Tactical Retreat: Pulling Back from the Korean DMZ

[2dogs]

Just wondering what you all think (especially the military folk amongst us).


http://www.sierratimes.com/03/06/05/ar_nk_pullback.htm

Tactical Retreat: Pulling Back from the Korean DMZ

News Analysis by J.J. Johnson

The message from Washington is clear: If we think you have weapons of mass destruction, you’re toast. If you say you have weapons of mass destruction, we’ll back off. Apparently, looks that this is exactly what is happening on the Korean Peninsula.
The Associated Press reported that the U.S. will dismantle its bases and withdraw American troops from positions they have occupied for decades near the tense Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) separating South Korea from communist North Korea

The training will continue, but they pull back will be 75 miles south. Seems strange considering our recent policy on rouge states with weapons of mass destruction.

Officials gave no timetable for the withdrawal, reflecting persistent South Korean worries that any reductions would put it at greater risk of a North Korean attack. Most troops at the U.S. headquarters in the South Korean capital Seoul, 37 miles south of the border, will also be moved south.

This was hinted in April, but quickly denied by Pentagon brass, but today, ‘spin’ is the order of the day. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld believes the U.S. moves should be made because they strengthen the U.S. defense situation, not weaken it.

Needless to say, some South Korean folks aren’t happy about it. But in reality, Rumsfeld is wisely moving U.S. Troops out of harm’s way. These days, with better artillery, why leave your troops within range like sitting ducks?

South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun has said the withdrawal of U.S. troops should be a bargaining chip in any talks with North Korea on reducing its massive troop deployment along the border.

You guessed it – The North Koreans are not budging one inch. They condemned that plan as a preparation for war. There is just no dealing with these folks.

 

[Waitone]

The move is designed to thump South Korea's ear. SK's president is a "lets all get along together" type trying to make kissy-kissy with the North Koreans.

The US is merely attracting the SK's attention to a threat. If SK will not stand up to NK, why should the US bleed out its troops.

 

[lapidator]

The DMZ was put in place 50 years ago. America's ability to wage war has not only changed but indeed has taken a new paradigm. The move to abandon the DMZ is probably based on modern US military doctrine.

Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man.

- General George Patton Jr.

 

[Delmar]

The 2nd ID was nothing more than a speed bump when I was there in the 70's, and its now my understanding that only half the division is foreward deployed.
This, against 14 divisions of NKA? Think about it-the BG's have had 50 years to zero in on anything of value. The Republic of South Korea does not need our ground forces there, and I doubt they need much in the way of air power.
The ROK's have come a long way. When I was there, they were still flying F-86 Sabre jets, and the deuce and a halfs were Korean war vintage, the ROK soldiers mostly carried M-1 Garands and BAR's.
I don't think our being there makes one bit of difference one way or the other. The PDRNK leader knows he cannot get too far out of line with GW., of course, if we have another Klinton, they will know they can do whatever they want...

 

[Jim March]

I think this is a good idea. If NK comes pouring across the border, we'll now have what, 40 to 60 miles of NK tank travel time to cream the SOBs from the air. B1B "Bones" with massive air to ground munitions on board would be stacked up like airliners at Dulles, hell we'd have everything with wings up and at 'em.

By the time we do face their ground forces south of the border with our own ground-pounders, there'll be one hell of a lot less of 'em. If we camp on the border, we'll face their full strength on the ground right up front in a "close range knife fight" the air boys won't be able to do squat about until it's over.

 

[Phil in Seattle]

Everything within 30 miles of the DMZ could be flattened by the Koreans in the opening artillery barrage of an all out offensive.

The American troops that are/were right on the DMZ would be sacrifical lambs in the opening seconds of an all out shooting war. A great deterent if you think about it though. How much force would the US commit if in one sudden surprise attack 38,000 American soldiers were killed. A horrible wrath would descend upon the aggressor. That is one of the things that makes for such a great detterance factor.

 

[Feanaro]

I concur with my father, the best reason to move the DMZ is to serve as a buffer against attack. We are either watching NK closely or we are going to war again.

 

[Dannyboy]

So does this mean that all of 2ID will be pulled back to the Camp Humphries area? Or is it just the units on th DMZ being pulled back? I hope it's not all of 2ID. Talk about a major pain in the butt. Yikes!!! What about the JSA? Are they pulling out of there too?

 

[Mike Irwin]

Sierra Times once again doesn't think before it prints.

Sigh.

 

[Monkeyleg]

"rouge states?"

Well, considering the peculiarities of Kim Jong Il, that may not have been a typo.

And, it's possible that the "retreat" is a signal to the little guy in high heels that something might happen soon.

 

[2dogs]

Seems to me I recently read that the U.S. was considering the use of small tactical nukes in future conflicts- and that the movement of our troops away from the DMZ was in preparation for this.

Or maybe the NK's think that is our reasoning.

Any credence to that?

 

[Bruce H]

How about this. The Korean pullback might be the same deal as the Israeli settelments. Move back in a show of good faith. Let the other side do something stupid. If nothing happens then nothing is lost. if the balloon goes up we didn't start it.

 

[WonderNine]

I'm tired of wasting money on them. Let the North Invade. Then we'll see how many "Bush and Rumsfield are Satan" posters South Korean protesters will be waving.

 

[JimP]

The current South Korean President won with a large anti-United States plank in his platform; 53% of the Koreans don't want us here; the majority of young Koreans think G-Dub is a bigger threat to them then the "nut from the North". I say it's high-time we got out of here.

We ARE nothing but a trip wire - no way we'll get to our assembly areas if the balloon goes up. Makes a lot of sense to pull back around the hubs down South. S. Korea has the worlds 7th Largest economy, let them start paying to be "more fair" (inside joke).

24 days and a wake-up and I join Lenny Joe back in the States.

 

[D.W. Drang]

The US Army has not controlled any part of the DMZ for years, and this move has been in the works for nearly as long.
'Bout time.

Drang
332 ASA, Cp Page 82-83
102d MI, Cp Hovey 85-86
Someplace REMFish 88-90
Someplace else slightly less REMFish 92-93
102d MI, Cp Essayons 95-96
Ditto 97-98
2/2 AVN Cp Stanley 99-2000 and when I find the AG puke who extended me "because you're retiring"

 

[Leatherneck]

Monkeyleg

Jim March and Phil nailed it. I'm just as glad to have my son-in-law and his buds out of range of the presumed opening arty barrage, and with some heads-up time for tanks rolling. We can cause a lot of attrition if they try to roll south, and we've got plenty of means to effectively watch them from afar.

TC
TFL Survivor

 

[Jim March]

One more detail:

Ever since Vietnam, the idea of "fixed forward lines" has come utterly unglued. The Korean DMZ is a product of that archaic "line" thinking that was already suspect in WW2 but sorta survived into the first Korean war.

The modern thinking is more like "big fluid mess", somewhat like a land version of the late-WW2 "island hopping" gag. Iraq2 was classic - you had the Brits slugging it out near the coast, the Marines pounding away someplace else, Airborn paying surprise visits to the northern oil field area and the Army charging towards Baghdad like there was a two-fer sale on Blackhawk Industries tactical gear about to go down . With so much crap happening at once, and Saddam's command'n'control system under massive aerial bombardment, they literally couldn't think fast enough to keep up with everything. Which caused Iraqi moral to utterly collapse, 'cept for ol' "Bob" the "Information" Minister . (How much ya wanna bet that dude is gonna get an advertizing contract soon?)

The NKoids are prepared to fight the Battle of the Bulge all over again. Complete lunacy.

Anyways. Seeing our side completely abandon the "fixed line" at the DMZ is fine by me.

 

[Lord Grey Boots]

I think this is a good strategic and tactical move as well.

Fixed fortifications and troops deployed on the border were valid when the threat was a ground invasion from the north.

The North Koreans don't have the fuel to actually invade. So the ground invasion threat has largely gone away. BUT, they have massed artillery, which makes the US and SK troops hostages to the North Koreans.

By backing away from the border, and out of artillery range, you take away the majority of the NK threat to US troops. And with the US and SK military ability to project force 500 miles+ via aircraft and cruise missiles, you can use distance to your advantage, instead of having the lack of distance being a weakness.

South Korea has to figure out how to move Seoul south about 75 miles or so....

 

[David Park]

According to the Post, this is just part of a larger scheme of military reorganization. Rumsfeld has been hinting at moving in this direction for a while.

New Bases Reflect Shift in Military
Smaller Facilities Sought for Quick Strikes

...

The withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Demilitarized Zone between North and South Korea, announced Thursday, and the recent removal of most U.S. forces from Saudi Arabia are the opening moves in a complex shift that should replace most large, permanent U.S. bases overseas with smaller facilities that can be used as needed, defense officials said.

The bases are being built or expanded in countries such as Qatar, Bulgaria and Kyrgyzstan, and the U.S. territory of Guam. While existing U.S. bases in Germany and South Korea, in place for more than 50 years, were designed to deter major communist adversaries, the new bases will become key nodes in the implementation of the administration's doctrine of preemptive attack against terrorists and hostile states believed to have chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

...

In Asia, the relocation of 18,000 Army troops away from the Demilitarized Zone in South Korea to areas 75 miles south is designed to make them more mobile, freeing them up to respond to other emergencies in the region. Ultimately, Hoehn said, some of those troops might be brought to the United States and deployed to South Korea on six-month rotations.

...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32331-2003Jun8.html

 

[amprecon]

My first thought was what 2dogs said. We don't want to fry our own people when we throw a couple of tactical nukes at the 38th.

 

[rock jock]

War may be forthcoming, but tactical nukes are not, UNLESS NK attempts to use them first.