U.S. Academic Warns of 'Hasty' Troop Control Transfer (South Korea)

Chosun Ilbo ^ | 10/11/2013 | Chosun Ilbo

[TexGrill]

Full operational control of South Korean troops should not be handed over to Seoul in haste and out of political considerations, a U.S. academic says.

Michael O'Hanlon, a fellow at the conservative Brookings Institution, made the recommendation in an article titled "Don't Rush the U.S.-Korea Command Change" on Tuesday.

"In Korea, our preeminent concerns need to be unity of command and effectiveness of our combined deterrent against a still very potent North Korean threat," he said. "Ensuring fair burden-sharing is not the principal prism through which this issue should be viewed."

The original decision was a political one, because then-President Roh Moo-hyun was "playing the nationalism card,' O'Hanlon said, and "found a willing accomplice for the transfer plan in U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who wanted a more expeditionary American global footprint and felt that U.S. forces in Korea were too anchored to the peninsula."

But he added the current "command arrangements are a remarkable testament to allied effort over the decades… If it is to be changed, that should happen carefully and as slowly as military leaders on both sides think prudent."

He cited the "tragic failed hostage rescue attempt in Iran in 1980" and "roughly a quarter of all American fatalities" from friendly fire in Iraq in 1991 as examples of a "failure of unified command" and poorly coordinated military operations.

[TexGrill]

Global business tip

[Newbomb Turk]

South Korea should foot 100% of our cost to keep them safe from North Korea.

We have supported them long enough and they are productive and can afford it.

Police forces get paid. If were the worlds police we need to bill for services rendered.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

"a fellow at the conservative Brookings Institution"

Huh?

[pluvmantelo]

Its largest contributors include the Ford Foundation
, the Gates Foundation, Sen.Dianne Feinstein
 and her husband Richard C. Blum
, Bank of America
, ExxonMobil
, Pew Charitable Trusts
, the MacArthur Foundation
, the Carnegie Corporation

---

A roster of Tea Partiers if ever I saw one.

[driftdiver]

They actualy do pay the full cost.

[JerseyanExile]

They actually do. The US doesn't send any military aid money to South Korea - instead, they pay America quite a bit in order to cover the cost of US bases and troops in their nation.

And it isn't like they're not bothering to maintain their own military. South Korea has a population of only 50 million, but they have a well equipped standing army of over 500,000 men, with another 3 million in the reserves. To put that into context, the US (population 315 million) has an army of roughly 550,000, with another 560,000 in reserve (note, those numbers are pre-sequester, so the Army is going to get smaller in the upcoming years). They also have a large airforce with over 450 frontline combat aircraft (more than Japan, Israel, France or Britain) and a surprisingly substantial and modern navy, considering the fact that they're a predominantly land-based power - 1 helicopter-carrier, 12 destroyers, 13 diesel-electric attack submarines, and 31 frigates.