed to be dismantled or replaced by another military cooperative body, but things have changed as now the transfer will be delayed."

He added further details will be discussed between Korean and U.S. officials.

englishnews@chosun.com / Jul. 30, 2014 12:33 KST

I provided comments in an interview for the article below.
V/R
Dave

U.S. Adding 800 Troops for South Korea Citing Rebalance

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-08/u-s-adding-800-troops-for-south-korea-citing-rebalance.html

By Tony Capaccio and Nicole Gaouette
January 07, 2014 7:52 PM EST

    

Tap 'Save' to
read later

The U.S. is sending 800 additional troops to South Korea with upgraded equipment, the Pentagon said, citing the Obama administration’s rebalance of forces to the Asia-Pacific region.

“There is no greater sign of the United States commitment to regional security than the 28,500 troops stationed in South Korea,” Secretary of State John Kerry said today inWashington in an appearance with South Korean Foreign Minister Yun Byung Se. “It’s clear the foundations of this relationship are built to endure.”

The small addition to those forces already stationed in South Korea “was long-planned and part of our enduring commitment to security on the Korean peninsula,” Army Colonel Steve Warren, a Defense Department spokesman, told reporters at the Pentagon today. “This gives commanders in Korea an additional capability.”

The U.S. and South Korean governments are watching the actions of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un after he ordered his uncle and second-in-command, Jang Song Thaek, executed on treason charges last month. The purge prompted South Korea to heighten combat readiness along its border with North Korea, and President Park Geun Hye has voiced worries that Kim may seek a provocation to consolidate his support.

North Korea Vote

In March, North Korea will hold its first parliamentary vote since Kim took power in 2011, the official Korean Central News Agency said today. The event, last held in 2009, was previously used to reaffirm his father Kim Jong Il’s power.

The added troops may be a reflection of concern about Kim, said Bruce Klingner, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based policy research group.

“Although he’s continuing the policies of his father and grandfather, he may be doing it in a more brutal and unpredictable level,” Klingner said in an interview. “We saw him willing to take tensions on the Korean peninsula to a dangerous level last year, and so there is concern about what may happen in 2014.’

The 1st Battalion of the 12th Cavalry Regiment, part of the U.S. Army’s 1st Cavalry Division based at Fort Hood, Texas, will be equipped with about 40 new M1A2 Abrams tanks and 40 of the latest model Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Warren said. The vehicles will stay in Korea after the personnel complete their nine-month rotation, he said.

Asia Shift

The regiment has prepared for possible action in Korea at the Army’s National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California. Starting Feb. 1, the 1st Battalion will be stationed for the nine months at U.S. Camps Hovey and Stanley, north of Seoul and near the Demilitarized Zone that separates North and South Korea.

The deployment is part of a longer-term effort to change the U.S. military’s posture and presence in Asia, according to David Maxwell, associate director of the Center for Security Studies and the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University in Washington.

By sending the newest tanks, the military ‘‘is trying to undo the continuous decline of U.S. combat capabilities in the last decade,” Maxwell said in an interview.

The U.S. has kept troop levels in Korea at about 28,500 since an April 2008 agreement between the Bush administration and the South Korean government. The number had been been closer to 35,000 for years before that accord. South Korea is also set to take over wartime control of its 640,000 troops from the U.S. in December 2015.

One concern South Korea may have is that U.S. fiscal constraints could at some point prompt an end to troop rotations, Maxwell said. “There has to be a strong commitment to ensure there’s a strong rotational presence so there’s an adequate presence to defend against the North,” Maxwell said.

The U.S. and South Korea can best deter North Korea “by showing strength and resolve and then by deploying the right forces ready for contingencies, from war to collapse to provocation,” Maxwell said.

To contact the reporters on this story: Tony Capaccio in Washington at acapaccio@bloomberg.net; Nicole Gaouette in Washington at ngaouette@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: John Walcott at jwalcott9@bloomberg.net

U.S. Stealth Bombers in Dry Run Over S.Korea

I know this is old news for everyone but there is one thing about this article that is interesting.

More often than not whenever the Korean press reports on US Forces they use US Forces Korea (USFK) and rarely use the ROK/US Combined Forces Command.

Whether deliberate or coincidence, it does illustrate the importance of the combined command because as we all should know that is the war fighting command and USFK is merely a force provider to that command.  But too often the press will use USFK and will even erroneously say that USFK has OPCON of ROK forces.  But in this report they acknowledge that the statements about the B-2 are coming from the ROK/US Combined Forces Command and not USFK.  Some may think this is semantics.  I think that is significant. 

V/R
Dave

U.S. Stealth Bombers in Dry Run Over S.Korea

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2013/03/29/2013032900503.html

U.S. stealth bombers conducted a mock bombing run over a firing range on the island of Jikdo off Gunsan on Thursday, according to the Combined Forces Command. 

The B-2 bombers, the most expensive aircraft in the world at about US$2 billion apiece, have conducted secret bombing runs over the Korean Peninsula several times, but this is the first time their dry runs have been made public.

U.S. military authorities apparently decided to announce them because they wanted to send a warning message to North Korea in response to recent belligerent rhetoric and dampen mounting calls from South Korea to build its own nuclear weapons.

Two B-2 bombers took off from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri on Wednesday night and flew 10,500 km for more than 15 hours, being refueled in mid-air. They arrived in the air over the Jikdo firing range around noon Thursday. After dropping drill bombs, they were refueled again and returned to their home base.

The CFC said in a press release U.S. Strategic Command sent the bombers "as part of the ongoing bilateral Foal Eagle training exercise," demonstrating U.S. commitment and "its capability to defend [South Korea] and to provide extended deterrence."

The B-2 is a new strategic bomber that has been deployed by the U.S. Air Force since 1993. Twenty m long and 52 m wide, it is far bigger than the F-22 stealth fighter jet but has such excellent stealth functions that it appears on the radar screen as if it were of similar size.

It would prove its real worth when striking strategic targets such as the North Korean presidential palace and nuclear and missile bases that are equipped with powerful anti-air defense systems or hidden deep underground.

(Continued at the link below)

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2013/03/29/2013032900503.html