AP Exclusive: Fewer GIs Likely in Korea

[Khephra]

WASHINGTON -- The American force that has stood guard on the Korean Peninsula since the war against communist North Korea ended 50 years ago is about to change fundamentally.

Details are in quiet negotiation, but outlines of a deal are coming into focus even as President Bush visits the region:

* The number of American troops in South Korea, now about 37,000, likely will decline. The Americans want a reduction of perhaps one-third, or about 12,000 troops, which would be the biggest cut in decades. It's one that makes the South Korean government nervous.

* The forces that remain will be more "expeditionary." They would be positioned in ways to enable American commanders to send them elsewhere in the Asia-Pacific region. It's a major change, reflecting Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's view that the fight against terrorism requires a more flexible approach to use of U.S. troops worldwide.

more.......

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-us-korea-military,0,6465583.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines

[PATRICK]

1. Syria, here we come

The ongoing ME disaster. At the least they will need to shore up the illusions of handling the ME rotations until 2004 or some terorrist attack bails them out. Regarding signals to NK this is invitation to a disaster. If at the same time they could alleviate the desperation and fear of the north it might be at least practical for PNAC goals.

Removing troups merely removes potential casualties and would allow SK and the government Bush wants to shift to Moonie rightists to fight alone maybe with frantic help from neighbors. The survivors would be made to acclaim the Yankee rescuers somewhere after our massive bombing and walk through invasion.

Nuclear card? Let them, Bushco thinks. Then the US will have an easier time with casual nuking of NK if they pop one off. That is the endgame anyway after seizing the ME and the world's oil. Ring of satellites, shields and pushbutton doom against our rival- the world. Dictator with a remote control.

They have been making noises about pulling back out oif harm's way for years, abandonning totally the sign of faith idea, where our "ally" knows our lives are the seal of our committment. Typical chickenhawk blindness to the notion anyone dare mistrust us.

[sleipnir]

3. Interesting developments

Well, this is certainly interesting. My cousin is stationed over there, he doesn't like it too much. As I hear him and eveyone else tell it, they're only in SK as a "speedbump" to a NK invasion. They're designed to hold out long enough for a US/SK counter-attack, but none of the troops in DMZ are expected to survive an all out invasion. Just hold off the enemy long enough to launch some nukes outside of the fall-out area of Seoul. Any current conflict on the peninsula would turn nuclear in a heartbeat. It's the only viable solution when you have about 70,000 crack troops, including the SK people, to face off against an invasion of well over 1/2 million.

Decreasing the numbers doesn't do too much of anything, it's still the same situation as before. Odd, but adding MORE troops might provoke an attack, which would be a disaster for PNAC. A war in Korea ENDS PNAC because you have potential causaulties in the range (projected from articles I've read) of 40,000-150,000 Americans. No one left to fight for the Mideast and the public is absoultly horrified by the war. If Korea explodes, we have to deal with it and the Mideast becomes yesterdays news.

Therefore, this move does make perfect sense when you consider the goals of PNAC and Bush CO. I think you're right PATRICK, this does signal an impending use of trained, elite troops in Syria or Iran...Interesting...

[snippy]

6. Excellent and accurate analysis.

[MidwestTransplant]

8. Yes, the speedbump will still be intact

Killing 25K American soldiers is no more palatable to the US than killing 37K.

[mhr]

2. Looking For Troops For The Next Invasion

That's my take.

Rummy and crew can't wait to attack and they need manpower to make it happen.

[neverforget]

5. They could take all 37,000 troops out of Korea and it still wouldn't be

enough for Syria, Iran or whatever. The military is entirely too small for Bush's Empire building.

[bemildred]

4. I think they need them forIraq.

[argyl]

11. I think you're right. A guy I know who was stationed in Korea is being

deployed to Iraq.He may be there right now.

[leesa]

7. Trying to postpone the draft until after the election

Good for North Korea, I guess.

[chenGOD]

9. Here's what I don't get then...

Why are they building some sort of big big shopping mall complex on Osan Base? construction?

I think they're going to remove the troops stationed in Yongsan to Osan, and I think this has been planned for a while, since construction of these types of facilities takes some time, even for the military complex. I don't know if they will significantly reduce the number of troops over here.

[ConcernedCanuk]

10. Hmmm - weird, for a mall that size I don't see much parking space ?

. . We have a Huge mall up here in North Bay Ontario, and it has parking space larger than the mall itself, as well as a parking garage to hold 800 more vehicles

. . strange layout if you ask me -

[davhill]

12. Many troops in Korea don't have cars

The building is proceeding to use up the money already appropriated, that's all. Military procurement has nothing to do with military needs.

[chenGOD]

13. Often true.

But surely the military would factor in number of personnel? They might not need a new shopping mall, so they would build a new one, but why build it bigger if troops were getting pulled? Troops from Camp Humphreys have the option of shopping either in Osan or Seoul, of course most of them choose Seoul.

Curiouser and curiouser. Even a couple of the military personnel I've talked to over here have no idea why it's being built (not that I'd expect them too, but still).