DPRK Drives Wedge Between ROK and US

[Sierra Mike]

From MSNBC:

Jan. 1 — Sensing an opportunity in widespread anti-American sentiment in South Korea, North Korea urged South Koreans on Wednesday to back its confrontation with the United States over its nuclear program. “It can be said that there exists on the Korean Peninsula at present only confrontation between the Koreans in the North and the South and the United States,” the communist state said in its New Year’s message.Read all about this tomfoolery at North Korea Tries to Split ROK and US (http://www.msnbc.com/news/850567.asp?vts=010120031630)

I'm a bit concerned about this raging anti-American sentiment in the ROK. It's always lurked about for as long as I ever started paying attention to the region, usually in the college crowd, where the tenets of Marxism and socialism always seem to get better play than democracy and capitalism. I remember it being much the same in San Francisco when I was at school; of course, I was generally oblivious to such things beyond just a casual recognition of their existence, so the chances of me ever being recruited to join their hallowed ranks were completely unrealistic. However, in Korea, it's always been something of a force to be reckoned with.

Of all the places where the US maintains an armed presence, Korea has always been the most dire. It's amazing to me that there are segments of the ROK society who feel they would be doing better without US troops on the DMZ. I used to dismiss this on a routine basis, but now the government is making some of the same noises. Do they really think the DPRK would not make a move to forcibly reunify the peninsula without the presence of Americans? Even China has recognized and approved of US troop deployments to Korea; and if the PRC government can see it, then golly, it's GOT to be a glaring truth.

I'm becoming more concerned about this aspect of life in the ROK than the troublesome DPRK. But we'll discover how serious the ROK government is if they decide to hold a referendum regarding the US presence on the peninsula. They do have that capability, and I also think the US would likely withdraw from the region if it was the will of the people.

I'm beginning to welcome it, myself. Fighting the DPRK at the front while the ROK stabs us in the rear is not a position I would like to be in.

And it could not be said with a serious face that the US did not demonstrate the appropriate commitment. It's only been half a century.

SM

[bruzzes]

I have only recently become aware of the anti-americanism in South Korea. If I am not mistaken someone here suggested a slight move back out of the DMZ and see if South Korea's disenchantment with the US is fact rather than rhetoric.

I find it a very nice move if implemented.
We don't run, and lose face yet show the South Koreans that if their resolve is to boot us out, then be prepared to counter the onslaught of the North and lose many, many thousands of people, and possibly their country.

Of course we can not withdrawal, but a move to threaten that withdrawal may wake them up.

[Biker]

Could also backfire on us, with DPRK thinking it's a weakness on the part of the US. The DMZ is a powder keg with a very short fuse. If (as Steve puts it) Dead Leader sees us pull back, he may think that's the very opening he needs to invade the South again.

[bruzzes]

Yes,

But it would be nice to go back in there and clean up like we should have done back in the 1950's.

Force the Reconcilliation.

I know I am talking out of my *ss here. So much for me openning my mouth in an area I know little about. It is a delicate situation.
Perhaps diplomacy would be advantageous.

[Sierra Mike]

I actually think that retreating from the DMZ might be a good idea...fall back further around Seoul, and see if the ROK military is completely capable of providing coverage. Of course, our real combat power is through our attack helicopters and attack aviation assets at Osan AFB...

I think it would be a dangerous move, one that would send the wrong signals to the DPRK. But it would certainly serve to solidify or eradicate the tendencies in the ROK that the US presence is more a hinderance than an aid...

SM

[Copzilla]

Exactly. Maintaining the status quo while our troops take abuse from all sides is not an option to me. We have better places for them to be... like stateside.

The south needs to shit or get off the pot.

[Sierra Mike]

Well, there are hawks and doves alike who would disagree with my assessment. Most certainly, it would telegraph the wrong motive to the DPRK, though no one can accurately predict what they would do when confronted with such a circumstance. I would feel the chances of them mounting an invasion are greater as opposed to lesser. And it could also be intentionally misreported and misrepresented to the rest of the world as a lack of American resolve, especially in the European and Middle Eastern presses, which conveniently forget many American commitments successfully discharged in the previous century (not to mention the fact that the recurring costs of maintaining those long-lasting security commitments are probably more than the average nation's GDP).

But again, it would be a great way to make the ROK put its money where its mouth is. At least in this intellectual exercise.

SM

[mikepd]

Iraq first. Then... Let them put up or shut up. If they want us out, who are we to stay.

[Sierra Mike]

Well, there are commitments that have to be honored...from a policy standpoint, our presence along the DMZ is not only to serve as a deterrence against an attack against the ROK, but also as a forward-deployed presence to guard against any attack on Japan.

Remember, the DPRK does threaten Japan with some regularity, and being able to widen the conflict by conducting a missile attack against Japan is pretty much one of the cornerstones of their military doctrine.

SM

[yazdzik]

Dear Friends,

As hard as it is to remember, the hatred between Korea and Japan is ancient, and at least as deep as the divide in the middle east. There are many Koreans whom I know who would gladly suffer the destruction of Korea, if it meant that the Japanese would die too. It is inexplicable.

SM is totally correct on the issue. It is an often stated goal
to dominate the not only the strait, but the entire east sea, as well as retake, for god knows what reason, Tsushima.(Steve, is my romanji correct there?)

-M

[Sierra Mike]

Originally posted by yazdzik
Dear Friends,

As hard as it is to remember, the hatred between Korea and Japan is ancient, and at least as deep as the divide in the middle east. There are many Koreans whom I know who would gladly suffer the destruction of Korea, if it meant that the Japanese would die too. It is inexplicable.

SM is totally correct on the issue. It is an often stated goal
to dominate the not only the strait, but the entire east sea, as well as retake, for god knows what reason, Tsushima.(Steve, is my romanji correct there?)

-M Your Romaji is perfectly serviceable in this instance--though I know many who would claim the proper representation is Tzushima, though I would back you up here without fear of being wrong. Besides--even native speakers of Nihonjin can't adequately explain the differences between go and ga. Not only that, they still think giving their motor vehicles names like Grand Saloon and Bongo Friendee make sense in English.

SM