Many affirmatives this year advocate removing troops from South Korea. Because of recent developments on the Korean peninsula, it is a good idea to have up-to-date evidence on the issue. In this file we have included recent cards on why we should leave South Korea and evidence for the negative discussing why, in light of recent events, it is important to remain in South Korea.
Table of Contents
The U.S. Military Should Leave South Korea 4
The U.S. Military Should Leave South Korea 5
The U.S. Military Should Leave South Korea 6
The U.S. Military Should Leave South Korea 8
The U.S. Military Should Leave South Korea 10
The U.S. Military Should Leave South Korea 11
The U.S. Military Should Leave South Korea 12
The U.S. Military Should Leave South Korea 13
The U.S. Military Should Leave South Korea 14
The U.S. Military Should Leave South Korea 15
The U.S. Military Should Remain in South Korea 16
The U.S. Military Should Remain in South Korea 17
The U.S. Military Should Remain in South Korea 18
The U.S. Military Should Remain in South Korea 19
The U.S. Military Should Remain in South Korea 20
The U.S. Military Should Remain in South Korea 21
The U.S. Military Should Remain in South Korea 23
The U.S. Military Should Remain in South Korea 25
The U.S. Military Should Remain in South Korea 26
The U.S. Military Should Remain in South Korea 27
The U.S. Military Should Leave South Korea
U.S. prolongs the conflict and puts our troops at risk.
“Don't Start Another Korean War” – U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul707.html
11/30/10- Before the US House of Representatives on the resolution condemning North Korea
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this saber-rattling resolution that unnecessarily escalates tensions between North and South Korea and may in fact put U.S. troops stationed in the area at risk. This resolution portrays the recent hostilities between the two Koreas as "an unprovoked military attack'' by North Korea, which is untrue. We know that South Korea was conducting live fire military exercises in the vicinity of disputed territory and that this action, taken with U.S. military support and participation, likely led to the exchange of gunfire between the two sides.
As the resolution states, the "USS George Washington Carrier Strike Group is conducting exercises with Republic of Korea naval forces in the waters west of the Korean Peninsula.'' Let us for a moment imagine the Chinese military holding joint exercises with Venezuela off the Texas coast. Might that be viewed as provocative by the United States? This is not to excuse or endorse the actions of the North Korean military, which are certainly regrettable, but it is important to accurately portray the events.
This resolution is long on inaccuracies and hyperbole but it avoids the real issue, which is why, more than fifty years after the end of the Korean war, the American taxpayer is still forced to pay for the U.S. military to defend a modern and wealthy South Korea. The continued presence of the U.S. military as a "tripwire'' to deter North Korea is ineffective and dangerous. It is designed to deter renewed hostilities by placing American lives between the two factions. As we have seen recently, South Korean leaders, emboldened by the U.S. protection, seek to provoke North Korean reaction rather than to work for a way to finally end the conflict. The U.S. presence only serves to prolong the conflict, further drain our empty treasury, and place our military at risk. I encourage my colleagues to reject this jingoistic resolution and instead use our Constitutionally-granted authority to finally end the U.S. military presence in and defense of South Korea.
The U.S. Military Should Leave South Korea
South Korea can afford its own defense. The United States military should leave.
“It's Time for the U.S. Army to Leave Korea”: Joshua Stanton – CBS News/The New Ledger http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/11/opinion/main6386737.shtml
Proceeding against the advice of my cardiologist, I must concede that for once
, Ron Paul is actually on to something. The ground component of U.S. Forces Korea, which costs U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars a year to maintain, is an equally unaffordable political liability on the South Korean street. We should withdraw it.
Every Saturday night off-post brawl is a headline in the muck-raking Korean press
, for which the American soldier is inevitably blamed, and for which angry mobs perpetually demand renegotiations of the Status of Force Agreement to give Korea’s not-even-remotely-fair judicial system more jurisdiction over American soldiers.
The South Korean people do not appreciate the security our soldiers provide.
The way some of them treat our soldiers ought to be a national scandal. Many off-post businesses don’t even let Americans through their front doors. The degree of anti-Americanism in South Korea is sufficient to be a significant force protection issue in the event of hostilities. The American security blanket has fostered a state of national adolescence by the South Korean public. Too many of them (some polls suggest most) see America as a barrier to reunification with their ethnic kindred in the North. Maybe nothing short of a North Korean attack on the South can encourage more sober thinking by South Koreans about their own security, but I suspect a greater sense of self-reliance and even vulnerability might.
During my service in Korea, as U.S. taxpayers subsidized South Korea’s defense, South Korea subsidized Kim Jong Il’s potential offense with billions of dollars in hard currency that sustained the very threat against which we were ostensibly helping to defend.
South Korea never made North Korea’s disarmament a condition of this aid. Instead, that aid effectively undermined U.S. and U.N. sanctions meant to force North Korea to disarm. What does South Korea have to show for this colossal outlay now. Because South Korea, now one the world’s wealthiest nations, expects up to 600,000 American soldiers to arrive protect it from any security contingency, successive South Korean governments actually cut their nation’s defense rather than modernizing it and building an effective independent defense.
Consequently, South Korea still has a 1970-vintage force structure, designed around a 1970-vintage threat, equipped with 1970-vintage weapons. Worst of all, South Korea diverted billions of dollars that should have been spent on modernizing its military into regime-sustaining aid to Kim Jong Il, to be used, as far as anyone knows, for nukes, missiles, artillery, and pretty much everything but infant formula. To this day, South Korea continues to resist accepting operational control over its own forces in the event of war.
Thus, while I don’t go so far as to accept the Princess Bride Doctrine (”never get involved in a land war in Asia”), I do not believe it is wise for us to have our forces within easy artillery range of Kim Jong Il, such that he may freely choose the time, place, and manner of our involvement