is whether we need 37,000 troops on the DMZ. The alternative is that we could station troops in the area who could be rapidly deployed. In a strict sense this is simply a military question. I don’t know if this would be effective, but kind of doubt it. The troops there now are designed to keep a foothold on the country so the North Koreans don’t push the South Korean army into the sea and take away our chance to land troops in a non-occupied zone-much like Inchon in the first war.
If the South Koreans can handle their own defense this might be reasonable. I am skeptical, but on purely strategic grounds it could be true.
I’m struck though at what a colossally stupid idea this is to anyone who wants to be tough with the North Koreans. Oh, yeah, we’ll show you how tough we are–we’ll pull out!
Now that seems like a solution Chamberlain would have been proud of in his day. The confusion of those on the right about the difference between a legitimate democratic ally and some random banana republic we use is quite clear to me. An ally is an ally out of common interests. Often that ally can be there because we need a strategic ally such as the Saudis. Other times allies exist because of shared values and some strategic interest on the side. South Korea doesn’t have to be a lackey of the US to be our strong ally. They are allowed to have their own opinions. Many Americans died ensuring they would have that right. A democratic and free South Korea is good for the US economically, militarily and morally. If Americans want to throw a temper tantrum about being respected they can, but it will be counterproductive. Our interest is in containing North Korea. That job gets a lot harder if South Korea isn’t cooperating.