Seoul officials rule out possibility of U.S. troop reduction here


Washington’s new strategy for a “leaner” military that goes in line with its belt-tightening efforts is drawing keen attention here as it could affect the troop level and their operations in a contingency on the Korean Peninsula.

Its moves to abandon a long-held strategy to have the ability to fight and win two wars at once have also caused concerns that the U.S. may not be able to mobilize massive ground troops in the event of a war here should it engage in another.

Underscoring that the U.S. will continue to maintain its “military superiority” on Thursday, President Barack Obama unveiled the strategy encapsulating his government’s moves to curtail Army and Marine troops and shift its focus to the Asia-Pacific region.

It comes as the U.S. faces more than $450 billon in defense budget cuts over the next decade. Under its austerity policy, it plans to reduce its Army troop level to 490,000 from the current 570,000.

A Cheong Wa Dae official dismissed the possibility of any serious impact on the regional security condition, saying that the plan does not imply any big change in the U.S. strategy in the region.

“I understand the new strategy does not foresee any significant strategic change in the Asia-Pacific region. The U.S. is to readjust its troops in other parts of the world, but not a drawdown in its troops here.”

Under the new approach, the U.S. is to abandon the “two-war” strategy and employ the “one-plus strategy,” which focuses on deterrence while waging a single conventional war.

Some experts said that the U.S. may not be able to fully commit itself to the peninsula when a war breaks out here should it be stuck in a conflict in another spot, most likely in the Middle East.

“It will, of course, be difficult (for the U.S. to engage in a war in Korea when it has another elsewhere) given that the U.S. also has crucial strategic interests in the Middle East,” said Nam Chang-hee, political science professor at Inha University.

“For this, it is crucial to form strong ties for security cooperation among South Korea, Japan and the U.S. to prevent a possible power vacuum in the region. For this, Seoul and Tokyo should stop unnecessary disputes over their territory and past.”

Some, however, said that South Korea could benefit from the U.S. giving a greater priority to Asia as it would pay more attention to security issues concerning the peninsula.

Regarding the U.S. plan to slash its ground forces, some also said that South Korea-U.S. Operation Plan 5027 centering on a scenario of an all-out war with the North will no longer be realistic. Under the plan, the U.S. is to dispatch its 690,000 troops to the peninsula and mobilize 160 military vessels and 2,500 aircraft within 90 days of the outbreak of a war.

“In fact, we have already seen it as unrealistic. The U.S. policy regarding the U.S. Forces Korea has changed substantially since the Bush administration with its focus on naval and aerial assets while reducing ground troops,” said Yoon Deok-min, professor at the Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security.

“The way it engages (in a conflict) has changed as technology develops such as using spy drones and other high-tech military assets rather than ground forces. Against this backdrop, there needs to be some readjustment in the plan while the basic concept may not immediately change.”

In due consideration of the 2015 transfer of wartime operational control from Washington, Seoul should strengthen its independent surveillance and combat capabilities and prepare a more realistic operational plan, experts stressed.

Chun In-young, professor emeritus at Seoul National University, noted that the operational plan faces a host of obstacles for its implementation.

“Under the plan, allied troops would strike back toward Pyongyang after a possible attack from North Korea. It has many limitations as China may oppose it with the U.S. feeling reluctant to engage in another costly war here,” he said.

“The U.S. capability to finance another war is little. Its people facing economic difficulties are also not interested in any overseas issues as they already have their hands full with domestic affairs.”

Amid its belt-tightening moves, the U.S. is expected to increase its pressure on Seoul to increase its portion of the cost for the presence of the 28,500-strong U.S. troops here.

South Korea currently shoulders 40 percent of the cost under a bilateral “burden-sharing” pact. The U.S. has demanded South Korea increase its portion to 50 percent.

“They say they will not reduce their troop level, but will cut their defense budget. So, calls for the increase of our burden sharing cost will increase. We should prepare for that,” said Chun of SNU.

With the U.S. switching its focus to Asia, some raised concerns that the “pivot” could spark regional tension between the two global powers. But some experts said that any stalemate equivalent to that during the Cold-War era is unlikely.

“China and the U.S. have complicated economic relations. The U.S. has its smokestack industries in China and their relationship is not a zero-sum game,” said Yoon of the IFNS. “With China’s nationalism, clashes could be possible, but it is different from what was witnessed during the Cold-War era.”

By Song Sang-ho (sshluck@heraldcorp.com)