View Full Version : S. Korea to pay 13.9% more for their own defense
Bringing them up to whopping 44% of the costs. Should be closer to 100% at this point, assuming we should there at all at this point. North Korea is their problem and we have plenty of our own. While I'm not for pre WWII isolationism to be sure, we can't afford to do the world police approach much longer without compensation as the very least. At least Trump recognized our "allies" living off the free defense needed to start paying their fair share, which should never be lower than 50%, unless there's a clear and obvious national security/interest to be there. What is our national interests at this point for being in S. Korea in 2021? Would the north attack if we left and overrun the south? Other?
"Overall, South Korea will be paying about 44% of the overall cost of having American troops based on the peninsula"
WASHINGTON — Striking a delicate balance, the United States and South Korea have agreed Seoul will pay 13.9% more this year for hosting American troops as part of a multiyear deal crafted to keep Seoul's share of the overall cost within historical norms, officials said Wednesday.
The deal, which had been announced earlier this week but without financial details, ends a long stalemate that had strained relations between allies after the Trump administration demanded a five-fold increase in Seoul's contributions.
President Joe Biden's willingness to quickly accept smaller increases is cast by the State Department as evidence that the Biden administration wants to repair relations with key allies in East Asia as it focuses on regional unity in confronting China and North Korea.
The State Department announced Wednesday that Secretary of State Antony Blinken will travel to Tokyo and Seoul next week for security consultations to “reaffirm the United States’ commitment to strengthening our alliances.” Blinken will be joined in both meetings by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, who also will visit India.
American and South Korean officials, in separate briefings for reporters in Washington and Seoul, said the 13.9% increase will apply to the South Korean government's payments this year. In each of the following four years, the increase will match increases in Seoul's national defense budget.
Cont:
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/03/10/seoul-agrees-pay-more-hosting-american-troops-2021.html?
Grand58742
03-10-21, 13:09
President Joe Biden's willingness to quickly accept smaller increases is cast by the State Department as evidence that the Biden administration wants to repair relations with key allies in East Asia as it focuses on regional unity in confronting China and North Korea.
The State Department announced Wednesday that Secretary of State Antony Blinken will travel to Tokyo and Seoul next week for security consultations to “reaffirm the United States’ commitment to strengthening our alliances.” Blinken will be joined in both meetings by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, who also will visit India.
WTF?
The South Koreans and Japanese were overwhelmingly in support of the stance Trump took with North Korea.
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/01/08/little-support-for-trumps-international-policies/
I can flat guarantee you there are a lot of countries over in that part of the world that are privately worried about Joe Biden being in office.
I also am not a strict isolationist, but at this point North Korea knows if they pull any shenanigans we're going to jump in, whether we have troops on the DMZ or in CONUS. And we could move them a whole helluva lot faster than we could in 1950. Yup, they can sink that money into their own defense and we bring our troops home.
WTF?....I can flat guarantee you there are a lot of countries over in that part of the world that are privately worried about Joe Biden being in office.
As well they should (be worried). Biden has not articulated any kind of defense/military doctrine. They have no idea if the balloon goes up if he is going to help or hurt.
Grand58742
03-10-21, 13:12
As well they should (be worried). Biden has not articulated any kind of defense/military doctrine. They have no idea if the balloon goes up if he is going to help or hurt.
I think it should be illegal to include the words "articulate" and "Biden" in any paragraph together.
I think it should be illegal to include the words "articulate" and "Biden" in any paragraph together.
LOL, truth. The man is a potato.
WTF?
The South Koreans and Japanese were overwhelmingly in support of the stance Trump took with North Korea.
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/01/08/little-support-for-trumps-international-policies/
I can flat guarantee you there are a lot of countries over in that part of the world that are privately worried about Joe Biden being in office.
As they should be!
Grand58742
03-10-21, 14:25
As they should be!
To me it's that false narrative the left has been living under for the past four years.
"The world hates us because of Trump!"
Well, honestly, the world hasn't always liked us to start with and if they like one POTUS, chances are they are going to dislike the POTUS from another party. Regardless, we're the big kid on the block and should give eff-all about their opinion on whether they like us or not.
The scene from Half Baked comes to mind when Guillermo Díaz quits his job at the fast food place when it comes to whether other nations "like us" or not. "Eff you and you and you... you're cool, and eff you. I'm out!"
Like us or not, they sure as hell will come around and play nice when they need us. "Yay, America! I love you! Now help us with this disaster!"
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-10-21, 14:54
If there weren't white people in peril, have we ever not Buddy-Fudged an 'ally' eventually. How many ex-generals to colonels own hotels or liquor stores in Florida and California after we left locals holding the bag?
Bush broke the middle east. Trump made our allies not trust us. Are these people on crack? Why do the Poles, the ones most likely to have man an ambush position to stop a T-90 tank, love Trump?
To me it's that false narrative the left has been living under for the past four years.
"The world hates us because of Trump!"
Well, honestly, the world hasn't always liked us to start with and if they like one POTUS, chances are they are going to dislike the POTUS from another party. Regardless, we're the big kid on the block and should give eff-all about their opinion on whether they like us or not.
The scene from Half Baked comes to mind when Guillermo Díaz quits his job at the fast food place when it comes to whether other nations "like us" or not. "Eff you and you and you... you're cool, and eff you. I'm out!"
Like us or not, they sure as hell will come around and play nice when they need us. "Yay, America! I love you! Now help us with this disaster!"
I was not some big Trump supporter per se, but many who "hated" us did so because he called them on the fact they don't pay their own damn share of their own damn defense, have one sided trade policies, etc, etc.
He did at least attempt to pull us back from various locations we were/are, doing the world police thing, and didn't start any new wars.
So, credit where it's due there.
Grand58742
03-10-21, 15:43
I was not some big Trump supporter per se, but many who "hated" us did so because he called them on the fact they don't pay their own damn share of their own damn defense, have one sided trade policies, etc, etc.
He did at least attempt to pull us back from various locations we were/are, doing the world police thing, and didn't start any new wars.
So, credit where it's due there.
Oh, I agree 100%. I think they knew when he was elected he wasn't going to be the pushover Obama was (or Biden will be IMO)
This is one thing I agree with Trump about.
We guard countries like Germany and S. Korea to protect our own interests, it is true. But they get a lot out of the bargain and some of them, like S. Korea and Germany, are leading economies. Why shouldn't they kick in more to defray the costs.
We need to apply that idea to Israel, too. Let 'em fork over.
This is one thing I agree with Trump about.
We guard countries like Germany and S. Korea to protect our own interests, it is true. But they get a lot out of the bargain and some of them, like S. Korea and Germany, are leading economies. Why shouldn't they kick in more to defray the costs.
We need to apply that idea to Israel, too. Let 'em fork over.
Should be 50% minimum. Im not sure if S Korea or Europe is in our national interests at this point. Israel, perhaps, but they should get nadda for handouts from the US.
Grand58742
03-11-21, 09:37
Should be 50% minimum. Im not sure if S Korea or Europe is in our national interests at this point. Israel, perhaps, but they should get nadda for handouts from the US.
Well, you know Israel is about to start being the bastard stepchild again.
Should be 50% minimum. Im not sure if S Korea or Europe is in our national interests at this point. Israel, perhaps, but they should get nadda for handouts from the US.
How else to keep an alliance against Russia and China?
Honestly I think the chaebols would be ok with a power sharing arrangement with Kim Fat Fuk. The citizens are all over the map. Some want unification more than freedom.
Then there are the ROK military. Steel can learn lessons about being hard from ROK Marines.
How else to keep an alliance against Russia and China?
Im unclear why our physical presence is required as it applies to Russia at this juncture. China is another matter, but it's not our responsibility at this point to protect S Korea from the commies and of course as others have said, we can project power rapidly if needed. Very least, they cover most of the bill. I'd say we need to really decide what's in our NS interests, focus on them in a more targeted and concise manner, and get our allies to pay the hell up vs spending their $ on social programs while whining about the US aggression, etc. We are stretched thin and bleeding $ while some woke pretentious euro type lectures about the evils of US imperialism.
Im unclear why our physical presence is required as it applies to Russia at this juncture. China is another matter, but it's not our responsibility at this point to protect S Korea from the commies and of course as others have said, we can project power rapidly if needed. Very least, they cover most of the bill. I'd say we need to really decide what's in our NS interests, focus on them in a more targeted and concise manner, and get our allies to pay the hell up vs spending their $ on social programs while whining about the US aggression, etc. We are stretched thin and bleeding $ while some woke pretentious euro type lectures about the evils of US imperialism.
Regarding South Korea, we have a treaty, so there is a legal argument. So Until one or both parties decide the treaty isn't needed (I confess I am not sure what that looks like), we are obligated. I totally get the question of 'should we bee there?', and my answer is, no.
Regarding getting our allies to pony up was one of Trump's major undertakings, especially with NATO. I totally agree...those countries not only need to pay up and pay more, they also need to understand we don't need to be there.
Regarding physical presence vis-a-vis Russia, like Korea, it's not nearly as important as it used to be. We are not expecting thousands of men and hundreds (if not thousands) of tanks rolling through the Fulda gap from the east into western Europe. We can do more with less now, but attitudes are hard to change and a lot of those countries still want a US military presence (not necessarily for Russia's sake). One of my issues is that they want our presence and our $$$ while at the same time they speak out against the US out of the other side of their mouths.
Regarding South Korea, we have a treaty, so there is a legal argument. So Until one or both parties decide the treaty isn't needed (I confess I am not sure what that looks like), we are obligated. I totally get the question of 'should we bee there?', and my answer is, no.
Regarding getting our allies to pony up was one of Trump's major undertakings, especially with NATO. I totally agree...those countries not only need to pay up and pay more, they also need to understand we don't need to be there.
Regarding physical presence vis-a-vis Russia, like Korea, it's not nearly as important as it used to be. We are not expecting thousands of men and hundreds (if not thousands) of tanks rolling through the Fulda gap from the east into western Europe. We can do more with less now, but attitudes are hard to change and a lot of those countries still want a US military presence (not necessarily for Russia's sake). One of my issues is that they want our presence and our $$$ while at the same time they speak out against the US out of the other side of their mouths.
I don't claim expertise on the topic, but I know we have an Korean Armistice Agreement, but not formal peace treaty exists. I'm not clear what our official long term legal obligations are under the Armistice Agreement is. We saved them from the commie hords, and They at least seem appreciative of that as I understand it, unlike many (most?) of the euro countries.
Grand58742
03-11-21, 13:30
I don't claim expertise on the topic, but I know we have an Korean Armistice Agreement, but not formal peace treaty exists. I'm not clear what our official long term legal obligations are under the Armistice Agreement is. We saved them from the commie hords, and They at least seem appreciative of that as I understand it, unlike many (most?) of the euro countries.
Technically, I think the UN Resolution that kicked everything off in 1950 is still binding.
I could be wrong though.
I don't claim expertise on the topic, but I know we have an Korean Armistice Agreement, but not formal peace treaty exists. I'm not clear what our official long term legal obligations are under the Armistice Agreement is. We saved them from the commie hords, and They at least seem appreciative of that as I understand it, unlike many (most?) of the euro countries.
There is the Mutual Defense Treaty. That is separate from the armistice agreement. I not an expert either, and had to use my Google prowess. I know a country can just pull out of a treaty, and I read conflicting things about what would happen if we did; everything from 'nothing' to being sued in international courts and payment of any money received from SK, to all sorts of ramifications bullshit with the UN. So, I've no idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Defense_Treaty_(United_States%E2%80%93South_Korea)
Technically, I think the UN Resolution that kicked everything off in 1950 is still binding.
I could be wrong though.
My Q would be, how are we bound? That is, we must keep X number of boots on the ground at the DMZ, or that we are bound to show up and help in their defense should they be attacked?
There is the Mutual Defense Treaty. That is separate from the armistice agreement. I not an expert either, and had to use my Google prowess. I know a country can just pull out of a treaty, and I read conflicting things about what would happen if we did; everything from 'nothing' to being sued in international courts and payment of any money received from SK, to all sorts of ramifications bullshit with the UN. So, I've no idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Defense_Treaty_(United_States%E2%80%93South_Korea)
I guess my Q would then be same as above to Grand. Not sure I'd favor pulling out of such a treaty per se, but not clear as to why we need to maintain our presence there as we do, and foot most of the bill for it!
R.O.K. Resident and home owner (Seongdong-gu) here. Not stationed, not tourist - live there part of every year, work there part of every year.
Apart from the 70+ y.o. demographic, Koreans do not want foreign military forces based in Korea, including the US. Cooperation, joint ventures, joint exercises, yes - foreign military personnel and foreign bases, no.
Koreans no longer see the North as a military threat as much as they do an economic basketcase and potential humanitarian liability. Old Gen still wishes for unification; New Gen does not want the financial and economic burden.
Japan and China are larger concerns for Koreans than the North, at this point.
Histrionics about “muh Nork threat!” Are just that - western histrionics.
R.O.K. Resident and home owner (Seongdong-gu) here. Not stationed, not tourist - live there part of every year, work there part of every year.
Apart from the 70+ y.o. demographic, Koreans do not want foreign military forces based in Korea, including the US. Cooperation, joint ventures, joint exercises, yes - foreign military personnel and foreign bases, no.
Koreans no longer see the North as a military threat as much as they do an economic basketcase and potential humanitarian liability. Old Gen still wishes for unification; New Gen does not want the financial and economic burden.
Japan and China are larger concerns for Koreans than the North, at this point.
Histrionics about “muh Nork threat!” Are just that - western histrionics.
I appreciate your insight. That is helpful. The histrionics, they ain't coming from AMCITS. Maybe American government, but not the people. Most people are 'bring 'em home.'
I appreciate your insight. That is helpful. The histrionics, they ain't coming from AMCITS. Maybe American government, but not the people. Most people are 'bring 'em home.'
I think most military folks who have done a ROK tour would tell you it’s a fun time a hell of a lot better place to be than some of the CONUS bases, so not sure the “bring ‘em home” approach is necessary. I certainly enjoyed Osan, and Seoul is an awesome city that is in some ways better run than a lot of major US cities.
I’m probably biased but I see strategic value on keeping a presence in South Korea. While I think the north is mostly just talk, their history is rife with cross border incidents and I think the US presence keeps those from getting out of hand.
I think most military folks who have done a ROK tour would tell you it’s a fun time a hell of a lot better place to be than some of the CONUS bases, so not sure the “bring ‘em home” approach is necessary. I certainly enjoyed Osan, and Seoul is an awesome city that is in some ways better run than a lot of major US cities.
I’m probably biased but I see strategic value on keeping a presence in South Korea. While I think the north is mostly just talk, their history is rife with cross border incidents and I think the US presence keeps those from getting out of hand.
I can agree with this, and anything that pisses off the chicom filth is a good idea. I'm just in for a little less cash out of the American pocket.
I think most military folks who have done a ROK tour would tell you it’s a fun time a hell of a lot better place to be than some of the CONUS bases, so not sure the “bring ‘em home” approach is necessary. I certainly enjoyed Osan, and Seoul is an awesome city that is in some ways better run than a lot of major US cities.
I’m probably biased but I see strategic value on keeping a presence in South Korea. While I think the north is mostly just talk, their history is rife with cross border incidents and I think the US presence keeps those from getting out of hand.
The closest I came to serving in Korea was working with ROK Marines on a wespac cruise To say they are awesome and harder than woodpecker lips is an understatement.
A presence in South Korea is a bigger thing to China than North Korea. I think we could achieve the same regional pressure being on Guam or somewhere else than necessarily in South Korea.
I think most military folks who have done a ROK tour would tell you it’s a fun time a hell of a lot better place to be than some of the CONUS bases, so not sure the “bring ‘em home” approach is necessary. I certainly enjoyed Osan, and Seoul is an awesome city that is in some ways better run than a lot of major US cities.
I’m probably biased but I see strategic value on keeping a presence in South Korea. While I think the north is mostly just talk, their history is rife with cross border incidents and I think the US presence keeps those from getting out of hand.
The closest I came to serving in Korea was working with ROK Marines on a wespac cruise To say they are awesome and harder than woodpecker lips is an understatement.
A presence in South Korea is a bigger thing to China than North Korea. I think we could achieve the same regional pressure being on Guam or somewhere else than necessarily in South Korea.
Also a proponent for a big-ass Navy in the Pacific for FONOPS and keeping regional adversaries off base.
LOL, truth. The man is a potato.
Mr. or Mrs. Potato head?
WTF?
The South Koreans and Japanese were overwhelmingly in support of the stance Trump took with North Korea.
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/01/08/little-support-for-trumps-international-policies/
I can flat guarantee you there are a lot of countries over in that part of the world that are privately worried about Joe Biden being in office.
YES
My wife is from Japan and she monitors a lot of the pulse there through Japanese twitter and elsewhere (friends, family, etc). Everyone she knows in Japan was pro-Trump and is scared to death of Beijing Biden.
I've long said that if Europe is complaining about the US and what the US is doing (whether officially or people on the streets protesting), it is probably the right thing to be doing...
I came to that conclusion about 20 years ago. Have not seen anything to show me I am wrong.
YES
My wife is from Japan and she monitors a lot of the pulse there through Japanese twitter and elsewhere (friends, family, etc). Everyone she knows in Japan was pro-Trump and is scared to death of Beijing Biden.
Of course the media and libs convinced many all our allies simply hated Trump as they did, yada yada. I spoke to people form far and wide, and that was not the case. Our enemies didn't like him, and for reasons we can all approve of.
Those in the governments in allied countries who genuinely didn't like Trump (vs the population...) are far left types I don't care in the least disliked him. I rather enjoyed that aspect in fact.
Of course the media and libs convinced many all our allies simply hated Trump as they did, yada yada. I spoke to people form far and wide, and that was not the case. Our enemies didn't like him, and for reasons we can all approve of.
Those in the governments in allied countries who genuinely didn't like Trump (vs the population...) are far left types I don't care in the least disliked him. I rather enjoyed that aspect in fact.
My wife says that Japan is full of Chinese "spies" (her word -- I think she means more "agents", not necessarily directly on the Chinese payroll, but enticed somehow to speak out in favor of China). Media types, celebrities, govt leaders, etc. who never say the truth about China and how they are encroaching on Japan territory, or any of the Hong Kong misdeeds, the Muslim Uighur, etc and only say nice things about China. So the average citizen who just obediently slurps down the talking head news just nods OK and continues on with their daily dose of brainless entertainment, so the average guy on the street doesn't know. But anyone with half a brain in Japan who is not tied to mass media and entertainment sees what happened in HK, learns about the encroachment on Japan, the genocide with the Uighur people, etc. and is really really concerned.
I 100% agree that the foreign govt types who didn't like Trump, didn't like him because he stood in the way of the leftist ideals and plans.
My wife says that Japan is full of Chinese "spies" (her word -- I think she means more "agents", not necessarily directly on the Chinese payroll, but enticed somehow to speak out in favor of China). Media types, celebrities, govt leaders, etc. who never say the truth about China and how they are encroaching on Japan territory, or any of the Hong Kong misdeeds, the Muslim Uighur, etc and only say nice things about China. So the average citizen who just obediently slurps down the talking head news just nods OK and continues on with their daily dose of brainless entertainment, so the average guy on the street doesn't know. But anyone with half a brain in Japan who is not tied to mass media and entertainment sees what happened in HK, learns about the encroachment on Japan, the genocide with the Uighur people, etc. and is really really concerned.
I 100% agree that the foreign govt types who didn't like Trump, didn't like him because he stood in the way of the leftist ideals and plans.
I think "spies" literally maybe accurate. I don't know if it continues to be true, but at one point the university with which I work had the highest number of Chinese national students per capita of the student body than any other college. There was an assessment that approximately 25% of those students had a tie to the Chinese intelligence apparatus. The job was multifold, industrial espionage and making sure other Chinese students were not getting too far out of line.
The Japanese are utterly and rightfully terrified of China's influence.
Grand58742
03-12-21, 14:24
My Q would be, how are we bound? That is, we must keep X number of boots on the ground at the DMZ, or that we are bound to show up and help in their defense should they be attacked?
I don't think (I'm probably wrong) we are formally "bound" to the defense of South Korea.
Vested interest is more like it.
I think "spies" literally maybe accurate. I don't know if it continues to be true, but at one point the university with which I work had the highest number of Chinese national students per capita of the student body than any other college. There was an assessment that approximately 25% of those students had a tie to the Chinese intelligence apparatus. The job was multifold, industrial espionage and making sure other Chinese students were not getting too far out of line.
The Japanese are utterly and rightfully terrified of China's influence.
I agree that a good portion of the Chinese students and engineers are probably tied to Chinese intelligence agencies etc around the world. But she is talking about Japanese people who work in news and other media (entertainers, talking heads, etc) as well as Japanese govt officials and workers. Think our Democrats and MMM and stupid Hollywood people who are going full China/Russia/Socialist etc...
She lamented when Abe, the former Japanese PM, stepped down, as he seemed to understand the gravity of the situation. His replacement is more a China-ophile. :( (Abe stepped down last year due to health issues).
My wife says that Japan is full of Chinese "spies" (her word -- I think she means more "agents", not necessarily directly on the Chinese payroll, but enticed somehow to speak out in favor of China). Media types, celebrities, govt leaders, etc. who never say the truth about China and how they are encroaching on Japan territory, or any of the Hong Kong misdeeds, the Muslim Uighur, etc and only say nice things about China. So the average citizen who just obediently slurps down the talking head news just nods OK and continues on with their daily dose of brainless entertainment, so the average guy on the street doesn't know. But anyone with half a brain in Japan who is not tied to mass media and entertainment sees what happened in HK, learns about the encroachment on Japan, the genocide with the Uighur people, etc. and is really really concerned.
I 100% agree that the foreign govt types who didn't like Trump, didn't like him because he stood in the way of the leftist ideals and plans.
I would expect that to be both literally and figuratively true.
I agree that a good portion of the Chinese students and engineers are probably tied to Chinese intelligence agencies etc around the world. But she is talking about Japanese people who work in news and other media (entertainers, talking heads, etc) as well as Japanese govt officials and workers. Think our Democrats and MMM and stupid Hollywood people who are going full China/Russia/Socialist etc...
She lamented when Abe, the former Japanese PM, stepped down, as he seemed to understand the gravity of the situation. His replacement is more a China-ophile. :( (Abe stepped down last year due to health issues).
Gotcha, concur.
A spy would be covertly collecting info, likely what the average Chinese "student" is doing and what has been happening to US citizens for years.
A saboteur would be covertly engaging in sabotage by means of subversion, obstruction, disruption, or destruction. Subversion, obstruction, and disruption very much describe actions of media personalities.
Agent provocateur covertly infiltrates an opposing organization to derail them, typically by enticing others to commit crime or out right framing. We have been seeing this one for decades.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.