U.S. generals hint at more force cuts here

In testimony before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday (Seoul time), General B.B. Bell, commander of U.S. Forces Korea, touched on a wide range of issues involving changes in the current South Korea-U.S. military arrangements.
Noting that Seoul is seeking to regain wartime control of its military forces, the U.S. general forecast that if that happened, U.S. forces here would play what he called a “supporting role” in defending South Korea. He said he believed the South Korean military was capable of taking on an independent combat command and said, “In the future, to support the Republic of Korea where our ally is exercising independent combat command, I envision U.S. military contributions to the alliance to be air- and naval-centric.”
Washington and Seoul recently reached an agreement on “strategic flexibility” of U.S. forces stationed on the Korean peninsula - envisioning their use elsewhere in the region - and the comments could suggest further cuts in U.S. Army forces here, with Korea’s ground forces carrying the burden of land combat.
Asked by a senator whether any thought had been given to shifting more responsibility to the international community in defending South Korea, General Bell said that in addition to the bilateral U.S.-Korea security treaty, the United Nations Command here could be a basis for a larger role for other nations. In theory, he said, the UN Command’s purpose was to prepare the 15 nations represented in the command to recommit their troops if necessary.
“While I can’t speak for all those nations, certainly in terms of what they might or might not commit, what I can inform you of is that the framework to discuss a potential broader commitment is resonant, and that could certainly be undertaken,” he said.
Admiral William J. Fallon, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, also told the senators that Seoul’s demand for an increased role in the defense of the Korean peninsula could lead to further reductions in the number of U.S. forces stationed here.
The two countries agreed in 2004 that a third of the U.S. troops in Korea at the time would be withdrawn by 2008.
General Bell also called for more financial contributions by Seoul to offset the cost of stationing U.S. troops in Korea. Last year, Seoul’s bill for supporting U.S. troops here was cut for the first time since it began such contributions in 1991.
“As the alliance evolves, the Republic of Korea and the United States must develop a burden-sharing framework that accurately reflects the realities of our allied partnership and properly supports U.S. forces in the Republic of Korea,” said the general, who argued that the South Korean economy was the ultimate beneficiary of the cost-sharing arrangements through salaries paid to contractors and South Korean employees of the U.S. command and the goods purchased from Korean suppliers by the American forces.
Responding to a question about the North Korean missile threat, General Bell warned that Pyongyang was nearly ready to deploy intermediate range ballistic missiles capable of hitting U.S. facilities located as far away as Alaska.
He also said he was concerned about the North’s missile capabilities in the longer term, saying that Pyongyang’s technical progress on its three-stage Taepo-dong missile could give the North the capability of striking at the U.S. mainland within a decade.
He said that despite its ailing economy, the North continued to improve its military capabilities through its “military first” national policy. He said that North Korean special forces and its stockpile of biological and chemical weapons were also serious threats.
While China’s influence over North Korea has been often cited in connection with the six-party nuclear talks, General Bell said that military cooperation between Beijing and Pyongyang was not significant. “The relationship between the People’s Republic of China and North Korea is not as active as one might think,” he said. “The exercising that you would expect between the North Koreans and the Chinese is very low and essentially non-extant,” he added, as was the supply to the North of Chinese military hardware.

by Brian Lee