US Alliance Commitment to Korea in the Age of Austerity: Big Cuts Loom


csis

So this week my university hosted a forum on the Korean-American alliance with Ralph Cossa and others from the Center for Strategic and International Studies. CSIS is the kind of center that anyone reading this blog would find useful, and Cossa is a great Asia hand. (For starters, try his chapter in this.)

The forum was informative, but too much of it passed what seems to me the growing mismatch between US alliance commitments around the world and US capabilities to meet them, what Paul Kennedy famously called ‘imperial overstretch.’ Most of the speakers reaffirmed the US commitment in direct, unambiguous terms – an expected response given NK’s exceptionally bad behavior last year. But to my mind analysts need to be more forthright admitting the great trouble the US will likely have defending Korea.

I have written on this before; consider the following data points of US ‘partial abandonment’ of SK:

1. US Forces in Korea (USFK) are now just 28,500 servicemen, the smallest number they have been in the history of the force. A large minority, so far as I can tell, are air and naval staff, not infantry. In short, the ground war – the hard, brutal slog of 1950-53 – will be born mostly by the SK army this time.

2. US tactical nuclear weapons were removed from Korea 20 years ago, after the Cold War. Given NK’s nuclear program, ROK elites have been hinting for the last few years that they might like to see them come back or at least discuss it. The US has rejected this.

3. The Combined Forces Command (CFC) is still scheduled to be abolished. CFC places wartime authority in Korea over both US and Korean forces in the hands of a US general. This is widely viewed in Korea as a signal of US commitment to SK defense. Originally it was to be abolished in 2012. Abolition has been moved to 2015, because of recent NK behavior, but CFC is still scheduled to go. The Koreans too have made noises about retaining this, but the US has held firm that it too will go.

4. US public opinion surveys from the Chicago Council of Global Affairs (2008, 2010) only find the 40-45% of American actually want to fight in SK if a war comes: “Americans also show an inclination to take a hands-off approach to confrontations between North and South Korea.” This should not surprise anyone, given the American exhaustion from the war on terror. Consider the Libya intervention (which I supported, to be transparent). This was mostly an inside-the-Beltway affairs (the ‘professor’s war’); US public opinion support for it is tepid. As a result, US involvement is very light. Obama is badly constrained by huge US public reticence to fight yet another big war – which is most certainly what a Korean conflict would be. Libya is far more likely to be the US model in Korea should another war break-out here, rather than a re-run of what happened 60 years ago.

5. USFK is being relocated away from the demilitarized zone to a city south of Seoul – Pyeongtaek. This strikes me as a critical data point, and one that Koreans most definitely worry about. Seoul is the obvious target in any serious war, so USFK’s placement between the KPA (NK People’s Army) and our ally’s capital signaled strong American commitment to SK, both reassuring SK and deterring NK. USFK, even when it was larger, was never enough to stop the 1.2 million-man KPA on the ground. Its role was basically a symbolic trip-wire. That is by stationing US forces in the likely combat zone, any combat would immediately pull in US soldiers, and likely result in battlefield casualties as well. Any US fatalities would have a catalytic effect on US public opinion regarding participation in an otherwise unwanted war. Emotionally provocative images of dead American servicemen would enrage America pubic opinion and so reinforce the US commitment to fight. The trip-wire ensured that the US would be ‘chain-ganged’ into any war in a ‘country far away about which we know little.’ People find this morally objectionable – and it is  – but that does not make it inaccurate.  Indeed NATO did the same during the Cold War. Multinational units were stationed along the West German border with East Germany and Czechoslovakia. If the Red Army crossed the line, initial casualties would be spread around the alliance in order to insure that all allies would have skin in the game. This would help ensure that allies in NATO’s backyard would stick to their commitment to fight. While I doubt that USFK planners are so callous as to open reason this way, it is clearly the case that US forces south of Seoul reduce American exposure, eliminate the immediate trip-wire/chain-gang effect, and give the White House ‘wiggle room’ it did not have before.

6. But even if all of the above were irrelevant, the real elephant in the room that casts doubt on all US alliance commitments (not just Korea) is the crushing national deficit and debt. The US is now borrowing $1.5 trillion per annum. This is the largest peacetime borrowing in US history (and only matched once – in WWII). It represents a staggering 10% of GDP. America’s publicly-held debt is now $9 trillion. These budget constraints will place major limits on any US use of force in the future. Again, the current Libya campaign should be seen as a model for what US war in the age of austerity will look like – hesitation, buck-passing to allies and international organizations, ‘leading from behind,’ no ‘boots on the ground,’ cost-efficient airpower, etc. The only way to close that massive $1.5T gap is to either cut spending or raise taxes (or inflate it away, I suppose – but who wants a re-run of the 1970s?). So long as the GOP remains firmly opposed to tax hikes, then spending must be cut. And no really believes $1.5T in cuts can be found without huge defense cuts. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid (together: SS/M/M), Defense, plus interest on the debt, compose 80% of the budget. Interest payments cannot be cut obviously; we can’t just unilaterally stiff $9T of bondholders. Nor is there much saving to be found in the remaining 20% of ‘discretionary spending.’ That leaves just the ‘big four,’ as the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction commission called them: Defense and SS/M/M. This is an absolutely classic example of the guns-vs-butter trade off. We can have a big defense budget or big entitlements (SS, Medicare, Medicaid), but we can’t have both. Consider that the entire US national security budget (Defense, Veterans Affairs, and the relevant parts of the Homeland Security and Energy Departments) costs about $1T. That means you could cut all US national security spending and still not balance the budget. Indeed, half a trillion dollars in deficit spending would still be left over. Just 5 or 6 years ago, when the Bush administration was running 4-500 billion dollar budget deficits, people fretted that such numbers were enormous. Now that would be progress. This budgetary mathematic all but mandates major US retrenchment, unless Americans are willing to dramatically lessen their entitlement expectations to make room for defense. And to no one’s surprise except the hawks I suppose, Americans do actually favor major defense cuts in order to save SS/M/M. Americans, if they must choose, want checks for grandma more than they want aircraft carriers. This is why Michael Mullen, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, argued recently that the US budget deficit is now the single biggest threat to US national security. And the Sustainable Defense Task Force, organized by several members of Congress, does in fact recommend US cuts in Korea. (Read Kaplan at Slate.com for superb analysis on the approaching critical mass regarding defense spending.) The likelihood of major cuts in places where American really don’t want to be (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya) and places American believe can afford their own defense (Western Europe, Japan, Korea) means that it is very likely that US forces will not be in these places in, say, 10-15 years. The money just isn’t there anymore…

In short, America’s accelerating sovereign debt crisis, much reduced force structure in Korea, and low public opinion support for more interventions, badly constrain our ability to meet our alliance commitments here, and many other places. This doesn’t mean we should get out; this is no personal endorsement one way or the other. But it does mean that probability of major US assistance on which Korea has built its security for two generations is diminishing fast. We need to be honest about that. Call it the end of empire, retrenchment, imperial overstretch, whatever; but US allies need to recognize this. The days of free-riding are just about over.

About these ads

16 thoughts on “US Alliance Commitment to Korea in the Age of Austerity: Big Cuts Loom

  1. Pingback: Where is the U.S./R.O.K. Relationship 10 Years After 9/11? « The Peking Review

  2. Pingback: Korea’s Free-Riding Days Are Over | Rearranging Prejudices

  3. Pingback: Thoughts on Bin Laden’s Death: Can/Should We Wrap the ‘GWoT’? « Asian Security Blog

  4. You make some valid points. However, your overall arguments are overridden by your obvious ignorance of Military Strategy, and U.S & ROK war fighting capabilities.

    1.The U.S Military is a modular force that is design to do a lot more with smaller numbers, especially in a traditional combat setting.

    2.The name tactical nuclear weapon is a misnomer. Tactical nukes are weapons designed to be part of an overall deterrence strategy. On the other hand practical use nukes could be deployed anywhere in the world in a matter of hours. Nuclear weapons would not be used in an inter-Korea conflict.

    3.This date will continually to be pushed back in perpetuity. We will never see a day when a Korean General has War time (or peace time for that matter) control of U.S Military assets. You will see the U.S military completely withdraw from Korea before war time control is actually transferred.

    4.I think this is not exclusive to another Korea conflict. I think the American people just don’t have the stomach for any sort of protracted conflict at this point. This will change once a severe North Korean provocation is made, and war becomes unavoidable.

    5.I suggest you go and research what sort of tenant units USFK actually has in place, and then maybe you could understand why a move South of Seoul is a practical military strategy. The move to Pyeongtaek is not U.S Military removing themselves from between the KPA and Seoul. It’s actually a sound yet complex military strategy that requires knowledge of the tenant units of USFK, and the overall missions of USFK. The role/mission of the U.S military towards the Korean Peninsula, and the role/mission of PACOM towards the Korean Peninsula, and the role/mission of USFK is not all one in the same, but they are definitely entwined in an overall defense strategy that would quash and sort of conflict on the Korean peninsula.

    6. Executing a NATO missions in Libya is an example of the U.S leading from behind?? WOW! Up until this point I thought you were actually attempting to make genuine arguments.

    A lot of your opinions are not rooted in fact or any sort of knowledge of Military capabilities. The economy is a concern for U.S defense commitments but not in the case you laid out. There is no foreseeable economic issue that would impede the U.S from honoring any of the mutual defense treaties it has. This is because all the assets are already in place! Not even a full blown depression could negate that fact.

  5. Pingback: Why Nuclear Deterrence Doesn’t Matter that Much in Korea « Asian Security Blog

  6. Pingback: The US Drawdown & National Debt Debate: AfPak, Korea, etc « Asian Security Blog

  7. Pingback: Some Media on the US Retrenchment Debate « Asian Security Blog

  8. Pingback: Robert Gates’ Final Speech on US Defense Cuts « Asian Security Blog

  9. Pingback: What SK President Lee should have said to the US Congress – UPDATED: A Response to my Critics this Friday « Asian Security Blog

  10. Pingback: US Relative Decline & Korea (2): What is US National Interest in Korea? « Asian Security Blog

  11. Pingback: American constraints on the US-South Korea alliance | East Asia Forum

  12. Pingback: Taking a Break for Xmas – Back in Jan – Some ‘Best of 2011’ Asia Reading « Asian Security Blog

  13. Pingback: The US will not ‘Pivot’ much to Asia (3): We can’t afford it | Robert Kelly — Asian Security Blog

  14. Pingback: Why America won’t pivot to Asia anytime soon – Global Public Square - CNN.com Blogs

  15. Pingback: Would Ron Paul Retrench the US from Korea? | Robert Kelly — Asian Security Blog

  16. Pingback: Admit it: South Korea President Lee Myung-Bak Was Pretty Good | Robert Kelly — Asian Security Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s