Why America Must Defend South Korea
Victor Davis Hanson ·
Nov 25, 2010 at 2:14pm
Ricochet member Kenneth writes:
The Cold War is over. Why on earth should we expend American blood and treasure to defend South Korea?
George Washington warned us about this kind of entanglement.
Why should we expend American blood and treasure to defend South Korea? Let us count the ways and considerations:
- We are not talking of sending hundreds of thousands of soldiers to Korea, but mostly sophisticated naval and air contingents with overwhelming firepower. There are only between 25,000 and 35,000 American military personnel there on the ground, depending on how we calibrate U.S. area defense forces, that augment one of the largest forces of any democratic nations, roughly 700,000 active and more than 3 million reserve South Korean military personnel. South Korea is no paper tiger, but spends vast amounts on its own defense. Our mission thus is not to defend Korea alone, but to act as advisors, supply sophisticated technology and follow through on our treaty obligations by visible examples of U.S. forces on the ground. Note unlike Afghanistan or Iraq, this is a conventional crisis, one in which Western air and naval power would be far more effective, as was true in winter 1951, against concentrations of communist forces.
- We help South Korea also because of the past heroic sacrifices of thousands of Americans who saved South Korea when at one point it was little more than the Pusan perimeter. Their heroism, and the subsequent vigilance of generations of Americans, have helped South Korea to become one of the most successful democratic and capitalist nations in the world, as we see from brands from Hyundai to Samsung, constitutional and peaceable changes in government, and 50 million free and prosperous South Koreans. Had we not done that, 50 million South Koreans would now be eating grass in the manner North Koreans are sometimes forced to. South Korea, then, is not a matter of optional engagement such as Somalia or the Sudan, but the pillar of US Asian defense policy, in both moral and strategic terms.
- Should we fail to support the South, then governments in the Philippines, Taiwan, and Japan will assume the U.S. either cannot or will not honor its obligations that have led to these successful democracies, and will in turn either make accommodations with the communist Chinese or seek to go nuclear to obtain their own deterrence--a capability well within the ability of all four such countries.
- If North Korea were to invade and if we were to do nothing in support--whatever the outcome--China would see this as a green light to raise its global profile among vulnerable Western nations with deleterious consequences for democracy in general. Remember, just as Chinese clients like North Korea or Iran cause untold trouble in the world, by things like threatening Japan or arming Hezbollah, U.S. allies such as South Korea are positive global players who obey laws, enrich the world with their industry and genius, and prove model global citizens.
- Comment (76)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Why America Must Defend South Korea
In the past, America's economic strength and reliability may have made up for any military unreliability, real or imagined, but we've squandered most of our economic advantage in the World. Military power is the only ace the US has left. We can't afford devaluation there too. In some arena, our word has to mean something.
Jul '10
Re: Why America Must Defend South Korea
Sorry, Professor Hanson, but I'm still with George Washington on this one:
"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."
Substitute "Asia" for "Europe" and Washington's words still ring true today.
South Koreans have had 57 years to build a military deterrence against their foe. If their defenses are now unequal to that task, I see no moral reason why American soldiers should die to defend them.
Edited on Nov 25, 2010 at 2:58pmMay '10
Re: Why America Must Defend South Korea
etoiledunord: In the past, America's economic strength and reliability may have made up for any military unreliability, real or imagined, but we've squandered most of our economic advantage in the World. Military power is the only ace the US has left. We can't afford devaluation there too. In some arena, our word has to mean something. · Nov 25 at 2:48pm
What economy is bigger, even now? There isn't even an economy that is close in the manufacturing sector. Just our non-Detroit auto industry dwarfs most countries in the developed world.
All it takes is a bit of fiscal sanity for a while and the financial sector will be OK as well. Governments, stop spending- but this is still the dominant economy.
May '10
Re: Why America Must Defend South Korea
Surely the 25 to 35k U.S. military personnel stationed there are not all advisors. Given how vulnerable they are and that the defensive contribution they offer is minimal, I think the majority of them should be withdrawn. I haven't got a problem with arming the South Koreans, the Taiwanese, and the Japanese with nuclear weapons, conventional weapons, missile defense systems, and expertise given that the DoD possesses a vast arsenal of idle weapons and resources. The cost of such an undertaking would be minimal.
May '10
Re: Why America Must Defend South Korea
Well put. We should do it because it is the right thing to do.
May '10
Re: Why America Must Defend South Korea
I think this is a bit of a tautology. Whenever someone does something, they in one respect believe its the right thing to do, otherwise they wouldn't do it.
May '10
Re: Why America Must Defend South Korea
The scholarship on entangling alliances has been somewhat perplexing. Some scholars seem to think that when he said that he was referring to his precise time periods issues with England and France and the impressment of American sailors. He didn't want to choose between the anglo/francophiles in his cabinet. Washington didn't want an entangling alliance with one and not the other. Therefore he maintained neutraility. I don't think he meant that 220 years later we should never have alliances with other countries under any circumstances. Does anyone know or believe if there is merit to this interpretation?
Jun '10
Re: Why America Must Defend South Korea
Duane Oyen
etoiledunord:
What economy is bigger, even now? There isn't even an economy that is close in the manufacturing sector. Just our non-Detroit auto industry dwarfs most countries in the developed world.
All it takes is a bit of fiscal sanity for a while and the financial sector will be OK as well. Governments, stop spending- but this is still the dominant economy. · Nov 25 at 3:03pm
It's not just what we have today. It's what we have today, minus all our financial obligations, present and future. I assume our borrowing and our entitlement obligations will be cut back severely, only because we'll have no other choice, but nothing's been done yet. I'll wait till then to be optimistic.
May '10
Re: Why America Must Defend South Korea
Kenneth, you lack a little bit of tactical knowledge.
During his tenure with the Marines, my husband spent a lot of time in the Far East with responsibilities that included Korea. I knew he would have valuable insight into this, so I asked him what he thought. The following is long, but interesting...
May '10
Re: Why America Must Defend South Korea
Much of the U.S. combat forces in Korea have combat effect far in excess of their numbers. There are two squadrons of F-16’s at Kunsan, U-2’s based at Osan, night capable A-10 Warthogs to counter an armored onslaught from North Korea, and Army troops manning patriot air defense batteries. Much of the U.S. airborne strike capability would be Marine F/A-18 Hornets from Iwakuni, Japan, F-22 Raptors from Okinawa, and U.S. Navy Carrier air wing aircraft flying either off the Reagan or straight into the fight from Atsugi Naval Air Station outside Tokyo. So, several hundred top-of-the-line U.S. fighter jets can be brought to bear quickly in Korea. U.S. Army combat forces are not along the DMZ and would likely never be involved in infantry fighting as the North Korean push would last less than a week due to limited logistic ability and outdated and poorly maintained forces, which would easily succumb to coordinated air power. But, you can bet there are plenty of U.S. Officers in the Command and Control Bunkers throughout Korea. We are the eyes, ears and high tech combat punch...
May '10
Re: Why America Must Defend South Korea
to augment the ROK forces, which are highly capable and vicious defenders of their own homeland. Few Americans would die, but we would insure the quick success of the ROK forces, which is what we owe a strong ally in Asia we are linked closely to by treaty obligations and economic ties.
The ROK Air Force, itself, has several squadrons of the most advanced version of the F-15. The North Koreans are flying Mig-21s, if they can even get them flying, which is dubious to say the least. So, the South Koreans and the U.S. will put a big hurt on North Korea if they even flinch. North Korea knows all this and it’s the only reason they don’t really do anything more than pin prick stuff. They just want attention and negotiations, so they can get stuff for free. It’s also the reason they want nuclear weapons, so they can have any sort of realistic threat to anyone. Their conventional forces just get older and more outdated over time. U.S. forces in South Korea are a giant force multiplier for ROK forces. South Koreans can defend themselves…we just make them better.
Jul '10
Re: Why America Must Defend South Korea
Andrea Ryan: to augment the ROK forces, which are highly capable and vicious defenders of their own homeland.
South Koreans can defend themselves…we just make them better. · Nov 25 at 5:14pm
Well, your husband seems to feel the South Koreans can handle it on their own.
May '10
Re: Why America Must Defend South Korea
Thank you, Mr. Andrea, for the above information, and for your service to our country.
Oct '10
Re: Why America Must Defend South Korea
Sorry, Kenneth, but I am with Professor Hanson on this. George Washington's comments were pertinent when he made them, but don't apply in the world today. We would be ill advised to withdraw our troops from South Korea before the situation with North Korea is resolved. When that time comes, and I wish that it was sooner or rather than later, we can address the issue of troop levels in South Korea.
May '10
Re: Why America Must Defend South Korea
Kenneth
Andrea Ryan: to augment the ROK forces, which are highly capable and vicious defenders of their own homeland.
South Koreans can defend themselves…we just make them better. · Nov 25 at 5:14pm
Well, your husband seems to feel the South Koreans can handle it on their own. · Nov 25 at 5:54pm
Yeah, so? It doesn’t make any of what Victor Davis Hanson said not true. It’s only a guaranteed win if we’re there. South Koreans don’t have nuclear weapons. North Koreans do. That’s the bigger picture.
May '10
Re: Why America Must Defend South Korea
According to Gene Healy at the Cato Institute,
"The U.S. has an interest in denuclearizing the Korean peninsula, of course — but that doesn't require American troops stationed along the DMZ, bearing a disproportionate amount of the risk in an allegedly "mutual" defense pact.
South Korea sacrifices some sovereignty in this bargain, but at least it saves money. The ROK spends 2.6 of its GDP on defense — well less than the United States — and falling. As my colleague Doug Bandow puts it in a forthcoming study, "Americans are borrowing money to pay to defend the South so South Koreans can spend their money on other priorities."
According to the World Bank, South Korea's GDP is approx $832.25 billion. Why can't it finance its own defense? The parallels with the welfare state are too glaring to ignore. Domestic welfare spending causes dependence at home. Why wouldn't such spending cause dependence overseas? The same applies to Europe. U.S. taxpayers subsidize European defense as well as European healthcare (due to price controls). This is a scandal. If the South Koreans are self-interested, they will defend themselves. If not, then they are not worthy of defense.
Edited on Nov 25, 2010 at 6:43pmJul '10
Re: Why America Must Defend South Korea
Andrea Ryan
Kenneth
Andrea Ryan: to augment the ROK forces, which are highly capable and vicious defenders of their own homeland.
South Koreans can defend themselves…we just make them better. · Nov 25 at 5:14pm
Well, your husband seems to feel the South Koreans can handle it on their own. · Nov 25 at 5:54pm
Yeah, so? It doesn’t make any of what Victor Davis Hanson said not true. It’s only a guaranteed win if we’re there. South Koreans don’t have nuclear weapons. North Koreans do. That’s the bigger picture. · Nov 25 at 6:26pm
What Victor offered is his opinion, as I offered mine. Neither is objectively "true".
By the way,Michael Labeit's comment perfectly summarizes my feelings.
May '10
Re: Why America Must Defend South Korea
Kenneth
What Victor offered is his opinion, as I offered mine. Neither is objectively "true".
By the way,Michael Labeit's comment perfectly summarizes my feelings. · Nov 25 at 6:58pm
VDH’s is based on facts and geopolitical reality. Your opinion is based on a quote from George Washington that doesn’t have anything to do with this. You’re missing the whole point. It doesn’t have anything to do with “fair”. We’re not just defending South Korea’s interest…our geopolitical interests are at stake there. Did you read numbers 3 and 4 in VDH’s post?
Jul '10
Re: Why America Must Defend South Korea
Andrea Ryan
Kenneth
What Victor offered is his opinion, as I offered mine. Neither is objectively "true".
By the way,Michael Labeit's comment perfectly summarizes my feelings. · Nov 25 at 6:58pm
VDH’s is based on facts and geopolitical reality. Your opinion is based on a quote from George Washington that doesn’t have anything to do with this. You’re missing the whole point. It doesn’t have anything to do with “fair”. We’re not just defending South Korea’s interest…our geopolitical interests are at stake there. Did you read numbers 3 and 4 in VDH’s post? · Nov 25 at 7:13pm
May I ask why you feel it's appropriate to be so condescending?
I'm not aware that I ever addressed you in such a manner.
May '10
Re: Why America Must Defend South Korea
The situation in Asia is easily explained in economic terms. As long as the U.S. military remains in South Korea as it does today, the South Korean government has no incentive to take primary responsibility of its national defense. Why would it have an incentive? U.S. taxpayers will be charged with taking up the slack. The same applies to Japan, which despite what some say is apparently so comfortable with the U.S. presence that they possess only a very small military.
Why should welfare recipients of any kind seek self-sufficiency if the government is willing to pay for their expenses?
I think if the U.S. announced to the South Korean government that it intended to gradually withdraw, it would grant the South Koreans enough time to compensate militarily for the American absence. We could continue to engage in weapons and defense equipment exchanges and I don't see why defense firms could not sell goods to the South Korean government.