Posted on 04/22/2008 8:33:07 AM PDT by Jet Jaguar
American troop levels to be constant for ‘foreseeable future’
SEOUL — The United States will pause the drawdown of its troops in South Korea, military officials from both countries said Monday.
President Bush and new South Korean president Lee Myung-bak agreed to the pause during their Camp David visit Friday and Saturday.
It was the first meeting between the two leaders, and several political experts in Seoul see the agreement as a signal of improved relations between the two countries under Lee’s leadership.
Under the pause, the U.S. will maintain its current level of about 28,000 troops “for the foreseeable future,” U.S. Forces Korea spokesman Col. Franklin Childress said Monday. That number was scheduled to drop to 25,000 by the end of the year, when the drawdown was scheduled to end.
The U.S. and South Korea agreed to the drawdown in 2004, when the U.S. had 38,500 troops stationed in South Korea.
Childress said the agreement was made by the presidents, adding it would be “inappropriate” for him to speculate on which country asked for the pause.
He said details of the agreement would be coordinated by the top defense official of each country, but it would mean little change for the militaries, including cost sharing for stationing the U.S. troops in South Korea.
“There basically is no change to the current status of how we’re paying for the troops,” he said. “We’re not going out and getting extra money. It’s just maintaining what we have.”
Under an agreement between the two countries, the U.S. pays to bring its soldiers to South Korea and for their living expenses. South Korea pays about 41 percent of USFK’s upkeep, officials said last month.
A spokesman for South Korea’s Ministry of National Defense said the countries would decide jointly how long the pause will last, and who will pay the cost of maintaining the current troop level.
USFK commander Gen. B.B. Bell told Congress last month that Lee could ask for the pause during his visit to Washington, so the countries could study the future of the drawdown.
“If he does ask for that pause, I think it would be prudent for the United States to agree to sit down and discuss the issue and then potentially execute a pause based on those discussions,” Bell said in March.
(Also)
South Korean arms status upgraded
President Bush and his South Korea counterpart, Lee Myung-bak, also agreed to upgrade South Korea’s Foreign Military Sales status, according to a press release both countries issued after the leaders’ summit concluded over the weekend.
The program determines who gets preferential treatment for the sale of U.S. arms, defense equipment, defense services and military training.
A South Korean Ministry of Defense official told Stars and Stripes last month that an upgrade in the country’s purchasing status “is very important” and could reduce costs because of the greater ability to buy in bulk in a shorter time frame.
— Ashley Rowland
Ping.
I have yet to meet a S Korean who wants destabilization of El Ronery in NoKo.
They don’t want to have to absorb the costs of rehabilitating their dirt-poor NoKo cousins. They’re afraid that the costs to their bottom line would make the East German unification look like a cake walk.
They want to keep the border where it is, let Kimmy do his thing, send them enough rice to keep them alive, and let the little people suffer.
If it takes an American presence along the DMZ to keep the NoKo’s on their side, the so be it.
At least that’s the missive I get after they’ve had a few beers or sochu from the Koreans I’ve met there.
Wow, still mired down in Korea after all these years. Another job for Hussein Obama.
I would like to see a national referednum put to the South Korean peoples along the lines of “Should the US continue a military presence on the soil of South Korea?” If the answer is yes, then the total cost should be shifted to the S. Korean peoples. If the answer is no, then we should bug out PRONTO. Let them deal with Kimmy - I’m tired of the US shouldering the burden around the world. In fact, it is this selfless burden sharing that led to Western Europe spending nothing on defense. MADNESS...
You and I were thinking the same thing Harry Truman didn’t have an exit strategy in mind when we went into Korea with the UN.
I totally agree with you. I would also like to see the ACTUAL cost to keep our forces with all the support in South Korea... I figure we won’t see those numbers.
The key is that for over 50 years there has been relative calm
in the peninsula.
While I complained when I did a year there I really did enjoy it as I look back at all I learned in that year.
Mostly good folks the South Koreans.
Yes they are good people and you are right about the calm. My point was mainly to the fact that if necessary we should and will remain in Iraq for the same amount of time.
Most countries and their leaders understand that to kill U.S. Soldiers will get public opinion against ya nearly every time here in America.
It took awhile for me to grasp the fact that having U.S. troops in certain places was simply good for peace.
Take Germany, though I think we still keep to many troops garrisoned there that contingent sure has helped keep the peace.
Do ya think you’d have a democratic unified Germany had it not been for U.S. troops there?
Same for other places in this world, can ya say Japan?
If we were not in Japan with troops do ya think China would have played nice there for so long?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.