The AP reports that the US will reduce its military presence in South Korea, including dramatic cuts in forces along the demilitarized zone (DMZ) separating North and South Korea, in a policy shift from the decades-long "tripwire" strategy that kept the million-man northern PRK army from invading the south:

The United States will pull nearly all its troops from their last front-line positions along the tense frontier with communist North Korea by October as part of a force reshuffle on the divided Korean peninsula, the United Nations Command said Tuesday. Duties along the heavily fortified buffer, called the Demilitarized Zone, will be handed over to South Korea, which has 600,000 troops staring off against North Korea's 1.1-million member military, the world's fifth largest.

While the US's popularity in South Korea has waned over the past couple of decades, they never really wanted to see us leave their defenses. The AP does not include any reaction from Seoul, either official or unofficial. The US plans on handing back half of its bases in the Republic, some of them on land considered to have prime real-estate potential, which may offset the economic damage done by the base closings.

North Korea reacted counter-intuitively:

On Sunday, North Korea condemned a reduction of U.S. forces along the DMZ as preparation for a pre-emptive attack against the communist country. The North sometimes argues that a pullout signals an attack, because it would reduce the risk of immediate U.S. casualties along the border fighting zone.

It may be the only country to consider a stand-down of forces as a prelude to attack, but then again, in the paranoia of Kim Jong-Il, any change could be a prelude to attack. The AP explains it as part of Donald Rumsfeld's campaign to create a lighter, nimbler armed forces that leverages its technological advantages to deter attack rather than large numbers of standing troops. In that regard, it certainly means less casualties at least on defense, and for that we can do nothing but applaud Rumsfeld as long as the mission isn't compromised.

However, it looks more like the reduction also reflects changing priorities at the Pentagon and changing politics on the ground. The South Koreans have not been terribly helpful during the nuclear non-proliferation effort aimed at disarming North Korea of its nuclear weapons. Force reduction may possibly reflect some disenchantment between the US and its South Korean ally, or more likely it is simply a way in which to allow the South Koreans to take more control over their own security situation, which should be the ultimate goal in our Korean policy anyway. In the meantime, we could use the troops pinned down in the DMZ in other theaters, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, since our erstwhile NATO allies haven't been particularly eager to assist in either effort, despite official UN blessing on the latter.

Expect to see more realignments in the near future to meet new global realities, especially in Europe, where we're still defending against a non-existent Soviet menace.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry is

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference AP: Massive Reductions In US Positions on SK DMZ?:

» 21st Century Troop Realignment from INDC Journal
Captain Ed has a typically intelligent post regarding impending reductions of the US military presence along the DMZ in South Korea. I don't necessarily agree that the NORKS' response is "counter-intuitive," however. If I were running the Pentagon and ... [Read More]

Tracked on April 27, 2004 10:27 AM

» Rolling back the tripwire from JAG Wire
US forces have been frozen in a defensive position on the Korean DMZ for over 50 years, acting as "tripwire" to ensure US invlovelment were the North to attack. Last year, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced that US troops [Read More]

Tracked on April 27, 2004 8:28 PM

» Redeployment does not mean reduction from JAG Wire
There has been some confusion on the web about the redeployment of troops currently stationed along the Korean DMZ. Redeployment does not necessarily mean reduction; it just means the troops are moving. Where are they going? According to General Leon [Read More]

Tracked on April 27, 2004 10:41 PM