Mon, Jun 09, 2003 page9

• US troop redeployments in South Korea set to confuse North

  Shifting US soldiers away from the DMZ could be perceived by Pyongyang as a weakening of US support for Seoul or as a way to prepare for a pre-emptive attack

  • By Jane Macartney / REUTERS
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  If the US is serious about rapid redeployment of its forces in Asia, it will have to do better than in South Korea -- a decade after promising to hand over its huge Seoul headquarters, South Korea has regained only the golf course.

  Now, the US has said it will pull back its forces from the world's last Cold War frontier in a historic move that a top US commander in the South said would not weaken the allies' defense against the North.

  More far-reaching forces may be at play.

  "The issue is not why are we doing this -- because it is clearly long overdue -- but why is it so urgent to announce it now," said Ralph Cossa, head of the Hawaii-based Pacific Forum CSIS think tank. The deal was agreed last October, he said.

  "This is [US Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld with his eye on the bigger picture and his lack of regard for little minor details like the fact that the Cold War is not over yet on the Korean Peninsula," he said of the US secretary of defense whose vision of a smaller, mobile, technologically advanced force triumphed in Iraq.

  Agile, effective

  and flexible

  US Pentagon officials have not hidden that new technology means US military positions in the Asia-Pacific region can now be shifted to create a more agile, flexible and effective force. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said just that only days ago.

  The problems of the Korean Peninsula, where a North armed with chemical, biological and a vast array of conventional -- if not nuclear -- weapons hovers within range of Seoul are vastly more complicated and more deadly than threats in the Middle East.

  North and South Korea remain technically at war because the armed truce that ended the 1950-1953 Korean conflict never led to a peace treaty.

  South Korean officials have voiced concern that shifting US troops away from the frontier for the first time -- even if only by a few kilometers at first -- could be perceived by the North as a weakening of US support for Seoul or as a move to clear the way for a pre-emptive attack on the North.

  Moving house could be slow. An agreement in principle about 10 years ago to move the huge US army headquarters from prime Seoul real estate has so far freed only a golf course.

  Exacerbating the situation is the nuclear crisis over Pyongyang's atomic ambitions.

  "This is a consequence not of a major US policy change to Korea, but as much an issue of a changed and more modern approach to military operations," said Ross Babbage, professor of strategic and defense studies at the Australian National University in Canberra.

  The changes are intended to enable US troops, and their South Korean allies, to develop as more mobile units that are afforded greater maneuverability as they move further from the Demilitarized Zone dividing North from South, he said.

  The scope to be taken by surprise and damaged in the first few minutes of a conflict is greatly reduced," Babbage said.

  While the move may offer military advantages and new flexibility to troops pinned down for five decades along the most heavily fortified border on earth, the timing may not have been ideal given the nuclear crisis.

  Getting it wrong?

  The move could further bolster the North Korean view that US forces are so casualty averse that they want to move back from the frontline.

  "That would not be out of line with previous wrong conclusions," Cossa said.

  The maneuver may prove hard for the North to comprehend.

  If Pyongyang tries to understand the move in the context of the peninsula it may make some erroneous assumptions, failing to view the shift as part of a worldwide military realignment.

  "These are two separate events, but they are both occurring in the same universe," Cossa said. "That is hard for the North Koreans to believe and to figure out."

  The grander US plan is for a smaller force sustainable over the long term and with a smaller footprint, a force that is less intrusive and more flexible while taking into account changing strategic realities.

  If Pyongyang decides to respond with yet more belligerent statements, it may find little sympathy among neighbors such as Japan, South Korea, Russia and even China who are increasingly irked at its bellicosity and falling more closely into line with US demands for a multilateral solution to the nuclear crisis.

  "Each time the North Koreans have responded by being more obnoxious that has helped the Bush strategy," said Cossa of the US president's bid to avoid bilateral meetings with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il's representatives.

  "Kim Jong-il appears even more unreasonable and hardline than [US President George W.] Bush," Cossa said.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Chinese technicians join airport MRT project

  • 2

    A train for whom? Is a new monorail helpful for Cairo?

  • 3

    Apple is giving Intel’s turnaround some momentum

  • 4

    Taiwan firms eye Philippines amid shift to non-China supply chains: CIER

  • 5

    Taiwan to produce more than 1,200 new missiles