'So Ah....What's The South Korea Exit Strategy?'

[Panthera Pardus Nigresco]

:dead:.....

[USCG76]

Im lost did I miss sosmething, i thought we were obligated to secure the DMZ.

[Panthera Pardus Nigresco]

Im lost did I miss sosmething, i thought we were obligated to secure the DMZ.

Who wrote the obligation? - & specifically obligated until the end of time?

[Willy]

Best as I remember we're obligated to secure the DMZ under the terms of the 1953 Ceasefire. Since there's never been a peace treaty ending the war between North and South Korea, we're still stuck with that ceasefire agreement. Why should South Korea be interested in a peace treaty with the North while they've got the US maintaining defensive positions on the DMZ?

Why? Is Obama going to pull us out of the DMZ now? If so, South Korea is in deep kimchee.

[Panthera Pardus Nigresco]

Why? Is Obama going to pull us out of the DMZ now? If so, South Korea is in deep kimchee.

Could be a source of 40,000 more ground troops for Afghanistan.....

[USCG76]

Easy solution P and one nobody mentions. Draft/Conscription. If levels are getting dangerous low what else is left within the bounds of military doctrine?

[MaskRider]

Could be a source of 40,000 more ground troops for Afghanistan.....

To heck with Afghanistan. Pull the troops out of both places and man the southern border with them! :emot-angel:

[MaskRider]

Easy solution P and one nobody mentions. Draft/Conscription. If levels are getting dangerous low what else is left within the bounds of military doctrine?

Easy, huh? In your wildest dreams you have never imagined how hard that would be. You'd have to declare Martial law.

Right now the MIC are able to keep support for the war at spinnable levels because only those who want to go have to go. Support for Iraq and Afghanistan would drop to near zero in a heart beat if everyone's sons and daughters suddenly became eligible. The finger pointing and excuse making would be fun to watch, though. I'll grantcha that!:D

No the answer is, quit wasting men and resources on ill-advised/quixotic nation building escapades.

[USCG76]

Oh I knew you couldnt resit. 1st and foremost Dont tread on me motto should ring a bell. 2nd America isnt a Nation like some others who would rather greese the butt cheeks and surrender easy with little or no fight to protect there values and society. Its not about nation building but doing the job your ordered too when War is on!!! Anything less is Desertion and Treason.

[MaskRider]

You are living in la la land USCG76. I am sorry but I must jump. Most folks realize that these two wars have run any useful course. The only reason that there isn't more rumbling to end them sooner than later is because nobody who doesn't want to participate is being forced to. The only ones benefiting from these wars anymore are the companies and personnel for whom the wars mean profits and promotions. From a national security standpoint the wars have lost all purpose. They were thin on it to begin with.

[Panthera Pardus Nigresco]

Easy solution P and one nobody mentions. Draft/Conscription.

And the general public had no issues with this during Viet Nam.....


To heck with Afghanistan. Pull the troops out of both places and man the southern border with them! :emot-angel:

LoL........

[Snuffy]

To heck with Afghanistan. Pull the troops out of both places and man the southern border with them! :emot-angel:

Yep I agree ...

[MaskRider]

Its not about nation building but doing the job your ordered too when War is on!!!

War isn't on. Check your Constitution. These are "discretionary", elective wars. Afghanistan may have been less so to begin with- it is all discretionary now. Iraq always has been.

This isn't NAZI Germany or Stalin's Russia. As citizens in our democracy we have more duties and responsibilities than to blindly march off in whatever direction some group of corrupt politicians points us.

[Willy]

Re-instituting the draft would be political suicide except in a case of all out war like WWII was. I've served with draftees. Other than as cannon fodder, most were next to useless. We had to constantly stay on them to get anything out of them.

To get back to Panther's original post, if we pull the troops out of South Korea, it's just a matter of time before North Korea starts to feel froggy and jumps. And we'll be putting them right back into a shooting war.

[MaskRider]

To get back to Panther's original post, if we pull the troops out of South Korea, it's just a matter of time before North Korea starts to feel froggy and jumps. And we'll be putting them right back into a shooting war.
You know what? I actually agree with this. I would pull the troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq before I'd pull them out of South Korea.

[Panthera Pardus Nigresco]

To get back to Panther's original post, if we pull the troops out of South Korea, it's just a matter of time before North Korea starts to feel froggy and jumps. And we'll be putting them right back into a shooting war.


You know what? I actually agree with this. I would pull the troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq before I'd pull them out of South Korea.

Interesting....
So why is South Korea more 'important'..? (for lack of a better word?)......

The USA lives, breathes, foreign oil.....Would that not justify Iraq & the Middle East being more important than South Korea?

Note: I'm trying to post logical questions/thoughts here...

[USCG76]

War isn't on. Check your Constitution. These are "discretionary", elective wars. Afghanistan may have been less so to begin with- it is all discretionary now. Iraq always has been.

This isn't NAZI Germany or Stalin's Russia. As citizens in our democracy we have more duties and responsibilities than to blindly march off in whatever direction some group of corrupt politicians points us.

Ok thank you Mask , You are right on this and I was wrong of thinking the wrong way. P my, guess and theory as to why N.Korea is more important then the Middleast would be in theoretical China mingling there troops with north koreans. Ive heard from many Vets of that war or police action that china was well known for mixing in with North koreans on there side. We know china has a considerable force and have been resource munching with Military/Nuke build up.
Just my thoughts.

[MaskRider]

Interesting....
So why is South Korea more 'important'..? (for lack of a better word?)......

The USA lives, breathes, foreign oil.....Would that not justify Iraq & the Middle East being more important than South Korea?


I don't know. But North Korea is a seriously bad place with seriously dangerous armed forces. If Iraq or Afghanistan had presented 1/3 the competent, motivated military capability that N Korea does, we would have left them both alone. Call me sentimental. But, I care about S. Korea.

Besides, Iraq's oil isn't worth anything unless it gets sold. It will.

[Panthera Pardus Nigresco]

Ok thank you Mask , You are right on this and I was wrong of thinking the wrong way. P my, guess and theory as to why N.Korea is more important then the Middleast would be in theoretical China mingling there troops with north koreans. Ive heard from many Vets of that war or police action that china was well known for mixing in with North koreans on there side. We know china has a considerable force and have been resource munching with Military/Nuke build up.
Just my thoughts.

China is already has Hong Kong now....Would China having South Korea be any worse?

[MaskRider]

Hong Kong was/is always part of China. It was taken/leased from China and peacefully returned under the terms of a mutually agreed to treaty..

I don't think China wants Korea- North, South or altogether. If they did they could have had it long ago. But I do think they would still intervene if any hostilities there came too close to their borders.

Which brings up an interesting point. China basically owns the USA. They might stop buying our debt if we pulled out of South Korea and then didn't sit still for a North Korean reunification of the Korean Peninsula. This isn't the early 1950s any more. China is a much bigger dog than they used to be. On the other hand- they may prefer having us stay in s Korea- to keep the lunatics in N Korea off balance and contained.

Its a dilemma.

[Panthera Pardus Nigresco]

Hong Kong was/is always part of China. It was taken/leased from China and peacefully returned under the terms of a mutually agreed to treaty..

I don't think China wants Korea- North, South or altogether. If they did they could have had it long ago. But I do think they would still intervene if any hostilities there came too close to their borders.

Which brings up an interesting point. China basically owns the USA. They might stop buying our debt if we pulled out of South Korea and then didn't sit still for a North Korean reunification of the Korean Peninsula. This isn't the early 1950s any more. China is a much bigger dog than they used to be. On the other hand- they may prefer having us stay in s Korea- to keep the lunatics in N Korea off balance and contained.

Its a dilemma.

Yeah, I knew HK was always part of China....
But if China has no interest in S. Korea as you say....Then why keep US troops there?

What's to gain being in S. Korea vs being in Iraq until the Iraqi gov't/army settles in?

[MaskRider]

I only went on about Hong Kong because your ealier post:

China is already has Hong Kong now....Would China having South Korea be any worse?
seemed to imply that Hong Kong, an undisputed part of China, being in Chinese hands was some how the equivalent of China invading and taking over Korea- a sovereign country that has never ever been a part of China. Sorry.


But if China has no interest in S. Korea as you say....Then why keep US troops there?

Because N Korea has an interest in S Korea and S Korea is our ally.


What's to gain being in S. Korea vs being in Iraq until the Iraqi gov't/army settles in?

For one thing, the Iraqi gov't/army won't ever be "settled in" as you call it until we leave Iraq. It may not settle in the way we as nation builders had fantasized. But it will settle in as suits the internal dynamics and needs of Iraqi society.

For another, if N Korea were to gain the entire Korean Peninsula that would really rearrange the balance of power in that part of the world drastically- particularly to the disadvantage of Japan. Another extremely important ally.

Iraq could go back to the way it was before we invaded and strategically it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to anyone- except internally for the Iraqis- and maybe jack Israel's jaw out of shape.

[Willy]

From what I understand, we're bound by treaty to help S. Korea should Kim decide he wanted to invade.

The one that worries me more is Taiwan. We've got the same treaty with them and should they spin up the mainland Chinese to where they invade, we're bound by treaty to back the Taiwanese. The PRC believes Taiwan to be a break away province and other than the the Taiwanese treaty with the US, I can't think of why they haven't invaded before now.

Ol' George Washington had it right when he advised the fledgling US to stay out of foreign entanglements.

[MaskRider]

Yes. Washington was right and so was Ike when he warned of the growing power and infuence of the Military Industrial Complex.


In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

[Snuffy]

... But if China has no interest in S. Korea as you say....Then why keep US troops there? ...

Its not China so much as it is that communist dictator from North Korea.

I mean after all ... if China wants South Korea, you'd think they'd take North Korea first wouldn't you?

[Panthera Pardus Nigresco]

Its not China so much as it is that communist dictator from North Korea.



We left Viet Nam - why not leave S. Korea if you're talking communism?

[MaskRider]

I don't think the issue is communism.

WRT Viet Nam- We didn't "leave" Viet Nam. We lost a war there and were basically given the boot.

[USCG76]

And lets also not forget We took over for the French Indo-China War. So there was more then Commie there.

[Toastmaker]

I don't think the issue is communism.

WRT Viet Nam- We didn't "leave" Viet Nam. We lost a war there and were basically given the boot.




You could not be further from the truth. After all this time, you still don't understand what happened there ??

[bzhyoyo]

he is right : according to Carl Von Clausewitz war is the "continuation of political intercourse, carried on with other means." Any means. You got out of Viet-Nam, so the end result means you lost the war, because the other side achieved its goals. That they didn't achieve them only through military means doesn't mean they didn't win.

[Toastmaker]

Again, I guess it boils down to one's definition of "loosing a war". Between you and Maskrider, the flow of tortured, convoluted logic rages like the Ganges in a monsoon.

For example; To the military, loosing a war means being rendered incapable of continuing combat operations (on a large and permanent scale, of course).

To a politician, or casual observer, it might mean failing to attain one's original objectives.

The problem with such rigid interpretations is that, of all things, objectives in warfare are extrememly fluid and ever-changing.

Here's the short version of what happened; American government and people finally looked around and determined that there was almost no upside to continuing combat operations in S. Vietnam. The rapid putrification of the S. Vietnamese gov., it's military and organizational failure, along with serious opposition to the entire effort by the American people simply caused us to say; "Enough of this, it ain't worth it, let's go home".

Had we truly wanted to render N.Vietnam militarily defeated we would have just extended Linebacker I and II into III, IV and V. . . along with serious land grabbing engagements by ground forces - with no intentions to ever give it back!

And it could have been done easily if the will was there, but it wasn't - so the objective changed and we picked up our howitzers and went home.




and they lived happily everafter - FIN

[bzhyoyo]

I thought Clausewitz definition was pretty simple, nothing tortured or convoluted. Besides, my interpretation isn't rigid compared to yours, as you confine it to the military aspect of things.
My point is that war can't be limited to that aspect if you want to have a full understanding of such situations.

[CybrSlydr]

I don't think the issue is communism.

WRT Viet Nam- We didn't "leave" Viet Nam. We lost a war there and were basically given the boot.

We lost the political war, not the war on the ground.

[CybrSlydr]

Again, I guess it boils down to one's definition of "loosing a war". Between you and Maskrider, the flow of tortured, convoluted logic rages like the Ganges in a monsoon.

For example; To the military, loosing a war means being rendered incapable of continuing combat operations (on a large and permanent scale, of course).

To a politician, or casual observer, it might mean failing to attain one's original objectives.

The problem with such rigid interpretations is that, of all things, objectives in warfare are extrememly fluid and ever-changing.

Here's the short version of what happened; American government and people finally looked around and determined that there was almost no upside to continuing combat operations in S. Vietnam. The rapid putrification of the S. Vietnamese gov., it's military and organizational failure, along with serious opposition to the entire effort by the American people simply caused us to say; "Enough of this, it ain't worth it, let's go home".

Had we truly wanted to render N.Vietnam militarily defeated we would have just extended Linebacker I and II into III, IV and V. . . along with serious land grabbing engagements by ground forces - with no intentions to ever give it back!

And it could have been done easily if the will was there, but it wasn't - so the objective changed and we picked up our howitzers and went home.




and they lived happily everafter - FIN

You said what I said, but in a much better fashion. :D

[Panthera Pardus Nigresco]

he is right : according to Carl Von Clausewitz war is the "continuation of political intercourse, carried on with other means." Any means. You got out of Viet-Nam, so the end result means you lost the war, because the other side achieved its goals. That they didn't achieve them only through military means doesn't mean they didn't win.

1) North Viet Nam wanted the US out of Sout Vietnam = Success

2) The US wanted to stop the spread of communism to South Viet Nam = Partial Success (South Viet Nam is a 'Republic whereas North Viet Nam is a Communist State)

[Snuffy]

As far as I can recall, there is no exit strategy in SK ... because there was never an accord from all parties that the "war"/police action was over ... its been at stalemate mode all this time.

NK didn't win and neither did the UN forces ... and what's there now is there in agreement with what the UN promised SK.