Should We Pull Out of South Korea?

[jordan179]

Doug Bandow, in "Seoul Searching" (posted on National Interest)

http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=20218

makes the argument that we should. He points out that

South Korea is a helpless international dependent no longer. The South ranks among the

Comments

[selfishgene]

My only objection is that a US withdrawal should be preceded by a secret warning to China and SK. It would be bad if NK had time to do something stupid before China was ready to rein them in. A sudden power vacuum can lead to unexpected results. Remember how Saddam invaded Kuwait when he thought the US was going to let him get away with it.

[pogo101]

I basically agree and have for some time. It's true that the since-February-2008 leader of S.Korea is more pro-US and hawkish vs. the Norks than his predecessor, but I think the USA still needs to set a timetable (gasp!) for gradual withdrawal. We'll probably want to retain a tiny land force presence there and a moderate naval one. (I hate to put things so bluntly, but the Norks have long had the ability to flatten Seoul with conventional artillery, to say nothing of nukes. They need to know that their taking such an action would certainly result in the military destruction of the North Korean regime within minutes.)

[jordan179]

I think that the South Koreans need to develop their own nuclear arsenal. They are sufficiently rich and advanced to do so quite easily, and a nuclear deterrent in South Korean hands would be far more effective against North Korea than one controlled by America. The South Korean regime is quite non-radical, and could surely be trusted with such power.

[pogo101]

I don't have a problem with a nuclear S.Korea. But then, I don't have a problem with a nuckear Japan ... which should be on the UN Security Council .. but that's another post.

[ghostwolf]

It seems as though the long-desired and -awaited re-unification of Korea is taking place, but not as the Kims thought it would, by drawing the South into the North's essentially useless political sphere. I'd be willing to wager if the North became unpleasant, the South would cut off all aid and funding to bring the North to heel for biting the hand that's feeding them. Even the most devoted Marxist-Leninist would pause before causing their own people to starve, which is what I believe the South is working to accomplish. Kim Jong-Il might be deluded, but I very much doubt he's a complete idiot ... and his ministers or whatever certainly aren't.

Hmmm...
A re-unified country, bought and paid-for. Price: Some ridiculous figure.
Watching the Kims crawl in the dust, begging to survive: Priceless.

Perfect, ironic "justice".

[mindstalk]

Even the most devoted Marxist-Leninist would pause before causing their own people to starve

This strikes me as odd give the history of Stalin, Mao, and for that matter North Korea, where the leaders seem happy to treat the non-elite and non-military population as surplus. Whether any of them count as true devoted Marxist-Leninists, vs. psychopathic nutbags who may not have recognized subjects as "their own people" (esp. Stalin), isn't an argument I'd want to have. But the Kim's don't seem particularly motivated by general welfare.

[ghostwolf]

Perhaps, but there's one point to keep firmly in mind: Without workers, the Marxist-Leninists have no paradise.

[kc_anathema]

I always find your posts to be extremely informative and persuasive. It's getting to the point where if I see that you're in agreement with something, it's probably a darn good idea.

Another bonus of no longer shoveling support towards South Korea would be other countries noticing the money being shut off and realizing it could happen to them, too.