USFK Commander Against Further Troops Cuts (Update: USFK Denies)

General Burwell B. Bell III, commander of United States Forces Korea, expressed his wish to keep the status quo at a meeting last month, the sources said. South Korea and U.S. officials met for talks in Washington on Jan. 23.  According to the sources, Bell asked Korean officials to back his proposal to hold force levels at the current 28,500 troops. As a part of a plan to realign US. troops around the world, Washington and Seoul have agreed to cut the number of troops here gradually.

Under the plan, the number of U.S. forces was to go from 37,500 in 2004 to 25,000 by the end of this year. In 2004, 5,000 were withdrawn, and another 3,000 left Korea in 2005.  [Joongang Ilbo]

Yes, if we keep a ground component in Korea, it should be robust enough to carry out its mission.  The question is whether we really should keep a ground component there at all.

Not the first time something like this has happened, by the way — South Korea has anti-American tantrum, U.S. decides to cut troops, South Korea begs us not to, we relent.  Been there, done that.

Update:   Robert will be  pleased to hear that according to the USFK Spokesman, via the Hanky,  plans to reduce the force to 25,000 will proceed according to plan.   

There has been no proposal by Gen. Bell or any other United States government official to change the 2004 agreement on troop reductions between South Korea and the United States, Col. Franklin Childress, public affairs officer of the USFK, said in a statement, adding the policy to reduce the troop level to 25,000 remains in effect.

“Any changes to our agreements would be the subject of formal consultations and would be announced jointly by both the United States and the Republic of Korea should a change be agreed upon,” the USFK spokesman said, referring to South Korea by its official name.  [The Hankyoreh]

Gen. Bell is even  accusing the Korean media of misquoting him.

I’m also happy not to see us folding so quickly and without gaining anything in return, though I do believe that’s probably just a matter of time until we do fold.  I continue to believe that fidgeting with this-or-that battalion misses the greater issues — what are the alliance’s likely  missions?  Which of those likely missions would require U.S. ground forces?  Would the employment of ground forces in Korea serve greater U.S. interests?

Update 2:   See also Yonhap, apparently the source for the Hanky’s report:

Gen. Bell, who also heads the South Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command, said the erroneous attribution of statements to him was unfortunate, according to the statement.