The US proposes handing over the war command of US troops to Korean general

[Korean]

The Chosun Ilbo (English Edition): Daily News from Korea - USFK Suggests Keeping Combined Forces Command

USFK Suggests Keeping Combined Forces Command
U.S. Forces Korea Commander Gen. James Thurman, has proposed that Seoul and Washington keep the Combined Forces Command even after the handover of full operational control of Korean troops in December 2015. Thurman proposed that it should be headed by a Korean officer instead of the USFK chief, as at present.

The dismantlement of the CFC has been a core gripe of those opposed to the handover of wartime operational control to Seoul because they feared it could fatally weaken combat capabilities and let the U.S. off the hook in an emergency.

"Gen. Thurman made the offer," a government source said on Wednesday. "There is a possibility that this issue will be raised through official negotiating bodies from each side, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff." Thurman's offer is unprecedented since the U.S. military has never placed itself under another country's command.

So far Seoul and Washington have said that the transfer of full operational control will take place in December 2015 as scheduled and the CFC will be disbanded, to be replaced by a looser cooperative structure. Military sources say the offer by Thurman, who took command of the USFK in July last year, stems from the increased threat of North Korean provocations since Kim Jong-un took power and fears that dismantling the CFC could expose weaknesses in the joint defense.

Interesting. The US was scheduled to hand over the wartime command and control of US Army deployed in Korea to the Korean four-star general after 2015, but now they want to hand over the command of USAF and USMC deployed in Korea too?

Damn, the US budget cut must be worse than previously thought too.

 

[Ulysses]

I think its safe to say that both SK and Japan will never be a threat to us.
I honestly think we should allow them to build up there military's freely as we are busy in other parts of the world.

Our alliance has never been stronger

 

[Solomon2]

Really, what do the U.S. and South Korea need an American infantry division in Korea for? South Korean soldiers aren't the untrained raw conscripts they were in the 1950s but today are highly trained, capable, and motivated.

 

[Thomas]

The Chosun Ilbo (English Edition): Daily News from Korea - USFK Suggests Keeping Combined Forces Command



Interesting. The US was scheduled to hand over the wartime command and control of US Army deployed in Korea to the Korean four-star general after 2015, but now they want to hand over the command of USAF and USMC deployed in Korea too?

Damn, the US budget cut must be worse than previously thought too.

When the troops are still there how does giving command to a Korean General have anything to do with the budget? It would not be the first or last time that troop command has been given to a foriegn general.

Really, what do the U.S. and South Korea need an American infantry division in Korea for? South Korean soldiers aren't the untrained raw conscripts they were in the 1950s but today are highly trained, capable, and motivated.

We really only have a token force of 28k troops there.

 

[Korean]

Really, what do the U.S. and South Korea need an American infantry division in Korea for?

An insurance policy. To get troops familiar with Korea via deployments in a rotating base.

When the troops are still there how does giving command to a Korean General have anything to do with the budget?

Korean government pays 50% of the US troop deployment cost. The fear over there is that US maybe trying to offload more of financial burden of its troops to the Korean government thanks to the US defense budget cut. Previously, it was just the US Army that was supposed to be under RoK Defense Department's wartime command. The new proposal expands to cover all of USFK.

The situation is exactly the opposite of the Vietnam War. During the Vietnam War, the Korean troops were hired "mercenaries" on the US DoD's payroll. After 2015, the US troops are hired "mercenaries" on the Korean DoD's payroll.

We really only have a token force of 28k troops there.

The number quadruples during wartime as additional reinforcements arrive.

 

[Götterdämmerung]

The German Bundeswehr has always been under German command. We only paid for our own soldiers, the US was financially responsible for their own soldiers.

The Koreans have to pay to the guy who commands him. Wow, that's an awsome arrangement! You pay me and I'll tell you what you should do.

 

[Thomas]

Korean government pays 50% of the US troop deployment cost. The fear over there is that US maybe trying to offload more of financial burden of its troops to the Korean government thanks to the US defense budget cut. Previously, it was just the US Army that was supposed to be under RoK Defense Department's wartime command. The new proposal expands to cover all of USFK.

The situation is exactly the opposite of the Vietnam War. During the Vietnam War, the Korean troops were hired "mercenaries" on the US DoD's payroll. After 2015, the US troops are hired "mercenaries" on the Korean DoD's payroll.


The number quadruples during wartime as additional reinforcements arrive.

As I said before 28k is a token force. The US can more then afford having them there even in bad economic times. Which the US has been in even worse economic times before. The US has other troops periodicly under foreign command such as in NATO. Be happy that we consider you a strong enough ally to entrust our troops to you.

If there is conflict the US will most likely pick up most of the tab since RoK will have more important things to worry about such as Seoul being in artillery range

 

[anonymousposter]

the us force korea serves a number of very important function. but their primary role is essentially as hostages. if north koreans kill american soldiers in south korea, they will incur the wrath of america. their secondary role is to make south koreans feel safe. south koreans trust in the american nuclear umbrella when american lives are at stake. this promotes american non proliferation goals. third function is to keep all the bad boys in the neighborhood in check, not just north korea, not to make militarily aggressive moves. historically, russians, chinese, japanese, heck even the mongols all had expansionist ambition over korea. it is sort of like the poland of the east. the mere presence of american soldiers keep a stable balance there. korea was triggering point of war between russia, china, and japan. and in the modern world, it includes united states.

south koreans do pay money to the united states. but united states provide a service which south korea can not buy from anyone else. when US says they are allies, it means a crap load of men are willing to bleed for them. other nations also come to help, but it does not match the sheer scale of american help.

transfer of command has been a very sensitive issue in Korea. back in the old days people were frightened at the prospect of americans leaving. when jimmy carter wanted to leave korea, south korean dictator park chung hee responded by seeking nuclear weapons. its very complicated over there.

also i should point out, united states has also given a lot of money to south korea. but i dont really know the accounting aspect of all this.

 

[sweetgrape]

An insurance policy. To get troops familiar with Korea via deployments in a rotating base.


Korean government pays 50% of the US troop deployment cost. The fear over there is that US maybe trying to offload more of financial burden of its troops to the Korean government thanks to the US defense budget cut. Previously, it was just the US Army that was supposed to be under RoK Defense Department's wartime command. The new proposal expands to cover all of USFK.

The situation is exactly the opposite of the Vietnam War. During the Vietnam War, the Korean troops were hired "mercenaries" on the US DoD's payroll. After 2015, the US troops are hired "mercenaries" on the Korean DoD's payroll.


The number quadruples during wartime as additional reinforcements arrive.

Seems you are so happy for can hiring USA soldier service for you. You are not loser of WW2, but as a country, you even can't protect yourself by yourself, NK only have 20 million population, you have more than 40 million!
You are so proud for hiring "superior" USA, loser is loser! Their mind is so different from normal countries, Maybe they have no diginity feeling!!
I don't think USA should hand over the command to SK, In the history, they exist as a loser and begger, trusting SK will kill your soldiers.
Pray for your soldiers!

 

[ViXuyen]

Wait, I thought it's the ther way around. After the Korean War, the agreement between U.S and Korea is that the U.S will have full command over the Korean military if war ever breaks out again and Korea has been negotiating all these years to take control of their military from the U.S in case of war ?

 

[Korean]

Wait, I thought it's the ther way around. After the Korean War, the agreement between U.S and Korea is that the U.S will have full command over the Korean military if war ever breaks out again and Korea has been negotiating all these years to take control of their military from the U.S in case of war ?

Times changed. "The Korean 4 star general commanding the US" is symbolic. What it means in practice is the use of Korean C4I system to manage battles in the region.

One thing is clear; the ROK military is asked to command US troops in wartime because it is able to. The US does not ask Japanese Defense Ministry to command US troops, for example.

 

[xyxmt]

I think its safe to say that both SK and Japan will never be a threat to us.
I honestly think we should allow them to build up there military's freely as we are busy in other parts of the world.

Our alliance has never been stronger

Actually you cannot afford it anymore

 

[Solomon2]

One thing is clear; the ROK military is asked to command US troops in wartime because it is able to. The US does not ask Japanese Defense Ministry to command US troops, for example.

Yes. Due to the bad experience of WWI, the U.S. is loath to give direct command of U.S. troops to foreigners - but through decades of close cooperation and good working relations (better than the Japanese) the Koreans have earned that trust.

 

[Götterdämmerung]

Yes. Due to the bad experience of WWI, the U.S. is loath to give direct command of U.S. troops to foreigners - but through decades of close cooperation and good working relations (better than the Japanese) the Koreans have earned that trust.

In other words, Koreans are more obedient to their master and have always been so. Somehow, history is repeating again. In the old time, Koreans were proud to be the obedient son of China (Japan was not), later they were good soldiers of Japan, now they are good servants of the US.

 

[Solomon2]

In other words, Koreans are more obedient to their master and have always been so. Somehow, history is repeating again. In the old time, Koreans were proud to be the obedient son of China (Japan was not), later they were good soldiers of Japan, now they are good servants of the US.

More likely the answer is found in the credo that, given two allies, the one that commands is the one with the preponderance of power on the field of battle.