Statement by Pentagon Press Secretary George Little on the Capture of Abu

I think it is interesting that Mr. Little began his statement with "under military authorities" and that Abu Anas al Libi  is "lawfully detained under the law of war."  Seems like we are sending a deliberate message here which I would think would make for an interesting discussion among policy makers, strategists and lawyers versed in the law of war.  I wonder what this means for the AUMF and SOCOM's Global SOF Network.  Is the message that the US and its SOF, CIA, FBI will be authorized under the law of war to hunt down terrorists (including pre-9-11 terrorists) anywhere in the world and take what appears to be unilateral action in a  (semi or quasi?) sovereign country (any time, any place, any way - and not just through the use drone strikes)?   Seems like this would be in response to Robert Chesney's recent essay: "Would Abandoning the War Model of Counterterrorism Make a Difference from a Legal Perspective?" at this link in New Republic.  http://www.newrepublic.com/node/114995/print 

As they say, talk amongst yourselves.

V/R

Dave

U.S. Department of Defense Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs) News Release

On the Web:  http://www.defense.gov/Releases/Release.aspx?ReleaseID=16294 Media contact: +1 (703) 697-5131/697-5132 Public contact: http://www.defense.gov/landing/comment.aspx or +1 (703) 571-3343

IMMEDIATE RELEASE No. 700-13 October 06, 2013

Statement by Pentagon Press Secretary George Little on the Capture of Abu On Oct.5, the Department of Defense, acting under military authorities, conducted an operation to apprehend longtime Al Qaeda member Abu Anas al Libi in Libya. He is currently lawfully detained under the law of war in a secure location outside of Libya. Wherever possible, our first priority is and always has been to apprehend terrorist suspects, and to preserve the opportunity to elicit valuable intelligence that can help us protect the American people. Abu Anas al Libi has been indicted in the Southern District of New York in connection with his alleged role in Al Qaeda's conspiracy to kill U.S.nationals and to conduct attacks against U.S. interests worldwide, which included Al Qaeda plots to attack U.S. forces stationed in Saudi Arabia,Yemen, and Somalia, as well as the U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya.  The successful capture operation was made possible by superb work and coordination across our national security agencies and the intelligence community, and was approved by President Obama. No American personnel or civilians on the ground were injured during the operation. These actions are a clear sign that the United States is committed to using all the tools at our disposal to bring to justice those who commit terrorist acts against

U.S. Captures Qaeda Leader Linked to 1998 Bombings

Turning out to be a banner day in the Counterterrorism world.  I suppose the PSYOP message here is that despite the government shutdown our CT forces remain in action and can strike anywhere and any time and take down terrorists no matter how well secured.

October 5, 2013

U.S. Captures Qaeda Leader Linked to 1998 Bombings

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/world/africa/Al-Qaeda-Suspect-Wanted-in-US-Said-to-Be-Taken-in-Libya.html?smid=tw-bna&_r=0&pagewanted=print

CAIRO — United States forces captured a leader of Al Qaeda indicted in the 1998 bombings of the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, ending a 15-year manhunt by seizing him in broad daylight near the Libyan capital, American officials said.

The suspect, born Nazih Abd al Hamid al-Ruqhay and known by his nom de guerre, Abu Anas el-Liby, has been high on the list of the United States government’s most-wanted fugitives since at least 2000, when a New York court indicted him for his part in planning the embassy attacks. The F.B.I. had offered a bounty of up to $5 million for information leading to his capture.

Abu Anas was captured alive near Tripoli in a joint operation by the United States military, the C.I.A. and the F.B.I., and was in American custody, a United States official said.

His capture was the latest grave blow to what remains of the original Qaeda organization after a 12-year-old American campaign to capture or kill its leadership, including the killing two years ago of its founder, Osama Bin Laden, in a compound in Pakistan.

Abu Anas is not believed to have played any role in the 2012 attack on the United States diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, senior officials briefed on that investigation say, but he may have sought to build networks connecting what remains of the Qaeda organization to like-minded militants in his native Libya.

Senior officials of the Libyan transitional government said they were unaware of the operation that captured him. Some vehemently insisted that their forces would play no role in any such American military operation on Libyan soil.

But a senior American official said the Libyan government was involved in the operation.

Disclosure of the raid is likely to inflame anxieties among many Libyans about their national sovereignty, putting a new strain on the transitional government’s fragile authority. Many Libyans already suspect that their interim prime minister, Ali Zeidan, who previously lived in Geneva as part of the exile opposition to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, of collaborating too closely with the West.

Abu Anas, 49, was born in Tripoli and is believed to have joined Bin Laden’s organization as early as the early 1990s, when it was based in Sudan. He later moved to Britain, where he had been granted political asylum. United States prosecutors in New York charged him in a 2000 indictment with helping to conduct “visual and photographic surveillance” of the United States Embassy in Nairobi in 1993 and again in 1995. In the indictment, prosecutors said Abu Anas had discussed with another senior Qaeda figure the idea of attacking an American target in retaliation for the United States peacekeeping operation in Somalia.

After the 1998 bombing, the British police raided his apartment and found an 18-chapter terrorist training manual in Arabic. Titled “Military Studies in the Jihad Against the Tyrants,” it included advice on car bombing, torture, sabotage and disguise.

An American official said Abu Anas was to be brought to the United States for trial.

Since the overthrow of Colonel Qaddafi in 2011, Tripoli has slid steadily into lawlessness, with no strong central government or police presence. It has become a haven for militants seeking to avoid detection elsewhere, and United States government officials, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss confidential information, have acknowledged in recent months that Abu Anas and other internationally wanted terrorists had been seen moving freely around the capital.

His seizure was first reported Saturday in a Twitter post by a Libyan-born counterterrorism analyst based in London, Noman Benotman.

(Continued at the link below)

I hope this information was deliberately provided for some kind of psychological operations purpose to achieve a desired effect (hopefully after some well thought out analysis that was conducted prior to the operation). If this is the result of someone talking out of school or because someone in the media figured it out then I guess we have reached the point where we cannot expect to maintain operational security.  Why is the American official speaking on condition of anonymity? Does he or she require more security protection than the Navy SEALs that he or she has compromised?  It sounds like we had them guessing for awhile with Al Shabab saying it was the Brits or the Turks.  I just hope that this anonymous American  security official was not someone who could not stand someone else getting the credit and therefor decided to leak this to ensure that the US received credit.   Again, I hope that this information  was deliberately provided to achieve a specific effect.  Otherwise we should really rethink our OPSEC protocols which might have to begin with hunting down this anonymous American security official if he was talking out of school.  October 5, 2013 U.S. Says Navy SEALs Stage Raid on Somali Militants By NICHOLAS KULISH and ERIC SCHMITT http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/world/africa/mall-attack-also-involved-kenyans-official-says.html?_r=0&pagewanted=print NAIROBI, Kenya - A Navy SEAL team targeted a senior leader of the Shabab militant group in a raid on his seaside villa in the Somali town of Baraawe on Saturday, American officials said, in response to a deadly attack on a Nairobi shopping mall for which the group had claimed responsibility. The SEAL team stealthily approached the beachfront house by sea, firing on the unidentified target in a predawn gunbattle that was the most significant raid by American troops on Somali soil since commandos killed Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, a Qaeda mastermind, near the same town four years ago. The Shabab leader was believed to have been killed in the firefight, but the SEALS were forced to withdraw before that could be confirmed, a senior American official said. Such operations by American forces are rare because they carry a high risk, and indicate that the target was considered a high priority. Baraawe, a small port town south of Mogadishu, the Somali capital, is known as a gathering place for the Shabab's foreign fighters. "The Baraawe raid was planned a week and a half ago," said an American security official, speaking on the condition of anonymity about a classified operation. "It was prompted by the Westgate attack," he added, referring to the mall in Nairobi that was overrun by militants two weeks ago, leaving more than 60 dead. Witnesses in the area described a firefight lasting over an hour, with helicopters called in for air support. A senior Somali government official who spoke on the condition of anonymity confirmed the raid, saying, "The attack was carried out by the American forces and the Somali government was pre-informed about the attack." A spokesman for the Shabab, which is based in Somalia, said that one of its fighters had been killed in an exchange of gunfire but that the group had beaten back the assault. American official initially reported that they had seized the Shabab leader, but later backed off of that account. The deadly assault on the Westgate shopping mall was a stark reminder of the power and reach of the Islamist group, which had a series of military setbacks in recent years and was widely viewed as weakened. The F.B.I. sent dozens of agents to Nairobi after the shopping mall siege to help Kenyan authorities with the investigation. United States officials fear that the Shabab could attempt a similar attack on American soil, perhaps employing several of the group's Somali-American recruits. Another United States official said it was still unclear whether any Americans were involved in the Westgate mall episode, though there were growing indications that fewer attackers took part in the siege than the 10 to 15 militants the government had previously announced. A spokesman for the Kenyan military said Saturday that it had identified four of the attackers from surveillance footage. Local news media reported their names as Abu Baara al-Sudani, Omar Nabhan, Khattab al-Kene and a man known only as Umayr. "I can confirm that those are the names of the terrorists," said Maj. Emmanuel Chirchir, the spokesman. The footage, broadcast on Kenyan television on Friday night, showed four of the attackers moving about the mall with cool nonchalance, no hint in their demeanor that they had stormed a shopping center and massacred dozens of people, much less that they feared an imminent counterassault from Kenyan security services. One loitered in the grocery checkout aisle, talking on his cellphone. Another slouched in a storage room like a worker on break. At least one of the four men, Mr. Nabhan, is Kenyan, and believed to be related to Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, the Qaeda mastermind killed four years ago near Baraawe. (Continued at the link below) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/world/africa/mall-attack-also-involved-kenyans-official-says.html?_r=0&pagewanted=print

How does it feel to be lecture from Pakistan?  Excerpt:

This is almost a universal rule; wherever it has been applied, fiscal adjustment has given birth to the most virulently divisive politics and created an opening for the most opportunistic and myopic political actors who eagerly fan emotion and exploit fears to advance their agenda.

It’s also a reminder of how much the American polity is consumed by domestic considerations. The debated strike on Syria is already pushed into the background, and the first arrival in Syria of international experts tasked with dismantling that country’s chemical weapons has barely resulted in a word of comment here.

And it is only going to get worse on October 17 when we reach the debt ceiling and the US becomes a failing state and less than a 3d world country.  A pox on both parties (and both houses on the hill and the white one down the street as well):

But this group finds that this is a bit like trying to teach a cat to walk on its hind legs. No matter how clearly you lay it all out, it’s not happening. And that kind of stubbornness, of differences that cannot be bridged, is the stuff of Third World dysfunctions, which are settling upon the superpower with increasing speed in the opening decades of the 21st century. Not a pretty sight.

A superpower shuts down

KHURRAM HUSAIN

http://dawn.com/news/1047028/a-superpower-shuts-down

Share

 Email

0 Comment(s)

 Print

Updated 2013-10-03 07:55:47

WASHINGTON D.C. is an eerie place these days. The trains are empty and the buses too. The platforms of the underground, normally bustling with commuters and tourists, are practically vacant.

http://dawn.com/news/1047028/a-superpower-shuts-down

In the office, my inbox is full of emails detailing the impact of the government shutdown.

I learn a few things sifting through these; for instance, the postal service will continue functioning because it is independently funded, but mail sorting rooms will be shut down because they are staffed with federal employees.

So the mail will arrive, for sure, but it’ll be a while before it finds its way to your mailbox.

The shutdown of the federal government here has thrown up its fair share of absurdities. It has sent home a workforce of 800,000 without pay for an indefinite period, but members of Congress, those responsible for the whole mess, are themselves considered ‘essential’ staff and will continue receiving their salaries.

Only a few members of Congress are really responsible for the whole situation, prompting some to wonder aloud whether American democracy isn’t being held hostage by a virulent minority.

Only a few days ago, a big name TV anchor had two of these members of Congress on her show, and asked them whether their own pay cheques ought to be stopped along with the legion of other federal employees.

“Members of Congress should not be treated any different from any other federal employee,” replied one of them.

The anchor repeated the question, asking that since the congressman supported sending other federal employees home without pay, would he consent to having his own name removed from the pool of ‘essential’ services and share the suffering he was agreeing to inflict on others.

Pat came the same reply, “whatever happens to the average federal employee should happen to us”, as he clumsily dodged the question.

The congressman in question was none other than Dana Rohrabacher, Republican, from California, who earned notoriety in Pakistan last year after he held an ill-conceived and foolish hearing on Balochistan with very dubious motivations. Following the hearings, Mr Rohrabacher had gone on to propose legislation that sought to carve up Pakistan.

Today, the US government has been shut down by partisans who hold extreme and ill-conceived views of this sort. These people are reckless and think the world is made of Lego where you can simply dismantle a structure and put it together again in any other shape with the ease that children’s toys allow.

It’s incredible to watch the superpower tying itself into a knot like this. If nothing else, it is a sobering reminder that fiscal adjustment is a torturous process and takes a heavy toll on the normal operations of the state.

This is almost a universal rule; wherever it has been applied, fiscal adjustment has given birth to the most virulently divisive politics and created an opening for the most opportunistic and myopic political actors who eagerly fan emotion and exploit fears to advance their agenda.

It’s also a reminder of how much the American polity is consumed by domestic considerations. The debated strike on Syria is already pushed into the background, and the first arrival in Syria of international experts tasked with dismantling that country’s chemical weapons has barely resulted in a word of comment here.

Even Israel’s attempts to beat the war drums vis-à-vis Iran have been drowned out. After his meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the only questions President Obama was asked were about the impending government shutdown.

The Israeli prime minister sat impassively and watched as the Americans largely ignored him and went on about healthcare, appropriations and continuing resolutions and the president talked of America’s leadership role in the global economy and the importance of the dollar and the significance of America meeting its debt obligations.

(Continued at the link below)

http://dawn.com/news/1047028/a-superpower-shuts-down

Gun Shy in Seoul Sixty years later, South Korea still isn't ready to take full control of its own defense.

To be blunt Mr. Lubold's  analysis is ignorant and insulting to the Koreans in terms of the OPCON transfer.  This is not about the ROK military not being ready to take full control of its own defense.  This is about whether the combined war fighting command should be dissolved.  Unfortunately for the mythical OPCON transfer to occur it requires the dissolution of the ROK/US Combined Forces Command (CFC) and the establishment of separate national war fighting commands.  

The Korean military is rightly  concerned (not gun shy) about two things:  First is the loss of unity of command (and thus unity of effort) when the ROK/US Combined Forces Command is dissolved.  Second, is the  concern that dissolution of CFC will be the next step in the reduction of the US military commitment to the Alliance (and this is exacerbated by the move to a rotational presence).  In actuality the ROK military is self confident enough to take a more long term strategic view of the situation and willingly accept the criticism and derision of those like Mr. Lubold in order to ensure the strength of the Alliance to ensure that the ROK and US military capabilities are organized in a way that can most effective deter defend, and fight, and win and serves the interests of both the ROK and US.  The ROK leaders know the importance of unity of command.

The other piece to this that I have not described for quite some time is the importance of the ROK/US Military Committee which was actually meeting this week in Seoul.  This is who  the Commander of the ROK/US CFC answers to and from whom he receives his strategic and operational guidance.  The Military Committee is made up of senior military officers from the ROK and US.  And it is because of this Military Committee that the ROK actually in effect does exercise co-equal "OPCON" over both its forces and the US forces as the US does the same over its forces and the ROK forces.  This is also why if the ROK/US CFC were to be commanded by a ROK General with a US Deputy that US forces would still not be placed under foreign control because that ROK General would still answer to the Military Committee that includes senior US officers.

Lastly, we should remember how this so-called OPCON transfer got started and grew legs.  This is a result of the perception of rising anti-American sentiment during the Kim Dae-jung and then Roh Moo-hyun administration combined with President Roh's political rhetoric about ROK control of military forces.  Second, this is a result of the disdain the Bush administration had for the Roh administration combined with the desire of Rumsfeld to get US forces off the Peninsula (where they were being "wasted," in his words) so that they could be put in the fight in the war on terrorism (read Iraq).  After the Roh administration was elected Rumsfeld, with no prior coordination with the US command in Korea, informed Roh's emissaries in January 2003 that he would move US forces out of Yongsan in Seoul and that he wanted to allow the ROK military to be responsible for the defense.  This is what started the chain of events and has brought us to this point.  But none of these plans or decisions were based on a strategic analysis of what the ROK and US militaries need to and can do, the best way to do it in terms of achieving both ROK and US strategic objectives in regards to the north Korean threat, and the outcome of either war or regime collapse.  These decisions were not just political but emotional and not based on sound strategic planning and logic.

But after only one command briefing in Seoul Mr. Lubold should not be expected to understand.  But I am sure he is enjoying his trip to Asia traveling with the SECDEF.

V/R
Dave

Gun Shy in Seoul

Sixty years later, South Korea still isn't ready to take full control of its own defense.

BY GORDON LUBOLD | OCTOBER 2, 2013

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/10/02/gun_shy_in_seoul_south_korea_military?page=full

SEOUL — When it comes to taking charge of coalition forces here on the Korean Peninsula, South Korea has been a little gun shy. South Korea and the United States this week are celebrating the 60-year anniversary of an alliance forged after the Korean War; there were two parades, a big dinner, video retrospectives, and a lot of talk of katchi kapshida ("we stand together"). But after decades of confidence-building joint exercises and billions of dollars in military assistance, it's time for the South Koreans to step up and assume what's called "operational control" of all forces stationed here if war should break out. The problem is, the South Koreans aren't quite ready.

The U.S.-South Korea alliance, a centerpiece of the Pentagon's pivot to Asia, is more dynamic than ever, South Korean and U.S. officials took pains to say this week. "We can't underestimate the true strength of this -- of the blood alliance," Gen. J.D. Thurman, the retiring commander of forces in South Korea, told reporters.

Currently, the United States retains authority over all forces in South Korea. If there were to be a significant provocation from North Korea, for example, the U.S. commander in South Korea would assume control not only of his own 28,000-man force, but South Korea's as well. For years, the United States has wanted to hand over operational control of the forces -- "opcon" in military parlance -- to South Korea. But past efforts to formalize the transfer of control, in 2009 and 2012, never went through. Now the transfer is scheduled again for 2015. Once again, however, the South Koreans want to delay it.

On Wednesday, Oct. 2, South Korean Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin and U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel issued a joint statement that formally accepts an approach long sought by South Korea to a "conditions-based" transfer; that's diplomatic code for giving the South Koreans as much time as they need. Now neither side will commit to saying just when operational control might occur.

The two countries also signed a pact to deter North Korea's potential use of nuclear arms or other weapons of mass destruction as concerns grow about what North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is capable of. That pact was also a little vague, and defense officials trying to explain what it does used words like "framework" to describe the new approach, which itself was a work in progress. In the end, it will be seen as a confidence-building measure for the South Koreans at a time when they need it. "It's a new strategy that creates enhanced deterrence," said a military official in a briefing to reporters.

Kim, North Korea's inexperienced young dictator, remains a mystery to the U.S. intelligence community but has shown himself to be an unpredictable leader as he works to live up to the bad-boy image of his forebears. Kim's successful missile launch in December and his nuclear test in February raised tensions to some of their highest levels in years and shook the South Koreans.

(Continued at the link below)

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/10/02/gun_shy_in_seoul_south_korea_military?page=full

My latest piece on our dysfunctional government.  You can read the rest of this very short piece on War on the Rocks at the link below.
V/R
Dave

IS THE AMERICAN EXPERIMENT UNDER ATTACK, AND IF SO, BY WHOM?

David Maxwell

October 2, 2013 · in Hasty Ambush

http://warontherocks.com/2013/10/is-the-american-experiment-under-attack-and-if-so-by-whom/

A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Prophetic words from Benjamin Franklin?  Perhaps.  Given the budgetary gamesmanship currently on display in our nation’s capital, it seem appropriate to ask ourselves, what is the state of the American Experiment, and is it in danger?

I have often argued that the United States faces threats from enemies conducting unconventional warfare.  Whether from Al Qaeda or any other actor who seeks to practice the Chinese theory of “unrestricted warfare,” I have long worried about the potential effects of subversion and sabotage on our financial, economic, communications, and electrical infrastructure – as well as on our political system.  I have even wondered if the current government shutdown might leave us vulnerable to a massive terrorist attack.  On the surface it would seem to be the most opportune time to attack: much of the US government is shut down, and those employees who are working are likely distracted by the political machinations in Washington and are stuck simply trying to figure out the impact of the budget showdown on their respective agencies.  Sure, the national security apparatus is supposed to continue functioning; however, it is unlikely to be do so at peak efficiency in the midst of apparent political dysfunction.

However, in examining the potential of such heightened vulnerability, we should recall Napoleon’s course of action when facing an enemy experiencing a situation such as ours.  His counsel was this:

(Continued at the link below)

http://warontherocks.com/2013/10/is-the-american-experiment-under-attack-and-if-so-by-whom/

The ROK-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty at 60 Years: Relevant Now and in the Future

My latest essay published on The Peninsula blog at the Korea Economic Institute.

V/R

Dave

The ROK-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty at 60 Years: Relevant Now and in the Future

Posted on 01 October 2013. Tags: military affairs, US - ROK Relations

http://blog.keia.org/2013/10/the-rok-u-s-mutual-defense-treaty-at-60-years-relevant-now-and-in-the-future/

By David S. Maxwell

As we celebrate the 60th Anniversary of the 1953 ROK/U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty we should keep in mind that celebrate is the right word for Koreans and Americans to attach to this milestone.  We can proudly look back on its success. In so doing we should realize that it remains relevant today and the six articles with just 460 words (in the English translation) that make up the treaty remain necessary to support the strategic interests of the ROK and U.S. for the foreseeable future (and per Article VI, indefinitely unless terminated by either party with one year’s notice).

The treaty’s most important contribution is that it has allowed the ROK and U.S. to institute an evolving security arrangement that has deterred war for the past sixty years.  While North Korea and the Kim family regime built a huge military, sought nuclear weapons, and conducted numerous provocations to undermine the ROK, the ROK/U.S. alliance developed superior capabilities that have effectively prevented a resumption of hostilities that were temporarily suspended with the 1953 Armistice Agreement.

The treaty bought time and provided space for the Republic of Korea to create and the world to experience the “Miracle on the Han” with Korea becoming one of the leading economies in the world, with a highly developed industrial base providing innovative technology, goods and services as well as making cutting edge cultural contributions to the global community. Perhaps most important it provided the opportunity for the ROK to develop politically into one of the most vibrant democracies in the free world.

The ROK and U.S. militaries’ combined operational capabilities have evolved over the past sixty years.  There is no bi-lateral alliance in the world with a more interoperable military force and a more integrated command and control organization than the ROK/U.S. Combined Forces Command.  ROK and U.S. forces have served together in off-peninsula locations as well from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan further enhancing the strength of the alliance.

The past 60 years have not been without difficulty and controversy.  From a long history of North Korean provocations to incidents that caused alliance friction from Kwangju to the tragic Highway 56 incident to perceptions of the United States military dominating the military command and occupying Korean territory, all have tested the alliance and helped make the alliance stronger than ever today.  Currently there are complex ongoing negotiations regarding burden sharing and the so-called OPCON transfer.  In order to achieve OPCON transfer the ROK/U.S. Combined Forces Command must be dissolved and two separate national war fighting commands must be established.   However, in July the ROK Minister of Defense requested a second delay to the 2015 date.

As we look at the current state of the alliance and think about the way ahead we should consider just what the ROK and U.S. militaries must prepare for and be able to do in order to continue to support the Mutual Defense Treaty:

1.  Deter attack from North Korea and if deterrence fails fight and win.

2.  Prepare for war and North Korean regime collapse.

3.  Maintain a combined readiness posture to respond to North Korean provocations as well as deter and defend against war and deal with regime collapse.

4.  Support the unification of Korea.

Given the threats from the North, the fiscal realities facing both the ROK and U.S., and the tasks required to support the Mutual Defense Treaty the question is how should the military alliance transform to best support the strategic objectives of the ROK and U.S.?

First, in order to maintain the most effective and efficient military capability I recommend that the ROK/U.S. Combined Forces Command not be dissolved in 2015 or until there is no longer a threat from the North.  However, in 2015 command should shift to a ROK general officer with a U.S. general officer as the deputy.  We should recall that Article III of the Mutual Defense Treaty does not specify command relationships or structure, but provides wide latitude so that military professionals may recommend to the political leaders of both nations the best way to organize military forces to achieve mutual objectives:

“Separately and jointly, by self help and mutual aid, the Parties will maintain and develop appropriate means to deter armed attack and will take suitable measures in consultation and agreement to implement this Treaty and to further its purposes…” (emphasis added)

Under the treaty the command can be dissolved, the status quo can be maintained, or a ROK general officer can be put in command if both nations agree.  I would argue that the most appropriate means include maintaining the ROK/U.S. Combined Forces Command.

(Continued at the link below)

http://blog.keia.org/2013/10/the-rok-u-s-mutual-defense-treaty-at-60-years-relevant-now-and-in-the-future/