Army Chief: U.S. Can Fight North Korea If Necessary (What happened to the "stretched thin" debate?)

foxnews ^ | 5/28/2009 | ap

[tobyhill]

The United States could fight an old-fashioned war against North Korea if necessary, even while newer forms of conflict against terrorists and extremists continue, the Army's top officer said Thursday.

Asked whether the United States would be prepared to fight if war broke out between South Korea and North Korea, Gen. George Casey replied, "The short answer is yes," then added that "it would probably take us a little bit longer to shift gears" away from the type of counterinsurgency fighting that now occupies the Army.

Casey said his usual rubric for how long it would take the Army to gear up for a new "conventional" war is about 90 days. That doesn't mean it would take 90 days for the U.S. to effectively fight the North's million-man army, he said.

"We'd move forces as rapidly as we could get them prepared," Casey said during an appearance at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

[rbg81]

He’s the Army Chief of Staff. What else do you expect him to say?

[GeronL]

90 days? Do you think we should be saying that in public?

Mr Kim has 90 days to take Seoul if he wants to keep it?

or that we will have to use nukes?

[tired1]

Uh, doesn’t the south have an army with guns and things? Just wondering.

[CaribouCrossing]

There’s a new set of rules on the playground. Obama’s in charge and he can do whatever he wants, say whatever he wants. Everything the Dems have said in the past four years is now null and void. bass turds

[Misterioso]

Hiroshima redux for Pyongyang?

[tobyhill]

All I heard before was we couldn't handle another threat but now that the Zero is in charge it seems they all say we're safer with Obama or we can handle any threat.

[icwhatudo]

So that music video U2 made of Katrina showing the army that would be available if only they were not in Iraq ...is BS. Troops are available. Enough to even fight Korea according to Obamas own general.

Interesting.

BTW-There are more combined troops in Iraq/Afghanistan now than under Bush.

[rbg81]

Yes, they do. However, a conventional war will be very bloody even if the South eventually prevails. And NK has nukes now. So that changes the equation some—actually a lot. We should have taken out their nuclear capability back in ‘94—would have been a lot cleaner then.

[rbg81]

We should have taken out their nuclear capability back in ‘94—would have been a lot cleaner then.

---

I should add—Clinton’s fault.

[Keith Brown]

“Uh, doesn’t the south have an army with guns and things? Just wondering.”

Yes they do....and the ROKs, the ROK Marines in particular and not a group to be trifled with.

[Bryan24]

If North Korea attacked across the DMZ, South Korea would have to do most of the heavy lifting.

The General’s statement is posturing. We are stretched really, really thin.

[edcoil]

fight them for what?

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

First, read what he said. He didn’t say we wouldn’t do anything for 90 days. Second, do you think that the North Koreans think that we can move enough soldiers and more importantly, equipment, to Korea in a few weeks?

[Westbrook]

> I should add—Clinton’s fault.

And don’t forget Jimmuh Carter going to NK while Bush was president, WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION.

They should have invalidated his passport and stranded him with his nuke-you-lah friends in NK.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

With all due respect, how do you know this? Do you have any data to support this, or is this just your own wild guess? Clearly soldiers have spent a lot of time fighting wars and war should be the last resort, but I still think you are wrong.

[jdsteel]

We could air-support SK real darn quick. We could kick NK’s skinny arse real darn quick. Only problem is having about a 10 million Chinese troops in there real darn quick, and them not buying our debt real darn quick.

[okie01]

And don’t forget Jimmuh Carter going to NK while Bush was president, WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION.

IIRC, Jimmeh pulled that stunt during the Clinton administration.

He went over without permission, negotiated a settlement without instructions or a portfolio...and presented President Clinton with a deal.

It gets worse; Clinton agreed to the fait accompli.

[Wiseghy]

This would be fought the way we’ve fought everything since Gulf I. Airforces pound artillery emplacements and completely destroy anything moving out in the open. Then, ground forces move in when overwhelming force is in place.

In this case, the main problem would be the collapse of what’s left of the NK government, and millions of starving refugees streaming over all the borders. This did not turn out to be a problem in Gulf I & II, but the Chi-Coms have everyone convinced that it would be here.

The O Administration will fall all over themselves allowing the Chi-Coms to broker a “deal” on this, that will put the rest of the planet at a major disadvantage.

[vetvetdoug]

Pusan comes to mind. We threw NG untrained troops into the perimeter there to be cut to shreds by the NK troops and they hung on by their fingernails. If the NK Army comes across the DMZ as they did 59 years ago it will be much a Deja Vu all over again. Equipment and expertise can only do so much against the numbers of men the NK Army will throw at ROK and US troops.