Bush can’t say nuclear (and a helluva lot of other words, for that matter), but what the hell is ‘withdrawering.’
At any rate, that wasn’t even the dumbest part of the speech to the VFW. This was:
For example, why are we unilaterally withdrawing 12,000 troops from the Korean Peninsula at the very time we are negotiating with North Korea
Dean
So, if South Korea demanded that we withdraw our troops, we should say “No,” according to Kerry?
I guess the Philippines should be relieved that it was Bush-I, and not Kerry, who was Prez in ’89-’91, when we withdrew (at their behest) from Subic and Clark?
Or is it that we need those troops to negotiate better? Uhm, Mr. Kerry, perhaps you might want to chat w/ your erstwhile friend and advisor, Jimmeh Cottuh, who pushed for COMPLETE withdrawal of US ground forces in *1979*, when the RoKs were pleading with us to stay?
Or is it that you’re prepared to start a war on the Korean peninsula, and we’ll need those troops? Again, you might want to check w/ Jimmeh, who prevented us from exercising that option (you might also want to read Don Oberdorfer’s book on the two Koreas, for further details on how close we got to doing just that).
Might NK take the wrong lesson from this? I dunno—more or less of a wrong lesson than offering full diplomatic relations in 2000 when the NKs were busily enriching uranium?
bg
We have a nuclear shield? Where can I get one? (No, seriously – If this is true, I’m underinformed. Anyone got a link to more info?)
Dean
bg:
I’m gonna assume (given our interaction below) that you’re serious.
“Nuclear shield” refers to the extended deterrent from the American nuclear (mostly strategic but some tactical) forces. It is a term that has been in use since the 1950s.
Said shield was rejected by many Europeans during the Reagan administration, when the deployment of Pershing IIs and cruise missiles was underway (the “biggest marches up to that time”), as well as by the likes of John Kerry, who wanted a nuclear freeze (remember that?).
Interestingly, said shield was NOT rejected by either the Japanese or the South Koreans.
Bill Arnold
“Performed or undertaken by only one side: unilateral disarmament.” Pretty clear to me. Why are we withdrawing troops while negotiating with an insane, armed to the teeth enemy? I’ve never understood the Bush administration approach to North Korea. At first it seemed like we were being antagonistic just to boost the domestic polical argument for a missile defense system, which at least was comprehensible, but since then it’s make no sense at all to me.
Al Maviva
Um, I dunno Bill. It makes sense to me.
Both countries are getting what they have been asking for since the hated Nukular Bushwa took office. Their elites hate him with a passion ordinarily reserved for Hitler, pederast murderers, and those who smoke in restaurants or in front of children. The people of both countries consistently poll 50:50 at best about American presence, and generally run 60:40 against, or stronger. Clearly, we aren’t wanted, and we are perceived as an imperialist colonialist yadda yadda yadda power.
So, I’m fine with it if we leave, and I suspect the Germans and South Koreans are too, at least they are until the stunning cost of providing for their own self-defense, both in treasure and blood, sinks in.
Either way, it will force both nations to stand on their own for a change, and shoulder the burden for their own defense.
Let’s face it, after the last three years of the Kerrycrats and Deaniaces screaming that we shouldn’t be pushing the rest of the world around, I’m starting to come around to their viewpoint. We should do our part in the war on terror, saber-rattling at the ChiComs, whatever. It’s basically a law enforcement problem, right Mr. Kerry – so we’ll send lawyers, put 100,000 new beat cops on the street, declare war on terror, whatever it takes. Hell, let’s send a double compliment of lawyers. But no more soldiers, no more war, etc.
I don’t think the infantile left in either country understands what my daddy pointed out the day I left home, “you walk out that door, you are on your own.” The massive street demonstrations, the Bush=Hitler stuff, the use of Bush in particular and America generally by Gerhard Schroeder as an outlet valve for domestic ennui – it’s all over. Let’s see how they feel about making their own car payments. The Germans – many of whom I number among my dear friends – can choke on it for all I care. The South Koreans – for whom my father sacrificed three years of his life and his health, who have demonstrated most violently against all things American, save our clothes, hamburgers and music – can choke on it too. The time has come to see how well their appeasement of the Hermit Kingdom, the billions of dollars of payoffs that keep the North afloat, have worked to buy peace and goodwill. Sorry chaps, we aren’t playing world’s cop so you can play world’s social worker. It’s your turn to grow up and be the daddy.
We Americans have borne the greatest part of the burden for far too long. We are now under attack and will be, probably for some decades, and with the exception of token forces assigned to low risk missions, neither of these nations gives a flying fuck about helping us with solving the real root causes of our terrorist enemies. Here’s a hint – it ain’t our involvement in other countries, like Germany and South Korea, that is the root cause. But you sure could have fooled the Germans and South Koreans on that.
If they want to be secure, it’s their turn to deplete their treasuries, sacrifice blood, and suffer the wounds of vicious political infighting, as we have done since WWII. World War IV is afoot, and if they want to play Poland or Belgium, I’m all for it. That’s what self-determination and democracy are about: being just as stupid as you want to be. But assuming they want to play dumb, I don’t want the U.S. to be in the position of playing sacrificial British Expeditionary Force as the Islamist cultural and terrorist blitzkrieg rolls on.
Ripper
Bill A, if we fight North Korea it will be an Atomic war. The close-in ground troops we have there now will be a hindrance to our Trident barrages, best to move them out of harm’s way.
Bloggerhead
I think you kinda answered your own question there, Bill. This, too, is a domestic political move, the administration’s attempt to lock up the military vote. Remember the torrent of write-in ballots that was going to erode Gore’s popular vote edge in the days following the 2000 election? Oh, wait…
Of course, John would have us believe that only the announcement is political, not the withdrawal itself, inasmuch as it is the result of years of careful strategic planning. That this administration appears to have failed to plan at all for the aftermath of the Iraq invasion should, however, clue us all in to when most of the serious withdrawal planning was actually done (i.e. prior to this administration’s taking office). Contrast that with when they announced it: less than 90 days before leaving office.
John Cole
Of course, Bloggerhead will be completely snide and ignore the fact that this move has been debated since 1990, at least, and ignore the evidence that this moive has been debated intensely through out this administration.
Why, Bloggerhead has at his disposal the most powerful weapons in the Democratic arsenal. Those being, of course, condescension and assertions.
shark
Perhaps Kerry thinks Jacques Chirac should have been consulted before we announced troop withdrawls?
Gary Farber
In this case, it’s “unilateral” as opposed to “as part of a mutual agreement.” Not as opposed to “multilateral.” It’s an entirely fair usage.
Disagreeing with Kerry’s criticism is perfectly legitmate, of course. As it happens, I disagree with his overall criticism of the overall military shift, myself; I think the shift is a good idea, overall, long called for, and sensible, and I think Kerry is here merely being opportunistic in his criticism (though certainly no more so than Bush/Cheney are all the time).
But the use of “unilateral” is, in this context, perfectly reasonable.
“Why, Bloggerhead has at his disposal the most powerful weapons in the Democratic arsenal. Those being, of course, condescension and assertions.”
John, John, John. As if many Republicans don’t constantly use those unhelpful tools as well.
Tis a silly notion; they are yet another non-partisan methodology.
Bloggerhead
But, John, that’s what I like about you and your blog: being snide and condescending is de rigueur here. Hey, how ’bout re-reading your own dripping post, for example.
Seriously, though, no one can deny that these troop reductions have been a long time in the works. I’m not so familiar with the rationale behind the Korean reduction, though it would seem that if we are going to rely on a nuclear umbrella to deter what is an insane regime, why not remove them all from the DMZ? Or if we are negotiating multilaterally with what is an insane regime (neither good nor mutually exclusive choices, I agree), why dispense with any conceivable leverage? Of course, it’s perfectly reasonable that this withdrawal has been finely calibrated to provide only enough forces to aid the South with any non-nuclear encroachment by the North, but given this administration’s politicization of everything, and the announcement’s timing and setting, it is also perfectly reasonable to suspect that that’s what’s really going on here, a point that I think is better illustrated by the drawdown of troops in Germany.
As opposed the SK situation, I can personally attest that this has indeed been underway a long while in Germany. My father is from Kaiserslautern–and my brother-in-law is now stationed there–and over the past 15 or so summers I have observed our dwindling presence (not that most K-towners don’t still speak English well and their Pfalzer dialect is cram-packed with American slang and English words). Yet these are surely some of our most important and reliable projection points. So why draw down further only to dangle some relocation slightly further to the east in (cough) New Europe? Why proffer the construction of new bases there that don’t significantly enhance our projection? Why? Because Germany didn’t blindly support this administration’s move on Iraq (though, to be sure, they probably too blindly opposed it). This is hardly the stuff of long-range planning. Pique is a political, not a strategic virtue.
John Cole
I never said we both don’t use it- how else do you think I recognize them? I just said they are the BEST weapons in the emocratic arsenal.
They are but merely tools Iemploy from time to time.
ed
Hmmm.
1. Some people will see a conspiracy in the most mundane things.
2. South Korea has the most modern military in that part of the world. Japan also has a very modern military but it’s hampered by politics and isn’t all that large. The RoK is tough and well equipped and easily capable of handling Nork all by itself. The only deterents to the RoK invading the Nork are the 20,000 artillery guns all pointed at Seoul, the nuclear threat and the lack of political will.
The 35,000 American soldiers in the RoK are tactically insignificant. Their actual only reason for being there is to die. And by dying they would automatically put America at war with whoever killed them.
I’d suggest that’s a rather silly thing to commit 35,000 soldiers to. Why couldn’t the number be smaller? If their only real reason is to die, then let’s leave a couple thousand there instead. The Korean pennisula isn’t all that big. Another war will be over far too quickly for any real deployment to be effective by the American military.
3. Why do so many people think that strategic moves can only be done one at a time? What? Multi-tasking isn’t allowed?
So yes. Diplomacy can be done at the same time as troop withdrawls..
4. Most RoK citizens do want American soldiers out of their country. I know. I was a South Korean, half American though, so I can tell you first hand that South Koreans are pretty damn xenophobic. They take racial purity pretty seriously in some parts.
5. “I’ve never understood the Bush administration approach to North Korea.”
This is actually not all that complex. Bush was hammered over the decision to invade Iraq. So he’s been pretty clever allowing his detractors fail at using diplomacy in Iran and Nork. In Nork’s case an invasion is pretty much not a viable option. So instead the real option is to involve China and try to make Nork a danger to everyone. Even though Nork hasn’t made any overt aggressive moves towards China, an unstable Nork does impact investment in China and it’s economy.
6. “This, too, is a domestic political move, the administration’s attempt to lock up the military vote.”
That’s doubtful. Really what Bush is trying to do is free up soldiers for redeployment. Currently the 35,000 soldiers in the RoK aren’t really doing anything of note. If there is a war their contribution will be relatively minor compared to the 500,000 RoK soldiers. If there isn’t a war, but there is a continuing WoT, then those soldiers are being wasted when they could be put to much better use elsewhere.
7. “it would seem that if we are going to rely on a nuclear umbrella to deter what is an insane regime, why not remove them all from the DMZ?”
That’s actually part of the redeployment. Those units that are stationed near the DMZ will end up being moved far away from the DMZ.
8. “why dispense with any conceivable leverage?”
Because the 35,000 soldiers aren’t “leverage” at all. They are a liability as the Nork military can threaten them. Once they are out of reach of the Nork, then more options are available.
9. “Of course, it’s perfectly reasonable that this withdrawal has been finely calibrated to provide only enough forces to aid the South with any non-nuclear encroachment by the North,”
Sorry but the RoK military is fully capable of fighting on it’s own. The presence of American ground forces in South Korea is a waste of resources.
ed
Hmmm.
RoK military:
1. http://www.csun.edu/~btk29323/keithr~1.htm
2. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rok/
Hope that helps.
Dean
Bill Arnold:
So, I take it that when Bush-I ended tactical nuclear deployments unilaterally, including on the Korean peninsula, you viewed this as destabilizing and a bad move? Perhaps even felt that we should have kept our tac-nukes there, as bargaining leverage? Funny how I don’t recall too many voices sounding *that* opinion.
Bloggerhead:
What is the purpose of maintaining American forces in Europe, esp. Germany?
And, given the name of the location, I’m curious: How old are the facilities at Kaiserslautern? When were they last modernized?
How large is Grafenwehr? How does it compare with, oh, NTC or Ft. Polk’s JRTC? Think that might matter?
Where is the nearest TRANSCOM unit to Kaiserslautern?
Slartibartfast
withdrawering, gerund: The act of removing one’s troops with sufficiently considered organization that they take their pants with them.
ape
The dumbest part of the speech? When he descibed Bush’s decision as ‘Hastily announced’. What’s Bush supposed to do? Speak slower?
It’s not a misspeak version of ‘hastily decided’, as this has clearly been coming for years and was leaked in January and Autumn last year. As former ambassador to NATO Hunter said last night, the only possible criticism would be on diplomatic grounds.
LC Steve
I had to stop watching J F’in Kerry on the idiot box. Every time he spoke, I was making a run for the Maalox bottle.
Steve
Did Mr. K think that AMERICAN troop positioning should really be a multilateral decission? They are our troops, no one elses, period. No other country in the world ever has, or ever will decide our global positioning of our troops, Nor should they. We don’t tell france where and where not to station troops do we? I’m sorry, the UN is NOT who decides our troop levels, positioning, strategy, etc… This is called sovereignty.
Justin Ogren
The real answer is keeping them withdrawn and change our foreign policy, and make peace.
But we all know that isn’t gonna get Bush or Kerry anymore dollars in the bank.
John Cole
Not to mention Hohenfels an all the undreds of other little places.