Withdrawing Troops From South Korea Would Be a Mistake

By Aaron Kliegman The Trump administration is considering withdrawing American soldiers from South Korea. This is a dangerous idea. Even a partial withdrawal — let alone the removal of all 28,500 troops stationed there — would be a grave mistake. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Department of Defense has presented the White House with options to reduce America’s military footprint on the Korean peninsula. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said Tuesday that, while he has issued no orders to withdraw forces from South Korea, the Pentagon is reviewing “adjustments” to its military presence in the country (and elsewhere). It’s true that Esper is mulling changes to how America deploys its forces for strategic reasons. But the administration is really discussing a withdrawal because of money. President Trump is seeking much more from South Korea to pay for the American military mission there. Seoul is willing to pay more, but not what the president wants. Talks between the two countries are now deadlocked. Last year, Seoul contributed $926 million, an increase of 8.2 percent from 2018 and about half the annual cost of stationing all American military personnel in South Korea. That was just a one-year, stopgap deal, however, leading to the current stalemate. Now, President Trump is considering his options, one of which is to remove some troops. The leak to the Journal may just be a ploy for negotiations, but even so, withdrawal is still being discussed. The strange thing about the American position in these talks is that it’s, in fact, cheaper for America to keep its forces in South Korea than in the US — or elsewhere. Senior military officials have said as much. Indeed, the time, effort, and expense required to move soldiers, their dependents, and their equipment would be great. Plus, in the US at least, no one would be sharing the cost. Wherever these soldiers are, they need to eat, train, and, in some cases, house their families — not to mention their equipment and facilities need to be maintained. This all costs lots of money, regardless of location. South Korea is willing to share this burden in a variety of ways. For example, retired Army Gen. Vincent Brooks said in 2018, when he was the top American commander in South Korea, that Seoul paid about 90 percent of the cost to build Camp Humphreys, the largest US base overseas that’s been built up over the last decade. The project cost $10.8 billion. And, it’s worth noting, South Korea spent 2.7 percent of its GDP on defense in 2019, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. The US spent 3.4 percent — not that much more as a percentage of GDP. Unlike some of America’s other allies, such as Germany, South Korea invests seriously in its own defense. But the truth is that all of these figures and negotiations should be, at best, of secondary importance. To quote Allan Millett, a prominent military historian, alliances “are not to be measured in dollars, but in their effectiveness at deterring conflict.” America’s military mission in South Korea is not charity. The US has soldiers there mainly to deter North Korean aggression (and to defend its ally if conflict does erupt). Having troops on the peninsula — and elsewhere — keeps threats from coming to America, preventing wars and, if necessary, fighting them far away from the American homeland. After two world wars in the 20th century, the US realized it can’t be safe and prosper in a world in which Europe and Asia are constantly at war — especially in a world with nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. Sustaining the peace in other regions requires allies. This concept is quite simple but remarkably effective. Does anyone seriously think, for example, that North Korea would be less belligerent with no American troops in the South? Of course not. The presence of America’s finest forces enemies to think long and hard before trying anything provocative. This strategy has huge economic impact as well. Large-scale war on the Korean peninsula — or anywhere across Eurasia — would wildly disrupt the global economic system, especially energy markets. The extent of this disruption would hit home more directly than some Americans might think. Take anyone with a Samsung Galaxy smartphone. Samsung is a South Korean company. If their headquarters becomes a pile of rubble courtesy of North Korean artillery, then don’t expect to see new Samsung products in a nearby store anytime soon. Withdrawing troops from South Korea would not only show weakness but also undermine America’s credibility. Deterrence is psychological more than anything. The adversary must believe that, if it acts aggressively, America will punish it. The more that credibility erodes, the less deterred — and therefore more belligerent — the adversary will become. Indeed, American troops are also in South Korea to reassure friends that the US is there to defend them against an imperial China. Withdrawal would only signal to Beijing that it can have its way in East Asia without fear of consequences. (And, by the way, this troop removal would allow Joe Biden to portray himself as tougher on China than President Trump, who is trying to show that his Democratic challenger would be a weak commander in chief.) This effect isn’t contained to specific regions. If America removes soldiers from South Korea, that may embolden Russia or Iran, not just North Korea and China. And if allies in Europe or the Middle East see America degrade its alliance with South Korea, they may question Washington’s commitments to them as well. Japan will no doubt question its own alliance with the US. Both Tokyo and Seoul could very well look to nuclear weapons to replace a less reliable America. This is a dangerous road to go down. Washington must also realize that, despite having the most powerful military on Earth, the US is incapable of winning wars outside the Western hemisphere without allies. Indeed, America’s conventional military supremacy is true only if it has a lot of time to bring troops and equipment from long distances and has full access to bases abroad. Consider North Korea. In the event of war on the Korean peninsula, the US will need not only forces in South Korea to defend the country but also forces in Japan. But the United Nations’ forces in Japan can only be dispatched to defend South Korea with the approval of the Japanese prime minister. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has made clear that, if war erupts, he will first launch a nuclear weapon not at Seoul or San Francisco, but at Japan (probably Tokyo). The Japanese prime minister will have a choice: Help defend South Korea or face a nuclear attack. Without the UN’s forces from Japan, America and South Korea simply cannot defend the latter by conventional (non-nuclear) means. Removing troops from South Korea would only give the Japanese prime minister further reason not to help, having lost sufficient faith in America’s commitment to defend Japan, not just South Korea. Fortunately, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2020 states that the Pentagon can’t reduce its forces in South Korea below 28,500 unless the secretary of defense certifies that doing so is in America’s national security interest and will not significantly undermine the security of US allies. This presumably means that no withdrawal is happening — unless the Pentagon chief lies, of course. After all, there’s no good strategic or economic reason to remove troops from South Korea. A withdrawal would lead to nothing good: America would be weakened, and America’s enemies would be thrilled. That’s called bad policy. Order Newt's Latest Book: https://www.gingrich360.com/trump-and-the-american-future

INNER CIRCLE MEMBER CONTENT