Wolfowitz: 'Tripwire' role played by some Korea units 'counterproductive'

[lebkuchen]

Just when you thought this administration couldn't sink any lower...

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=22311

The decision to send 2nd Infantry Division soldiers from South Korea to Iraq was made in part because the “tripwire” role played by U.S. troops on the Korean Peninsula is “kind of useless” and “counterproductive,” a top Pentagon official said Tuesday in Washington.

Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said the troop move this summer was part of a larger repositioning of U.S. forces worldwide.

But the comments immediately sparked fresh speculation in South Korea that the planned shift of 3,600 2nd Brigade troops to Iraq later this summer was only the first move in a larger drawdown of U.S. forces on the peninsula.

Also causing a fuss was the tenor of the comments.

“We have moved troops off of the DMZ, where, frankly, they were performing nothing except a kind of useless — and indeed I would say counterproductive — tripwire function,” Wolfowitz said, according to a Pentagon transcript.

[KissMyAsscroft]

1. I agree with him on this one....

I dont think they were performing any real function.

[lebkuchen]

3. If US troops on the DMZ are "useless"

then the 20,000 Marines in Japan are "useless tripwires" as well. Let's move all their asses to Iraq where their services will be so much more "useful."

[KissMyAsscroft]

5. Oh I dont support Iraq at all...

I dont think they should be moved to iraq...I just dont think they serve a purpose and the people of South Korea dont want them there.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. It shows that Wolife should

keep to Role playing games and fantasy.

Those troops were also perforning quite the deterent value

What would a man who NEVER served one second in Uniform know?

[MallRat]

4. Wolfowitz: You're not playing RISK.

You can't just move your pieces around the playing board without considering the ramifications. Why in heaven's name are we moving troops out of SOUTH KOREA?!?!

Or is North Korea no longer a part of the "axis of evil?"

***FLIP-FLOP ALERT***

-MR

[stopthegop]

6. it's true there aren't enough to stop an invasion from N Korea..

and they've always been a tripwire...but opinion in S Korea seems to be shifting/shifted toward the US troops leaving...if that's what they want the troops should leave...but it will make it tougher on S Korea if N Korea ever attacks...

[SquireJons]

14. "They've always been a trip wire"

And?

Why has this successful policy been suddenly jettisoned without any debate, public or within the Congressional Committees that oversee them? The whole point of the tripwire was to make N. Korea think twice before starting a war with the United States, as opposed to just South Korea. N. Korea could have and would have invaded many times over if the US troops hadn't been there over the last 50 years.

Man, these 'geniuses' in civilian leadership of the Pentagon are a daring bunch. Too bad they haven't gotten anything right yet. Oh with the exception of the actual fighting. If you use enough depleted uranium, 7 divisions can beat a combined 23 older divisions. Whoop-de-fucking-do.

[pinto]

7. I think Wolfie is alluding to a nuclear deterrent against N Korea. We no

longer need the "trip wire" force stationed at the DMZ.

Purely gut reaction to the man and his comments. When he says "useless" he has a more "useful" option in play.....it's the mindset.

[daleo]

8. Tripwire troops are essentially political

They assure that both members of an alliance will have an immediate stake in defending any attack, since they have both suffered casualties.

Three reasons, I can see, for calling them useless and moving them are:
- you no longer plan to live up to alliance commitments, so you don't want them in a dangerous position, both militarily and politically.
- you plan to attack rather than defend, so you want your troops out of harm's way (especially if the attack is to be an air attack).
- you have determined that there is no realistic prospect of an attack occurring, and you want to reposition troops to somewhere that has a more realistic need, either in attack or defense.

[MGKrebs]

9. Well if Wolfie has not repudiated the PNAC,

I will choose #2.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/northkorea-20021018.pdf

[SquireJons]

16. Good analysis

I wonder which it is?

I hadn't thought of it before, but perhaps the 'Fall Surprise' is going to be a war with N. Korea. My guess is that if cheney has to start an atomic war to stay in power, he'd do it in a heartbeat.

Oh that's right. He doesn't have a heart. Not that he ever did figuratively, but they removed the physical one and put in a mechanical box - devoid of any compassion. While they were at it, they put in a baboons brain.

[PATRICK]

18. However

the action itself guarantees some of those outcomes will have to be chosen. The tripwire showdown meant one thing. War. Now this policy allows options and calculations to make less direct progress to war or simple abandonment by the US- which it won't do. As the South Koreans bleed profusely and long the US finally takes some decisive action other than bombing from afar friends and foe alike.

A good excuse to use nukes if the horror gets big enough to "excuse" our mopping up of a nuclear rival. The REASON for this tripwire was the experience of losing a lot of territory and the risk of even wider and costlier war and regional involvement which we had there in the first place! A little thing called the Korean War.

AT THE SAME TIME as this brilliant bugout strategy occurs demonstrating "wise flexibility" we have sabotaged and become hard nosed with rapprochement and negotiations of any sort with NK, and have stepped hard on the SK President as if he were a recalcitrant colonial governor.

This is stepping behind a wall and yelling "I double dog dare ya!" as your buddy faces off against the bully in the street. When your friend is attacked you will toss a hand grenade into the alley. Yes, this is a nuke trap to demonstrate our ultimate and most cowardly power to dominate. I believe that because it is strategically simple and seems bloodily irresistible. I would not doubt for a moment that is why the WH dares to stiff Korea as a whole.

[daleo]

19. A modified version of #2 then

" - you plan to attack rather than defend, and want your troops out of harm's way"

The idea being to lure North Korea into attacking, then coming back with a devastating nuclear counter-attack. It sounds insane, but just insane enough for the BFEE/PNAC, unfortunately.

[The Stranger]

10. PNAC has no desires on North Korea.

It is the Middle East that PNAC desires.

[MGKrebs]

12. Odd,

I've gotten a different sense of their view on North Korea. Not sure why.

" And more can, of course, be done as part of a new policy of aggressive containment of Pyongyang, including shoring up the defense capabilities of South Korea"

"And certainly our current difficulty in confronting an armed North Korea shows precisely why dealing with Iraq and Saddam Hussein can’t wait. As President Bush has made clear over the past year, the United States has a fundamental choice to make in confronting rogue states, dictators developing weapons of mass destruction, and global terrorism: Either we act aggressively to shape the world and change regimes where necessary, or we accept living in a world in which our very existence is contingent on the whims of unstable tyrants."

"President Bush has pointed the way out of this box. By properly labeling the North Korean regime evil, the president has called into question its legitimacy. This allows us to get to the heart of the matter: Getting rid of Kim Jong Il and the sinister clique in Pyongyang is the only lasting solution to the multiple threats that North Korea now poses to the world."

"(5) Sustain and enhance deterrence. Until North Korea is free, it must continually be reminded that aggressive action on its part will immediately result not in mere retaliation, but in a decisive blow that will end the regime. The Bush administration's inclusion of North Korea as a potential target in the recent Nuclear Posture Review is an excellent step in that direction. Addressing the grossly inadequate housing and unfair pay scale for our soldiers in Korea would also help."

"Third, the Pentagon must retain forces to preserve the current peace in ways that fall short of conduction major theater campaigns....and other presence missions in vital regions of East Asia."

"For the present, any reduction in capabilities of the current U.S. garrison on the peninsula would be unwise. If anything, there is a need to bolster them, especially with respect to their ability to defend against missile attacks and to limit the effects of North Korea’s massive artillery capability."

http://search.freefind.com/find.html?id=2557452&pid=r&mode=ALL&query=north+korea&SUBMIT=Find%21&t=s

[Minstrel Boy]

15. Korea matters, because in fact they are playing Risk. It's about

containing China in the 21st Century. That factors big in the PNAC documents.

An occupied North Korea could see US hardware at the doorstep of Beijing.

Another factor, albeit a disturbingly odd one, which shouldn't be dismissed: the influence upon the Republican right of the messianic Reverend Moon.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

11. Drafty.

[teryang]

13. The American troops are there to deter China

...not N. Korea. It is the great powers that decide who dominates the peninsula not the smaller powers of Buk Kan and Te Han Min Gook. The troops are being removed in desperation to help with the Iraqi manpower crisis. All else is rationalization.

The reality is that the withdrawal will be taken as a sign of weakness and reduction of commitment which is exactly what it is, rationalizations aside. South Korea should accomodate itself to the Chinese directly. The Americans stand in the way of sunshine and accomodation but their system of alliances relies on the continued existence of the north korean threat. What we have here is schizophrenia and misrepresentations. We will destroy you but we are reducing our military presence.

As the Chinese say, the Americans have no policy in northeast Asia.

[are_we_united_yet]

17. Hey Paul

"....performing nothing except a kind of useless — and indeed I would say counterproductive..."

Guess who else fits that description?