|
This page is graphically intense with long load times due to photos. However, the photos and narratives by the men who served at Osan Air Base makes the wait well worthwhile. The opinions expressed are those of the author and in no way represents any official statement of Osan AB or the USAF. 
RETURN TO MAIN TABLE OF CONTENTS
 F-117A at Kunsan (12 Jan 07) (Chosun Ilbo) (SITE NOTE: The F-117As were part of the RSOI last year, but stayed afterwards indicating their mission was NOT the RSOI. The F-117As have been TDY to Kunsan AB in past years from 2003-2005, but did not come in 2006 as the US did not want to make any threatening moves as it tried to coax the North back to the negotiation table. Then the Oct 2006 nuclear test blew that strategy away. It is further interesting that 12 F-22As arrived at Kadena AB for an unspecified period with 250 personnel on 12 Jan -- similar to when the Elmendorf's F-15Es were at Kwangju in 2003. It was also announced that the USS Ronald Reagan would takeover from the USS Kitty Hawk as it standsdown for maintenance -- but still remains in the area -- similar to what happened in 2003 when the USS Vinson spelled the USS Kitty Hawk for drydock in Japan. The 7th Air Expeditionary Wing with the 5th Bomb Wing (B-52H) and 7th Bomb Wing (B-1B) like in 2003 still are postured at Guam. (Source: Global Security Org.)The 49th Fighter Wing at Holloman Air Force in New Mexico announced the deployment of about 20 F-117A Nighthawk Stealth fighters to the Korean Peninsula as part of a training mission under cold weather conditions. It can carry a range of tactical ordnance in its weapons bay, including BLU-109B low-level laser-guided bombs, GBU-10 and GBU-27 laser-guided bombs and Raytheon AGM-88 HARM air-to-surface missiles. This is the fourth time since 2003 that the 49th Fighter Wing has been deployed to the region. North Korea has denounced previous deployments as preparations for invasion. (Source: Korea Times.) (SITE NOTE: One interesting -- but probably sensational journalism -- was a Chosun Ilbo comment on 11 Jan that "The Japanese press reported last year that F-117 deployed in Gunsan air base in 2005 flew to Teukgak, where North Korean leader Kim Jong-il is believed to live, to practice aerobatics." The F-117 was to be phased out in 2008 so this is the "last Hurrah" for the special warrior.)  Protest outside Kunsan AB (24 Jan 2007) (Tongil News) USFK Denies Troop Transfer to Iraq (Jan 2007) The USFK on 12 Jan 2007 stated that the United States has no plan to transfer troops in South Korea to Iraq under the U.S. government’s new Iraq policy. ``As far as I know, the new plan for Iraq will not affect the USFK presence,’’ Kim Yong-kyu of the USFK’s public affairs office, told The Korea Times. He dismissed media reports that the number of U.S. troops here could be further scaled back below the agreed 25,000 because of the augmentation of troops in the war-torn country. After President George W. Bush announced on 10 Jan that the US will gradually send about 21,500 extra U.S. forces into Iraq, some ROK military experts and lawmakers questioned whether part of the USFK would be sent to Iraq, taking advantage of the ``strategic flexibility’’ of the U.S. military in South Korea. According to the media, "Seoul agreed last January to allow the United States to deploy troops stationed in South Korea to other parts of the world where the United States faces conflicts." (SITE NOTE: However, the only agreement was that the ROK publicly stated that it "understood" the US position BUT never gave its approval of the use of USFK troops. It holds to the line that the ROK must approve the use of any USFK forces outside of Korea -- a position the US finds untenable.) Rep. Choi Jae-chun of the governing Uri Party on 12 Jan said, ``The transfer of U.S. troops in South Korea to Iraq is highly possible given there has already been a system that allows Washington to use its troops on the Korean Peninsula to deal with conflicts in other regions. ``Washington now has limited options because it faces difficulties finding soldiers to be sent to Iraq in their homeland. The U.S. military in Europe also has problems in transferring its troops to Iraq,’’ Choi said in a radio interview. Choi argued that Bush’s ``rare’’ phone call to President Roh Moo-hyun on 10 Jan could be a sign of the transfer of U.S. troops to Iraq. During the 10-minute telephone conversation, Bush explained to Roh his new strategy in Iraq and Roh expressed support for the plan for an additional troop dispatch, Chong Wa Dae said in a statement. ``When U.S. troops in South Korea were deployed to Iraq last time, the U.S. government didn’t notify Seoul of the plan nor consult us over the issue in advance,’’ said the legislator. ``President Bush just called Chong Wa Dae over the deployment, and we were just pressed to accept the U.S. decision.’’ (SITE NOTE: This is not true. The US warned, then cajoled, then promised benefits to get the ROK to send its promised 3,600 troops to Iraq. When the ROK dragged its feet past the required date, the US announced it was sending the 2nd Battalion, 2nd ID of 3,600 troops to Iraq. It was not a surprise. Even when the ROK sent troops six months later, it was only after it negotiated the ROK troops into the safe area of Irbil -- instead of freeing up US troops to combat duties.) ROK Media Suspicion Over Strategic Flexibility (Jan 2007) The USFK on 22 Jan denied reports that the planned participation by its Air Force unit in an aerial training exercise, called Commando Sling, in Singapore in May is part of a plan to re-deploy U.S. forces on the Korean Peninsula to other troubled regions. ``The deployment of F-16s from an air base here to Singapore is just part of the U.S. Air Force's routine training,'' USFK spokesman Kim Yong-kyu told The Korea Times. ``The Commando Sling exercise is an annual joint aerial training exercise, organized by the U.S. Pacific Air Forces.'' Kim also said that the training has nothing to do with an agreement on the U.S. military's ``strategic flexibility'' struck last January between Seoul and Washington. Over the weekend, local media raised the question that deployment of F-16 fighters from the 8th Fighter Wing at Kunsan Air Base to the aerial training of the U.S. and Singaporean Air Forces would be a strategic move to increase the USFK's flexibility as a regional force. (SITE NOTE: Now that the wartime control has been established, the ROK is becoming more and more concerned that the USFK will start moving its forces out of Korea. No more has been mentioned about the installation of the computerized impact scoring system at Chikdo off Kunsan on which the USFK threatened to pull out its USAF components. Nothing has been publicly released on the progress as of Apr 2007. (EPILOGUE: System completed in Sep 2007 -- BUT there are stipulations by Kunsan government. SEE Sep 2007.)) Seoul and Washington agreed in January last year to a ``strategic flexibility'' scheme aimed at changing the mission of U.S. forces overseas from stationary forces defending host nations to rapid deployment forces that can be promptly dispatched to other parts of the world where the United States faces conflicts. The agreement, however, highlights that any deployment of U.S. troops in South Korea will be implemented based on consensus from the Korean government. Seoul has been worried that USFK's intervention in other regional conflicts could have South Korean tangled in hostilities with other nations against its will. One case in point is the China-Taiwan dispute over the sovereignty of the self-ruled Taipei. (Source: Korea Times.) Flexing Muscle, China Destroys Satellite in Test (Jan 2007) China successfully carried out its first test of an antisatellite weapon last week, signaling its resolve to play a major role in military space activities and bringing expressions of concern from Washington and other capitals. Only two nations — the Soviet Union and the United States — have previously destroyed spacecraft in antisatellite tests, most recently the United States in the mid-1980s. The Soviet Union conducted roughly a dozen antisatellite tests from 1968 to 1982, Dr. McDowell said, adding that the Reagan administration carried out its experiments in 1985 and 1986. Arms control experts called the test, in which the weapon destroyed an aging Chinese weather satellite, a troubling development that could foreshadow an antisatellite arms race. Alternatively, however, some experts speculated that it could precede a diplomatic effort by China to prod the Bush administration into negotiations on a weapons ban. An administration official who had reviewed the intelligence about China's test said the launching was detected by the United States in the early evening of Jan. 11, which would have been early morning on Jan. 12 in China. American satellites tracked the launching of the medium-range ballistic missile, and later space radars saw the debris. The antisatellite test was first reported late Wednesday on the Web site of Aviation Week and Space Technology, an industry magazine. Aviation Week and Space Technology first reported the test: "Details emerging from space sources indicate that the Chinese Feng Yun 1C (FY-1C) polar orbit weather satellite launched in 1999 was attacked by an asat (anti-satellite) system launched from or near the Xichang Space Center." The event was the first successful test of the missile after three failures. U.S. "space tracking sensors" confirmed that the satellite is no longer in orbit and that the collision produced "hundreds of pieces of debris," that also are being tracked. It said intelligence agencies had yet to "complete confirmation of the test." The test, the magazine said, appeared to employ a ground-based interceptor that used the sheer force of impact rather than an exploding warhead to shatter the satellite. Dr. McDowell of Harvard said the satellite was known as Feng Yun, or "wind and cloud." Launched in 1999, it was the third in a series. He said that it was a cube measuring 4.6 feet on each side, and that its solar panels extended about 28 feet. He added that it was due for retirement but that it still appeared to be electronically alive, making it an ideal target. "If it stops working," he said, "you know you have a successful hit." White House officials said the United States and other nations, which they did not identify, had “expressed our concern regarding this action to the Chinese.” Despite its protest, the Bush administration has long resisted a global treaty banning such tests because it says it needs freedom of action in space. Under a space policy authorized by President Bush in August, the United States asserts a right to "freedom of action in space" and says it will "deter others from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intended to do so." The policy includes the right to "deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests." At a time when China is modernizing its nuclear weapons, expanding the reach of its navy and sending astronauts into orbit for the first time, the test appears to mark a new sphere of technical and military competition. American officials complained yesterday that China had made no public or private announcements about its test, despite repeated requests by American officials for more openness about its actions. Low Earth-orbit satellites have become indispensable for U.S. military communications, GPS navigation for smart bombs and troops, and for real-time surveillance. The Chinese test highlights the satellites' vulnerability. The weather satellite hit by the weapon had circled the globe at an altitude of roughly 500 miles. In theory, the test means that China can now hit American spy satellites, which orbit closer to Earth. The satellites presumably in range of the Chinese missile include most of the imagery satellites used for basic military reconnaissance, which are essentially the eyes of the American intelligence community for military movements, potential nuclear tests and even some counterterrorism, and commercial satellites. (SITE NOTE: While China's new weapon does jeopardize low-altitude U.S. reconnaissance sensors, it poses no risk to America's targeting and communications systems, which fly at a much higher orbit. The worry is that in case of a shooting war between Taiwan-China, the Chinese will take out the intelligence satellites leaving the military "blind". However, the worry for Korea is that if such an event did take place, the Chinese strategy will be to split the US naval forces -- as it has done in the past as recent as 2003 -- by escalating the Korean crisis simultaneously with its Taiwan provocations. Without the satellites, the intelligence gathering would have to be done by real time assets (U2-AWACS) -- which would be a dangerous proposition for all. There is an added complication in that the Japanese have spy satellites as well and any move on them will be an act of war involving Japan as well. The ROK has also added its spy satellites to the mix -- albeit not perfected as yet. Quickly such a situation could turn into WWIII. On a more realistic standpoint, the US and other nations are piffed that the Chinese created a massive garbage heap with their target practice. Floating around the area for untold years -- posing a danger to other satellites at the same altitude -- the Chinese created a "minefield" of debris. This is really has a lot of scientists piffed at the Chinese.) In late August, President Bush authorized a new national space policy that ignored calls for a global prohibition on such tests. The policy said the United States would “preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space” and “dissuade or deter others from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intended to do so.” It declared the United States would “deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests.” The Chinese test “could be a shot across the bow,” said Theresa Hitchens, director of the Center for Defense Information, a private group in Washington that tracks military programs. “For several years, the Russians and Chinese have been trying to push a treaty to ban space weapons. The concept of exhibiting a hard-power capability to bring somebody to the negotiating table is a classic cold war technique.” The Bush administration has conducted research that critics say could produce a powerful ground-based laser weapon that would be used against enemy satellites. The largely secret project, parts of which were made public through Air Force budget documents submitted to Congress last year, appears to be part of a wide-ranging administration effort to develop space weapons, both defensive and offensive. The administration’s laser research is far more ambitious than a previous effort by the Clinton administration to develop an antisatellite laser, though the administration denies that it is an attempt to build a laser weapon. The current research takes advantage of an optical technique that uses sensors, computers and flexible mirrors to counteract the atmospheric turbulence that seems to make stars twinkle. The weapon would essentially reverse that process, shooting focused beams of light upward with great clarity and force. (Source: New York Times.) (SITE NOTE: The current worry is that the recent test reinvigorated American advocates for space-based weapons harkening back to the Star Wars years of Ronald Reagan. These forces have largely been silent since the fall of the "evil empire." If China follows up with more tests, the American space hawks will grow in strength and numbers and could find new allies in Congress. What ultimately will follow is a very unhealthy space race in weapons superiority of my deterent is better than yours.) EPILOGUE: Navy Hits Sat, Probably Fuel Tank (Feb 2008) The Pentagon believes the Navy Standard Missile-3 fired from the USS Lake Erie at a decaying satellite likely struck the loaded, and toxic, fuel tank as intended. After an early delay because of rough seas, the Erie fired the SM-3 on the night of 20 Feb about 10:26 p.m. EST at the non-functioning intelligence satellite as it traveled in space about 133 nautical miles above the Pacific Ocean, according to a DOD statement. President Bush elected to attempt a shootdown because the satellite still had a full load of fuel. The Joint Space Operations Center at Vandenberg AFB, Calif., confirmed that the SM-3 had intercepted the satellite, which broke into pieces. Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Thursday told reporters that the Pentagon has "a high degree of confidence that we got the tank." A definite answer won't come for another day or two as analysts review the data, but Cartwright did say initial views of the debris field show nothing larger than a football. (American Forces Press Service report by Gerry Gilmore) (SITE NOTE: The main message is that the US can do the same as the Chinese -- with the message to the Chinese as well. You can shoot mine, I can shoot yours.) Photographer accused in U.S. military leak (Jan 2007) Police began an investigation of a photographer accused of taking pictures of U.S. military facilities in Korea and Japan. The Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency announced on January 24 that it had been conducting a investigation on Mr. Lee (40), a photographer, for several months after obtaining a wiretap warrant. The police said it launched the investigation after receiving a tip that Lee had photographed weapons at U.S. military bases in Korea and had given the photos to the media. The 40-year-old, who was identified by his surname Lee, is accused of taking photographs of a U.S. nuclear submarine stationed in Korea and a U.S. military base in Hiroshima, Japan, and sending them to a Korean-Japanese contact in January 2004. "We are currently investigating the details of the case," said Kim Bok-chil, a police captain at Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency. Lee has not been summoned for questioning yet, Kim said. Lee had posted pictures of joint Korea-U.S. military exercises on his personal website last March when he worked a journalist, Kim added. Lee is also accused of leaking classified military information such as the locations of U.S. chemical weapons in Korea through his articles and contributions to the online media. Lee also allegedly sought help from a North Korean spy in Japan to gain entry to a U.S. military base in Hiroshima. (Source: Korea Herald.) However, a representative of the progressive internet media site for which Lee worked said, "We did run an article with a picture of a nuclear submarine docked at Jinhae Port. But the picture was taken by some other environmental group. At the time, Mr. Lee was not able to take a picture of the nuclear sub." The representative also said that Mr. Lee wrote the special report under question on the chemical weapons status of the U.S. Forces in Korea being revealed to the public "based on the information the U.S. military disclosed in accordance with their Freedom of Information Act." (Source: Hankyoreh News.) (SITE NOTE: The US has chemical weapons in Korea??? A US nuclear submarine "stationed" in South Korea??? This is very sensational -- but untrue. The US will deny the use of chemical weapons and having them stored on ROK soil would be a disaster. The nuclear subs sometimes appear at Chinhae with nuclear-capable Tomahawk cruise missiles on board...but NEVER stationed here. What's really going on here???) Fate of the UN Command with Transfer of Wartime Control (Jan 2006) Gen. Bell, the USFK Commander who doubles as head of the United Nations Command, said it would be unavoidable to revise the roles and missions of the body, as the South Korean military "exercises independent command of its forces during armistice, crisis escalation and potential war." He said the U.S.-led United Nations Command will play a supporting role to Korean military's maintenance of the armistice after the wartime control transfer. Bell called for negotiations over a revision of the UNC roles and missions. "The U.N. commander will have no command authority over any ROK forces, with the ROK military commanding the demilitarized zone and sea patrol in the Northern Limit Line (NLL)," he said, using the acronym for South Korea's official name, Republic of Korea. "And the ROK military will have the command authority of all forces in potential contact with an enemy." The NLL is a de-facto sea border between the two Koreas, which remain technically in a state of war. He added the future U.N. commander will likely assume a supporting role in the relationship similar to the future supporting role between the two allies. (SITE NOTE: This statement seems to be the precursor to shifting the UNC to Japan at Camp Zama -- the control of the DMZ is handed over to the ROK. Japanese bases were approved by the Japanese as support bases for Korea under the UNC dating back to the Korean War. Besides the DMZ which the US wants to shift to the ROK, the UNC performs mainly a ceremonial role.) (Source: Yonhap News.) Bell Seeks "Enhanced" UN Command The UNC should be enhanced to assume immediate wartime operations as a key supporting command to the South Korean military, Gen Burwell Bell said on 17 Jan. At a news conference held in Seoul, Gen. Burwell Bell, commander of U.S. Forces Korea, repeated his emphasis on the need to revise the UNC roles and missions ahead of South Korea's regaining of wartime operational control from the U.S. military. "It is important that we organize in peacetime as we will for war. There would be no time to make changes in our command structure while a crisis escalates," Bell told reporters. "We must organize ourselves so we have unity in our chain of command from armistice to crisis escalation and into war, should war break out," the U.S. general said. Some said Bell's remarks hint that the U.S. military aims to upgrade the roles of the UNC through consolidating its command system along with organization reshuffling. They said Washington intends to maintain its leading military role on the peninsula through enhancing the UNC which would replace the CFC. (SITE NOTE: The US has already stated that I Corps will set up at Camp Zama to handle Korean contingencies. According to the Army Transformation Roadmap of 2004, I Corps should transition to its UEx model by 2010. The next step is to move the UNC there. We believe Gen Bell is alluding to the move to Japan -- and needs to have this agreement in writing before any change in command lines can be started in Japan. Remember that Bell has previously stated that he wants to turn control of the DMZ over to the ROK as soon as possible.) The two nations and other UNC member countries will work out these details in a near future, he said. Bell said the upcoming changes in the alliance command structure could harm the UNC commander's ability to quickly mobilize forces to enforce the inter-Korean armistice. He pointed out that once the Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command is inactivated, the UNC commander will no longer retain immediate access to South Korea's combat troops with his losing of command authority for them. "The inactivation of the Combined Forces Command and the transfer of ROK forces operational control to an independent ROK military command will, however, create a military authority-to-responsibility mismatch for the United Nation Command," Bell said. "Unless addressed, this situation will make it impossible to credibly maintain the armistice." The UNC is a 16-nation body commanded by a four-star U.S. general overseeing compliance with the armistice agreement on the peninsula and supervising two transportation corridors through the Demilitarized Zone between South Korea and North Korea. (SITE NOTE: If the UNC moved to Camp Zama, the position would become a three-star position with a four-star in Hawaii. The position of the USFK would be downgraded as well to a three-star position -- and perhaps ultimately a two-star position if ground forces in significant numbers are removed from the peninsula.) In case of a military crisis on the peninsula, the UNC will defend South Korea through the combination of multinational troops from member nations. The UNC maintains seven rear headquarters in Japan for logistical support in case of conflict. (SITE NOTE: Whether the UN nations will immediately jump back into the fray if North Korea attacks is debatable. The fact is that in 1975, Park Chung-hee stated that the ROK would be able to defend the ROK against the North as long as China did not intercede. The UN flags were lowered over all bases in Korea except at the DMZ. All UN troops, except for strictly ceremonial purposes, were withdrawn from Korea and Japan -- and returned home. The sad fact is the UN will not rush back into Korea -- they will debate, make resolutions and perhaps enter as a coalition under the UN Command again after months of debate.) Bell also raised a need to enhance the roles of the Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission and the Military Armistice Commission. The two institutions are main UNC bodies mandated to supervise the armistice actions between South and North Korea. The MAC consists of 10 officers representing main belligerents of the Korean War while the NNSC comprises representing officers from neutral nations Sweden, Switzerland and Poland. Analysts said the basic guideline implicates that the alliance shape will face a bigger metamorphosis than previously expected along with changes in a wide range of military details. (Source: Korea Herald.) When South Korea takes over wartime military command of its own troops sometime between 2009 and 2012, as the two nations recently agreed, it will create a "military authority-to-responsibility mismatch for the United Nations Command," Bell said. In other words, the U.N. commander no longer will have "immediate access" to South Korean troops the way Bell does now. Bell said the situation could make it impossible to maintain the Korean armistice — the U.N. command's main mission. "It is important that we organize in peacetime as we will for war," he said. "This is particularly true here in Korea, where crisis escalation could quickly — indeed almost instantaneously — lead to combat operations." That, Bell said, leaves the question: "Is there a future role for the United Nations Command on the Korean peninsula?" "The answer is yes — absolutely," he said. It must remain part of the deterrent and warfighting capabilities, he said. Bell said the issue is defining the U.N. Command's role when the South Koreans have wartime command. He indicated the command could work the same way the U.S. military will: in a supporting mission. In that scenario, the U.N. commander "could assign forces supporting missions under tactical control of supported commanders," Bell said. The commander would "retain operational command over all supporting U.N. forces and those forces would also maintain their own lines of national command back to their nations." (Source: Stars and Stripes.) NNSC Observers Meet for 3000th Time -- Doing Nothing (Jan 2007) On 23 Jan the Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission (NNSC) met for a historic 3,000th time since Aug. 1, 1953. Swedish, Swiss and Polish delegates sat at the table straddling the demarcation line separating the Koreas. Because North Korea hasn't recognized the armistice since 1991 — and its Polish and Czech delegates left in 1993 and 1995, respectively — all three men entered the meeting from the South Korean side of Panmunjom. Maj. Gen. Sture Theolin of Sweden and Maj. Gen. Gerhad Bruegger, Switzerland, meet weekly. Polish delegate Brig. Gen. Anatol Czaban joins the meetings a few times each year. The commission reports to the senior member of the Military Armistice Commission. The NNSC's mission is to "supervise, observe, inspect and investigate military activities outside the Demilitarized Zone and to ensure that neither side violates the armistice by introducing or reinforcing military personnel and materiel for resumed fighting." Since the commission hasn't been allowed for decades to inspect ports for any military build-up, officials admitted their presence is largely symbolic. In 2005, Gen. Leon LaPorte, then the U.N. commander, asked the Swedish and Swiss delegates to monitor the large annual U.S. South Korean training exercises criticized by North Korea as aggressive acts. Theolin said they monitor the exercises to ensure they are legitimate and defensive activities that do not violate either the letter or spirit of the armistice. (Source: Stars and Stripes.) February 2007Bell: Troop Misconduct on the Rise in S. Korea (Feb 2007) SEOUL — Servicemember misconduct is on the rise in South Korea, U.S. Forces Korea commander Gen. B.B. Bell stated in a recent message to his troops. Bell wrote that he is "seeing a statistical increase in servicemember misconduct, particularly involving under age drinking, alcohol abuse, curfew violation and sexual assault." He called the behavior unacceptable and wants the troops to know about potential lifelong negative consequences they could face. His message comes in advance of a long weekend; the military community is off work from Feb. 17 to Feb. 20 to celebrate President's Day and the Korean Lunar New Year.Bell wrote that the safety record for 2007 so far has been "very good," but added, "We must continue to highlight safe and appropriate behavior in order to avoid misconduct and tragedy during the upcoming four-day weekend." Several U.S. troops are embroiled in the South Korean court system after holiday weekend incidents. Most recently, 23-year-old Pvt. Geronimo Ramirez is accused of raping a 67-year-old South Korean woman on Jan. 14 — part of the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday weekend. Officials said Bell considered the Ramirez case, among other unspecified factors, when deciding to place Hongdae off limits to the entire USFK community — civilians included — from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m. daily since Jan. 31. And three other U.S. soldiers are charged in relation to a Nov. 11 brawl in Itaewon's U.N. Club during Veterans Day weekend. Pvt. Sylvester Antley Clark, 19, and Spc. Tydes Teron Whiten, 27, were charged with assaulting a club bouncer. Pfc. Mario Duprey, 22, has been charged with assaulting a police officer. Their next court case, also in Seoul Central District Court, is Feb. 23. To mitigate risks, Bell directed his personnel to read "USFK Command Policy Letter #2, Command Safety," available at www.usfk.mil. The policy letter states USFK's philosophy "must be overarching but simple: supervise, educate, reduce risk, and seek out and eliminate conditions, practices, and habits that threaten the safety of people." Part of that philosophy is use of the "Under the Oak Tree Counseling," in which leaders talk to their troops before "weekends, holidays, passes, leaves, and other identified periods of high risk." "First-line supervisors will meet with subordinates to discuss and set conditions for their off-duty plans," according to the policy letter. The goal is to get a verbal contract through face-to-face meetings in which the troops agree to take appropriate steps to lower risks, according to the letter. (Source: Stars and Stripes.) (SITE NOTE: Korean progressive media also picked up on this message -- as justification that the USFK were "evil doers.") (SITE NOTE: The USFK troops at Army camps were very angry after female visits in barracks rooms was prohibitted in Feb 2007 -- meaning female soldiers cannot visit other male soldiers in their rooms -- not only the off-base female visitors. This followed an assault on a female soldier in the barracks.) Lawmakers Call for Delay of Control Transfer (Feb 2007) Lawmakers of the governing and opposition parties yesterday agreed to adopt a resolution calling for a delay in talks over the transition of wartime operational control of the Korean military from the United States to South Korea. ``The adoption of the resolution means Seoul should not stick to its target year of 2012,'' Rep. Ahn Young-keun, a member of the National Assembly's National Defense Committee said. (Source: Korea Times.) Defense Minister Kim Jang-soo hinted that he and his U.S. counterpart would try to fix the timetable on the command rearrangements during their talks in Washington, D.C. in late Feb. Kim was to begin a four-day visit to the United States on 19 Feb and meet with U.S. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in Washington, D.C., on 20 Feb to discuss issues, including the relocation of U.S. military bases to south of Seoul. It was to be the first meeting of the two allies' defense chiefs since they both took office late last year. (Source: Korea Times.) (SITE NOTE: Unfortunately, the transfer of wartime control has gone too far. We have always stated that the US wanted to draw down in Korea since 1991 under the Nunn-Warner initiative. Roh's insistence on wartime control gave the opportunity to get out from under a bad agreement -- though the US knew full-well that the ROK cannot support its own defense without the US support. Thus the opening allowed the US to give up the wartime control but at the same time declare that the US would no longer be the "patron" but rather a "supporter" of the ROK defense. The anti-Americanism and the ROK antagonism in pursuing an opposite rapproachement strategy with North Korea has reinforced this feeling. Though a resolution is nothing more than a statement that has no legal force, it does indicate that intent of the ROK -- one that it has demonstrated with foot-dragging and haggling over relocation and cost-sharing -- to retain the USFK in Korea.) Previously, lawmakers from the main opposition Grand National Party (GNP) opposed the transfer of wartime operational control, now exercised by the top U.S. military officer in South Korea. Throughout the process, retired generals, veterans, former defense ministers and conservative elements rallied against the move, but Roh forged ahead with his demands for wartime control. GNP Presidential candidate has stated in Feb 2007 that the ROK should renegotiate its strategic alliance with the US -- indicating the transfer of wartime control was a mistake. She called for the signing of a new security pact in Washington. (Source: Korea Times.) Now more and more of the members of the Uri Party are coming to the realization that it was a strategic mistake. U.S. indicates Earlier Transfer of Wartime Command than Expected (Feb 2007) On 19 Feb, the Yonhap News reported that the United States had strongly indicated that it would allow South Korea to get back the wartime command of its troops, currently held by the U.S., around 2010, a couple of years earlier than the deadline agreed on between the sides, a Defense Ministry official said Monday. (SITE NOTE: The difference between US and ROK date of wartime control transfer has become very confusing with the USFK saying "2009" while the ROK saying "2012" and the media splitting the difference at "around 2010". In truth, no one is sure until an official agreement is made.) "The U.S. side informed us during the Security Policy Initiative meeting in Seoul that three years is enough from now on," the official said, asking not to be named. South Korean Defense Minister Kim Jang-soo recently expressed the hope that he could fix the date for the transfer of the wartime command Friday when he meets with U.S. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in Washington. The two sides had agreed to set the transfer timing and present a detailed schedule for it by the end of July this year. (Source: Yonhap News and Korea Herald.) Korea Herald on 21 Feb reported that defense chiefs from the ROK and the US are expected to reach an agreement on the timetable for the transfer of wartime operational control during their talks in Washington. Working-level officials have narrowed their differences over the schedule and are reportedly close to an agreement on 2012 as the target year. (SITE NOTE: Actually, we believe the transfer of wartime control could be in place much sooner -- perhaps by 2008 with all the mechanics sorted out later -- and actual transfer date in 2009. The bottomline is that the ROK will NEVER be ready for assuming wartime control and the biggest danger is that if the US waits longer, it will be sucked once again into the "patron" role. We believe that the mechanisms for a drawdown are in place. In Feb 2007, we have observed that the US contracts for contractors are being curtailed in the Pyeongtaek area in general. This indicates that the drawdowns have reached a phase that reduced support for elements in the ROK -- though there seems to be an increase in contractor support at Camp Humphreys as could be expected with the increase in systems installations goes on. Though there is a great deal of housing construction going on on-base, these contracts were let before the wartime control fiasco hit the fan. Off-base the citizens are complaining because all the promises of a massive increase in personnel has not taken place and is impacting them adversely. In the meantime, consolidation of activities in the DMZ area around Camp Stanley continues -- and in fact, the USFK wishes to return more camps to the ROK under the LPP. We believe the manning drawdowns under the Unit of Action processes (combining activities, reduction of manning numbers, deactivation of units, relocating units to the States) that has already left gapping holes in manning levels -- BUT only on the books. In other words, the units are being phased out and positions are being vacated by attrition -- without any fills -- but not affecting unit operations. We believe there are probably administrative holes throughout the USFK but mostly within the Army elements. However, we also believe that the USFK may potentially pullout the F-16s here in Korea over the unresolved use of Chikdo bombing range -- unless some positive signs of agreement are made with the Kunsan government (or the transfer of Chikdo to the Forestry service so the ROK government could control the island use. As of Apr 2007, there was still no public announcement on the opening of Chikdo per USAF demands. In Sep 2007, there was notification that the WISS system was in place on Chikdo, but the issues of a 7 ROKAF:3 USAF split of range time and the Kunsan City government threat that it would shut it down if government aid promises were not met. In addition, the environmentalists still will have to review the Chikdo area before there is a final ok.)) DOD, S. Korea agree on 2012 transfer of war command The DoD announced on 23 Feb that South Korea would assume wartime control over its own military forces on 17 April 2012. The announcement came after Defense Secretary Robert Gates met with South Korean National Defense Minister Kim Jang Soo on 23 Feb at the Pentagon. Originally, the U.S. insisted on a transfer date of 2009, but accepted Korea’s claim that a transfer before 2012 would not be possible considering the transfer preparation timetable for securing high-tech defense capabilities to deter the North on its own. (SITE NOTE: Our original reaction was, "WTF???" This believed it must have been a misprint. But then we remembered what we also said repeatedly that the ROK is NOT prepared to accept its wartime control -- and probably won't be ready in 2012 either. However, when you read the fine print, the US wants assurances that the ROK will not weasel out of its commitment to accept wartime control. An official with the Foreign Ministry said yesterday that agreements such as the current one are technically not legally binding. However, since it is a formal agreement between two nations, it would be almost impossible to overturn it, considering the damage it could cause in the trust between the two sides.Until 23 Feb, the Defense Department’s position was that South Korea could take wartime control over its military in 2009, while South Korean officials had insisted they could not do so before 2012. An October 2006 meeting between top U.S. and South Korean Defense officials failed to resolve the matter. Since then, U.S. and South Korean officials have decided to turn command and control capabilities over to the South Koreans incrementally and then have an exercise in March 2012 to make sure everything is in place for the transition. The two sides have agreed to work out a "Road Map" to determine what needs to be done by March 2012 to transition to South Korean wartime command. The two ministers were to agree on a roadmap for wartime command transfer in July 2007. The ROK will verify the its military’s capabilities to wage war on its own through an RSOI (Reception, Staging, Onward Movement and Integration) exercise in March 2012, and finalize its transfer timetable through supplementary work for two weeks. There will be prior test drills from 2010 during the allies' joint Ulchi Focus Lens exercises every August, aimed at finding and removing potential problems in the command changes. (SITE NOTE: The ROK knows darn well that the promised ground forces augmentation under an agreement which promised 640,000 troops is now off the table once the CFC is dismantled. The US will NEVER allow the US forces to be commanded by the ROK. Under a separate command structure, the US will determine how many troops will be "promised" under its "umbrella" -- but it will be mostly USAF and Navy assets. Though not out in print, reading between the lines indicates that ground troop commitment will NOT be considered as "support." Rumor has it that the new Oplan 5027 Theater warfare is in the works at present from the US side...but whether the ROK side is developing is unknown. The question is will the final versions mesh???...and how much negotiation will be required between the two countries on the final details???) If the Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command is dissolved after the wartime control transfer, the ROK and U.S. militaries will respectively establish a Korean military Joint Forces Command and a U.S. Joint Forces Headquarters in Korea (USJFTK). Department of Defense spokesperson David Smith said, "The number of U.S. forces stationed in Korea is currently 28,000 and is scheduled to be cut to 25,000 through 2008. The number will be maintained for the foreseeable future." He added, “After wartime control is transferred to South Korea’s military, the U.S. forces in Korea will support South Korea’s military according to the USFK commander’s authority." (SITE NOTE: That was a nice way of saying that the US will only support the ROK in accordance with its agreed upon responsibilities -- which will be ONLY in a support role.) Seoul military sources said on 25 Feb that the government had been drawing up its own wartime operation plan to replace the existing Operation Plan 5027 which is supposed to be carried out jointly by the combined Korea-U.S. forces. The current contingency plan focuses on counter-attacks in the event of North Korea aggression. The Korean military is seeking to establish a new combat and operational command by the end of next year in the first major overhaul of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 17 years. Early in Feb 2007, Defense Minister Kim Jang-soo said a new command responsible for wartime operation, command and control of troops was being considered in line with the new Korea-U.S. alliance structure.Also 23 Feb, Gates and Kim repeated their commitments to accelerate the move of U.S. troops from Yongsan Garrison in Seoul to Camp Humphreys in Pyeongtaek, a Defense Department news release says. The news release did not give a time line. The Defense Department wants to move U.S. troops to Camp Humphreys in 2008, while South Korean officials have said the move might have to wait until 2013. In 2004, Seoul and Washington agreed to consolidate facilities and troops from the Yongsan Garrison and the U.S. 2nd Infantry Division to Pyeongtaek by 2008. But the plan has been delayed to as late as 2013 due to continued resistance from local residents and anti-U.S. civic activists, and differences between the two sides over relocation costs and the burden of cleaning up contamination in U.S. bases. "The two sides did not discuss specific dates," Jeon said. "The relocation plan is being delayed for a variety of reasons, and we agreed to find ways to expedite the process," he added. The news release made no mention of any discussion of South Korea’s contribution toward the costs of sustaining U.S. troops on the Korean peninsula. Some point out that the reason why the U.S., which insisted on a transfer time of 2009 many times up until now, changed its attitude may result from a behind-the-scenes agreement related to other issues such as the U.S. military’s sharing of defense expenses in Korea and moving U.S. military bases. (Source: Stars and Stripes and Donga Ilbo.) In return, Washington is asking Seoul to guarantee it will not change its mind again no matter who wins the presidential election here in December. That would put paid to hopes in Korea that a new president could postpone the handover. The U.S. is asking Korea for "tangible measures" to earn its trust, citing Korea's earlier failure to immediately implement a bilateral agreement when the situation changed. By tangible measures, the U.S. appears to mean establishing a military command that would take charge of troop control, and an earlier start to drawing up new military strategies once Combined Forces Command is dismantled, according to sources. Under the 23 Feb agreement, the South Koreans would retain control of their military, with U.S. forces operating in support. There is already an agreement in place to reduce U.S. troops in South Korea to 25,000 by next year, and a U.S. official says there has been no discussion of further reductions as a result of the 23 Feb agreement. The U.S. troop numbers are already down to 28,000. (SITE NOTE: But the pundits state that the numbers is not the tell tale story. It is beginning to look like most of the remaining troops are "support" elements -- intel, communications, etc. along with USAF elements which are undecided at the moment. Thus far most of the reductions have been in the frontline army units. The DoD said that it had no plan to further reduce 25,000 troops stationed in South Korea after 2008, although the two countries reached an agreement to transition wartime operational control of Korean troops to Seoul by April 17, 2012. The U.S. had said that it would maintain the current combat capability by providing supplementary forces even after control is transferred to Seoul. (Source: Chosun Ilbo and Korea Herald.) Though the US promised no future reductions after 2008, the numbers for follow-on support may be renegotiated after the CFC is dismantled. Military experts point out that the possibility of additional reductions remains depending on how the U.S. strengthens its military bases in Guam and Japan and relocates its forces around the globe. Larry Niksch, a specialist in Asian affairs at the U.S. Congressional Research Service, said recently that it is only a matter of time before the U.S. withdraws all its ground forces from Korea by moving the single remaining brigade to another region. Of two brigades under the second U.S. infantry division, one was already relocated to Iraq, he said. Niksh predicted that the U.S. will considerably strengthen its air forces in Korea and indirectly support Korea's naval forces from its naval bases in Japan. (Source: Chosun Ilbo.) The ruling Uri Party and leftist opposition Democratic Labor Party welcomed the agreement as a cornerstone of the country's sovereignty. The progressive parties praised the U.S. acceptance of Seoul's target year of 2012, saying South Korea has secured enough time to prepare for the assumption of an independent wartime operation. However, the main opposition Grand National Party and minor opposition Democratic Party regretted the accord, concerned that it will adversely effect security stability on the Korean Peninsula. The agreement met with immediate protests from the conservative politicians, veterans and activists in Seoul who are concerned that the command change would weaken Korea's defense capability and undermine the military alliance between the two countries. Two leading presidential hopefuls from the opposition Grand National Party claimed that the issue should be renegotiated after a new administration takes office in Korea in February 2008. Presidential candidates such as former Seoul Mayor Lee Myung-bak, a front-runner in public opinion polls, said the deal should be rediscussed in the next administration. "We are disappointed that such an agreement was reached even though the Defense Committee of the National Assembly opposed it," the Grand National Party said in a press release. "It's a measure that's against the will of the people." Lee Myung-bak also said the target date should be flexibly readjusted in consideration of the security situation on the Korean Peninsula. "If needed, the next government should renegotiate the matter with the United States depending on North Korea's nuclear threats and tension on the peninsula," Lee said. (Source: Joongang Ilbo.) "It is wrong to fix the transfer year. There should be serious discussion again on the issue under the next government under the principle of strengthening Korea-U.S. alliance," Han Sun-kyo, spokesman for Park Geun-hye, former GNP chairwoman. Their downright opposition signals that the command structure will become a major campaign theme for the next presidential election in December. Former defense ministers and chiefs of veterans groups plan to hold a meeting today to discuss their response to the 23 Feb agreement. They led a series of protests against the proposed troop control last year. Before the defense chiefs' talks, they asked the Defense Ministry to postpone the decision and pass it to the next government. But their request was rejected. The opponents said the CFC should be maintained to cope with a nuclear-armed North Korea until the communist country completely abandons its atomic programs -- but the Ministry of Defense stated it was "inappropriate" to link the two issues of nuclear disarment and wartime control. The disagreement on the wartime control spilled over int the National Assembly on 27 Feb. The National Assembly's defense committee was supposed to review the agreement, with Defense Minister Kim Jang-soo and other top defense officials present. The committee earlier adopted a resolution urging the liberal South Korean government of President Roh Moo-hyun not to reclaim the authority before the North Korean nuclear tension is resolved. But the parliamentary meeting became deadlocked after liberal and conservative lawmakers bickered over committee chairman Kim Sung-gon's (Uri Party) reported telephone call to Defense Minister Kim to push for the agreement ahead of his meeting with his U.S. counterpart Robert Gates. Kim's activity "is tantamount to giving up parliament's role of checking the administration," said committee member Gong Sung-jin (GNP). The sides continuously traded verbal accusations against each other and the meeting had to be adjourned. (Source: Hankyoreh (Yonhap).) 11th Security Policy Initiative Meeting (Feb 2007) Yonhap News on 6 Feb reported that the ROK and the US will hold a new round of military talks in Seoul this week on plans to relocate US troops here to a base south of Seoul and the future role of the United Nations Command (UNC). The two-day talks beginning 7 Feb are the 11th in the Security Policy Initiative (SPI), a working-level consultation channel between the allies to fine-tune their military policies. The two-day military talks focused on how to share the cost for relocating a main U.S. military compound in Seoul to south of the capital. Richard Lawless, deputy defense undersecretary for Asia and Pacific affairs, paid a courtesy call on Defense Minister Kim Jang-soo before attending the first session of the Security Policy Initiative (SPI), the 11th in its kind, at the ministry next to the Yongsan Garrison of the 8th U.S. Army. (Source: Yonhap News.) South Korea, U.S. Discuss Thorny Alliance issues (Feb 2007) During the second day of the 11th Security Policy Initiative (SPI), delegates were mainly focusing on details of a master plan to determine the timeline of base relocation and how to share the cost, ministry officials said. Seoul and Washington have differed over the details of the $10 billion base relocation plan especially since delays of up to five years are expected because of strong opposition from local residents and civic groups. The two countries agreed in 2004 to relocate facilities and troops from the Yongsan Garrison in central Seoul and the U.S. 2nd Infantry Division, north of Seoul, to Pyeongtaek by 2008. But the plan has been delayed due to protests from local residents and anti-U.S. civic activists. Korea has asked the U.S. for understanding over the delay which is now considered inevitable due to technical constraints. Seoul, however, its pledged to make efforts to minimize the delay. Both delegations also reviewed a joint study to determine a concrete date for the transfer of wartime operational control of Korean armed forces to Korea from the U.S. military. Since both defense ministers agreed last October to make the control transition between 2009 and 2012, the two militaries have operated a joint study panel named CIWG to agree on a transition date by this summer. Korea wants to agree on 2012 for the command changes while the United States says 2009 is more appropriate. Seoul and Washington agreed during annual defense talks in Washington last October that the transition of wartime control of South Korean troops will take place sometime between Oct. 15, 2009 and March 15, 2012. The timing was a compromise between South Korea and the U.S. Korea wanted a delayed transfer, citing a possible power vacuum, while the U.S. pushed ahead with an earlier transition as part of its flexible troop deployment in which U.S. troops in the Korean Peninsula are supposed to be mobilized easier than before for other conflict regions. The bimonthly consultations also dealt with the revision of the roles and missions of the U.S.-led United Nations Command. The UNC issue has recently emerged as a new agenda item for the alliance talks as Washington has expressed a need to transform the UNC structure to one which can assume immediate wartime operations. The allies have agreed on the need to discuss the UNC changes in preparation for Korea's regaining of wartime operational control from the United States, officials said. The two sides also shared opinions on political situations in the Middle East. Korea has troops deployed in Iraq and plans to dispatch a contingent to Lebanon, officials said. (Source: Korea Herald.) Nothing was sorted out...and it was back to agreeing to disagree. Korea and the U.S. decided to deal with a new role for UN Command in October during the Security Consultative Meeting (SCM). The two sides agreed that UN Command could find it difficult to maintain the armistice once it no longer has control over Korean troops. The two allies will discuss the issue in a separate venue and report the results of negotiations to the bilateral Security Consultative Meeting, in October. (Source: Chosun Ilbo.) Recruiters Waive Felony Convictions (Feb 2006) More recruits with criminal records, including felony convictions, are being allowed to join the Army and Marine Corps as the armed services cope with a dwindling pool of volunteers during wartime. The military routinely grants waivers to take in recruits who have criminal records, medical problems or low aptitude scores that would otherwise disqualify them from service. Most are moral waivers, which include some felonies, misdemeanors, and traffic and drug offenses. Defense Department statistics show that the number of Army and Marine recruits needing waivers for felonies and serious misdemeanors, including minor drug offenses, has grown since 2003. Some recruits may get more than one waiver. The Army granted more than double the number of waivers for felonies and misdemeanors in 2006 than it did in 2003. The number of felony waivers granted by the Army rose from 411 in 2003 to 901 in 2006, according to the Pentagon. Other misdemeanors, which could be petty theft, writing a bad check or some assaults, jumped from about 2,700 to more than 6,000 in 2006. (SITE NOTE: Misdemeanors are not a problem to us, but felony convictions are a major concern. These convictions should be scrutinized for the type of crime and approved on a case-by-case basis.) Army and Defense Department officials defended the waiver program as a way to admit young people who may have made a mistake early in life but have overcome past behavior. And they said about two-thirds of the waivers granted by the Marines are for drug use, because they -- unlike the other services -- require a waiver if someone has been convicted once for marijuana use. Lawmakers and other observers say they are concerned that the struggle to fill the military ranks during a time of war has forced the services to lower their moral standards. (SITE NOTE: To us, the misdemeanor drug use of marijuana is not a concern, but the felony use and distribution of highly addictive drugs is a concern.) "The data is crystal clear. Our armed forces are under incredible strain and the only way that they can fill their recruiting quotas is by lowering their standards," said Rep. Martin T. Meehan, Massachusetts Democrat, who has been working to get additional data from the Pentagon. "By lowering standards, we are endangering the rest of our armed forces and sending the wrong message to potential recruits across the country." Army spokesman Paul Boyce said 13 Feb that he is concerned because the Pentagon data differs from Army numbers. But overall, he said, "anything that is considered a risk or a serious infraction of the law is given the highest level of review." "Our goal is to make certain that we recruit quality young men and women who can keep America defended against its enemies," Mr. Boyce said. The data was obtained through a federal information request and released by the California-based Michael D. Palm Center, a think tank that studies military issues. "The fact that the military has allowed more than 100,000 people with such troubled pasts to join its ranks over the past three years illustrates the problem we're having meeting our military needs in this time of war," said Aaron Belkin, director of the center. (Source: Washington Post.) (SITE NOTE: All the hubbub over increasing gang crime and other disciplinary problems stems from the lowered standards -- and increased recruiting from the lowest element of society, minorities who have no other option to make a living besides the military or jail. The real solution is the basic one: don't get into wars you can't win -- nor have the manpower to support. However, if one does go to war, do so to win -- and to hell with the politics and condemnations of the world. War is the last resort, but do it quickly and surgically. Get in and get out -- and to hell with nation building. Though the draft is not a player at this time, if the US wants to continue to go to war -- against terrorism, Iran or North Korea or anybody -- it had best think seriously about this option. Otherwise, DON'T GO TO WAR!!!) March 2007RSOI/FE-07 -- Mar 25-31 (Mar 2007) South Korea and the United States will conduct their annual military training exercises from March 25-31 with the mobilization of U.S. nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the USS Ronald Reagan, and F-117A stealth fighters. The joint military drills are expected to be the first time the independent defense capability of Korean troops is evaluated, following an agreement on the transition of wartime operational control from the U.S. military to the Korean commanders in 2012 last month.This year, about 29,000 U.S. troops, including 6,000 from off-peninsula, will take part in the Reception, Staging, Onward movement and Integration (RSOI)/Foal Eagle (FE) exercises, a USFK spokesman said. Tens of thousands of Korean forces will participate in the joint drills, according to officials at the Joint Chiefs of Staff. RSOI is a simulation-driven, defense-oriented combined command-post exercise to evaluate the allied forces’ capability to receive forces from bases outside of the country in case of an emergency on the Korean Peninsula. FE is a joint and combined field training exercise focused on rear area security and stability operations, onward movement of equipment and select war training events. USS Ronald Reagan in the East Sea (Mar 2007)The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76), deployed in Japan will anchor in the East Sea, carrying advanced U.S. fighter jets such as FA-18 Hornets, during the joint drills, Kim Yong-kyu of the USFK public affairs office told reporters. F-22 Raptors in Okinawa (Mar 2007)Participation of F-22 Raptors, the newest American fighters, has not been decided as of Mar 07. (SITE NOTE: There were problems on the deployment of the F-22s. The software that ran the navigation and communications systems had a glitch. Being in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, this was a problem. Some of the pilots were able to reboot their software and make the problem go away, but this did not always work, so all the aircraft turned around and returned to Hawaii. Those aircraft that still had malfunctioning navigation software, followed other aircraft back. The contractor quickly found the fixed the problem (the routines for crossing the International Date Line, and changing the date, were not well thought out and tested.) To quote Murphy's Law; "Whatever can go wrong, will, and at the worst possible time." The US cannot face any more embarassment on the first overseas deployment of its new frontline fighter. Due to the problems during the deployment, the Raptors may sit out the RSOI/FE involvement and not enter ROK airspace. Its purpose ostensibly was to "show the flag" to the North Koreans (during the six-party talks) and no direct involvement in the RSOI/FE was really necessary. ) F-117A Stealth Fighters in Kunsan (Mar 2007)A squadron of F-117A Nighthawk Stealth fighters will also join the drills, Kim added. In January, the 49th Fighter Wing at Holloman Air Force in New Mexico dispatched 20 F-117A fighters with 300 U.S. airmen to South Korea as part of a routine training mission. North Korea has been sensitive to all joint drills of the Korean and U.S. militaries, describing them as a ``rehearsal’’ for an attack on the communist regime. About 28,000 U.S. troops are being stationed here as a deterrent against the nuclear-armed North, backing up South Korea’s 690,000 armed forces. (Source: Korea Times.) Stryker Unit due for FE/RSOI (Mar 2007) The USFK said on 14 Mar that a team of U.S. troops and Stryker armored vehicles would arrive on 18 Mar to participate in a joint Korean-U.S. military exercise. The Stryker unit, part of the 25th ID, depart from Hawaii and arrived in the southeastern city of Daegu to participate in the FE/RSOI exercises. Established in 2000, the Stryker unit is a rapid mobile brigade that will be dispatched to conflict areas around the world. It was first flagged for the ROK, but the ROK refusal to accept the USFK forces playing a part in a regional defense eliminated it from every being stationed in Korea. Protests to RSOI/FE (Mar 2007) As soon as the news of the RSOI/FE dates on 6 Mar, activist NGO groups protesting the exercises showed up at Yongsan and other locations in Seoul with signs saying, "STOP RSOI/FE" and "NO ROK-US JOINT MILITARY EXERCISES". Their specific beef was with Oplan 5027-04 where the joint forces take the fight North. (Source: Tongil News.) However, the timing for the protest was bad as the temperatures on 6-7 Mar were below freezing with blustering winds that dropped the chill factor way down. The end result was that only a few protestors were out -- and there was no one to watch as most people stayed indoors. Something we did not understand was the statement on their banner reading: "Going backward from the 2.13 (Feb 13) agreement". Somehow they equated the FE/RSOI as a warlike act that worked against the peace moves agreed upon at the Feb 13 six-party nuclear talks agreement with the DPRK. I guess they felt that everyone should make "happy" while the DPRK still holds onto its nuclear weapons capable of destroying their nation -- because they KNOW the DPRK would NEVER attack the South. Atleast this is what Roh Moo-hyun said publicly after the 13 Feb agreement. These activists don't seem to realize that the North has done nothing to denuclearize YET. However, the "peacenik" South Korean government is giving the DPRK 50,000 barrels of oil immediately (as agreed upon at the six-party talks), 300,000 tons of fertilizer in Mar or April and 150,000 tons of rice in the near future (as agreed upon at the Ministerial talks in early Mar).)On 16 Mar the USFK issued a warning about two dissident groups that plan to physically halt or interfere with two upcoming exercises. The HanChongRyun and Pyontongsa dissident groups will target the March 25 to March 31 exercises, according to the advisory. Demonstrators are expected outside bases and near lines of communication, with the intent to halt or interfere with RSOI activities, according to the warning. Such interference may include large-scale demonstrations and actions by people attempting to make contact with exercise participants to gain media attention. The advisory warns commanders to “avoid all contact with protesters up to and including temporarily halting a training event until Korean authorities are able to maintain order.” (Source: Stars and Stripes.) (SITE NOTE: The outlawed Hangchongryeon, Federation of Student Councils, is well-known to us as the shock troops of the radical student element. These were the forces used in the violent Pyeongtaek-Daechuri demonstrations over the Camp Humphreys expansion. The group uses mostly freshmen-sophmore students as the "shock troops" because if arrested, they will usually have their criminal records expunged. Junior-seniors have usually completed their military service and will be prosecuted as adults -- thus hurting their chances of obtaining jobs. However, the Pyontongsa is an unknown faction of which we have no information -- but there are many radical groups that pop up in the Seoul colleges all the time.) On 25 Mar anti-American demonstrations were planned to take place outside Yongsan Garrison’s Gate 5. Student dissident groups including the Tongil Yondae, HanChongRyun and Pyongtongsa planned to protest the RSOI/FE by holding an unregistered gathering outside Gate 5 Sunday between 2 and 5 p.m. The Korean National Police did not issue a permit and have said they will not allow the groups to gather. The protesters were expected to burn representations of U.S. flags, throw items over the garrison fence or attempt to illegally enter the installation. According to earlier warnings, the groups want to physically halt or interfere with two upcoming exercises. There were non-violent RSOI protests throughout the country near military bases/camps, but most were made up small groups of students from local colleges. On 30 Mar, almost 800 South Korean riot police guarded the Malipol beach, a Seosan police spokesman said. Police cordoned the beach with razor wire. About 40 protesters were allowed to demonstrate on a sidewalk overlooking the beach. Police said up to 80 total protesters took turns attending the rally. They chanted and waved signs at helicopters, shouting at them to leave the peninsula. Jung Yong-jun, who said he coordinated the protests as part of the Unification Association, said they didn't oppose all military exercises. However, he said they see RSOI/Foal Eagle and the August Ulchi Focus Lens exercise as "an attempt to topple the North Korea regime and to assassinate its leaders." The exercise is a step back from recent talks with North Korea to end its nuclear program, said Jung, who also disputed the beach and police blockades on 28 Mar. Troops practice equipment draw for RSOI (Mar 2007) U.S. troops began “falling in” on Camp Carroll warehouses this week to draw tanks and other equipment they’d need to fight a war here. It was the first time in four years that the U.S. Army practiced the equipment draw. The exercise saw a squadron-sized armored cavalry task force pieced together from several U.S.-based units draw M1A1 Abrams tanks, M2A2 Bradley fighting vehicles, Humvees and a variety of other vehicles from Camp Carroll and ready them for use in live-fire combat exercises. Troops drew the vehicles from a set of warehouses at the Army’s Materiel Support Center-Korea (MSC-K) where pre-positioned stocks of combat vehicles for a brigade-sized unit are kept ready with other equipment. It was last carried out during RSOI in 2003, said Maj. Eric Rogers of the Army Field Support Battalion-North East Asia, at Camp Carroll. But U.S. Forces Korea commander Army Gen. B.B. Bell directed that the equipment-draw training resume this year, Rogers said. “Due to some other priorities within the Army, it hasn’t been done in a couple of years, and Gen. Bell decided it was time to train up,” Rogers said. Once troops drive the vehicles from the warehouses, they begin a series of maintenance checks. If deficiencies turn up, the vehicle’s crew works with mechanics from the field support battalion to fix them as quickly as possible, Rogers said. After the draw, the vehicles were slated for transport by train and truck to Camp Casey in Dongducheon, and from there to Rodriguez Range, said Gee Jeon, MSC-K’s chief of transportation. The combat vehicles are part of "pre-positioned" stocks of military equipment at Camp Carroll. Stored at the camp are a variety of armored weapons, medical support and maintenance equipment, including 58 tanks, 112 infantry combat vehicles, and 18 Paladin self-propelled howitzers. They are stored here in advance to save time in case of a war. If major equipment is pre-positioned, troops can just be dispatched to the Korean Peninsula by transport planes and put in position on the front. Otherwise, the operation would be enormously slow and costly. Transporting the equipment of just one brigade requires three big ships or 500 flights of a large-sized transport plane, said Brig. Gen. Raymond Mason, commanding general of the 19th Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) at Camp Carroll.This year’s drill marks the first deployment in South Korea of a new means the Army developed for maintaining combat equipment on the battlefield — a mobile repair shop called the Forward Repair System. The system is a self-enclosed shelter that can be hauled by truck and is equipped with a wide array of tools that enable mechanics to carry out big maintenance tasks far from a regular maintenance depot. The training enables the support battalion to “validate that yes, we can issue equipment and can do our wartime mission if required,” Rogers said. And the task force gets “to see how things are done in another theater outside” of the United States, he said. (Source: Stars and Stripes.) The exercise focused on getting acquainted with the process of promptly transporting 690,000 U.S. support troops (the number agreed to under the OLD -- and soon to be defunct -- Oplan 5027 (Theater warfare) and a large scale of U.S. military equipment to South Korea through air force bases, ports and railroads, and then transport them to the front. Participating in the exercise are 29,000 U.S. troops with a 6,000-strong pure support unit and the USFK included. "Though North Korea continues to assert that it's a drill for an attack on the North, as you have seen today it’s actually a defensive exercise against a possible attack, " said Kim Young-gyu, a spokesperson for the USFK. (Source: Chosun Ilbo.) (SITE NOTE: Equipment for a heavy brigade is aboard ships prepositioned in Saipan. These ships can be diverted to regional hotspots if needed. With the changing role of the US with the transfer of wartime control to the ROK, we wonder what will be the results for the stockpiled equipment now at Camp Carroll. The US will be switching to a support role with a reduction in commitment of ground troops in the initial phases of the war.) More Cooperation between US & ROK Troops (Mar 2007) Rapidly fixing a battle-scarred runway can make the difference between ending a battle quickly with air support or leaving highly trained pilots on the sidelines. Prior to the RSOI/FE-07 officially kicking off on May 25, Navy Seabees and their South Korean counterparts practiced runway repair after a simulated missile attack with speed and accuracy in mind at a South Korean air base in Pohang, as part of the RSOI/FE-07 exercises. (NOTE: This was part of the first ROK field training exercise (FTX) to evaluate the ROK capabilities in preparation for its assumption of wartime control in 2012. On the same date near the DMZ, the ROK Army 9th ID's two corps performed an FTX to evaluate the ROK capabilities to mount a counterattack and mass night time attack capabilities using helicopters. (See Large Scale War Scenario: Army High-tech Military Drills (Mar 2007).) Seabees used a flush “foreign objects and debris cover” to patch the runway and keep air traffic rolling. Earlier in the week, Seabees took as long as 38 minutes to roll out and prepare the cover for a gaping hole in the concrete runway. By the 23 Mar demonstration in front of a South Korean admiral and other dignitaries, the Seabees prepared the cover in 17 minutes. Trucks and construction vehicles then filled the hole with dirt and smoothed it before the Seabees covered it over. The entire process took a little over 40 minutes. The Seabees worked side-by-side with South Korean Navy Wing 6 servicemembers. “The main thing is doing this over and over,” said Petty Officer 3rd Class Brian Prime. “The more we do it, the faster we get, like anything else.” (Source: Stars and Stripes.)     Amphibious Landing (30 Mar 2007) (Tongil News)   Protestors at Amphibious Landing (30 Mar 2007) (Tongil News) At Malipo Beach, U.S. and South Korean Marines came ashore in amphibious assault vehicles on 28 Mar without the close contact from protesters that complicated last year’s joint beach landing exercise. Just before 11 a.m., gray outlines of ships such as the USS Cowpens, out of Yokosuka Naval Base, Japan, appeared just short of the horizon. Dozens of cresting white waves approached the beach. As the water got shallower, the tops of the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit’s Okinawa-based amphibious assault vehicles poked over the waves and sent plumes of smoke toward the sky. U.S. helicopters swarmed overhead, where they would provide airstrikes during battle. Meanwhile, the Cowpens and other ships in Commander, Corvette Squadron 32 guarded landing craft and others against inbound threats. Sasebo Naval Base’s USS Essex and Amphibious Squadron 11 combined with South Korea’s Amphibious Squadron 53 to track battle movements. While U.S. and South Korean amphibious vehicles made landfall, two U.S. Navy Landing Craft Air Cushion ships arrived on their flank, one of which deposited a South Korean tank on shore. But unlike last year’s Foal Eagle exercise beach landing, the Marines did not exit their vehicles and storm the beach on foot, citing security reasons. Last year, protesters stuck stickers on Marine vehicles as they landed on the public beach. (SITE NOTE: This year nothing was heard of the "fast boats" that would speed the US Marines from Okinawa to Korea in 24 hours. The changed political environment will give the ROK wartime control -- and thus the reduction in direct US involvement with ground troops. All this is up in the air and still being worked out.) Few servicemembers had any contact with the protesters. Their vehicles landed several blocks away from the demonstration and continued to a staging area. (Source: Stars and Stripes.) (SITE NOTE: In this year's RSOI/FE, much more publicity was given to the US and ROK working together. The biggest "cooperative efforts" were with the ROK Army and US Seabee/Naval forces. Early on, it was seen that the turnover of wartime control will impact the ROK the greatest in the area of US naval support. The ROK can NOT mount a counterattack on the North without US naval assistance. Greater cooperation was immediately proposed between the ROK Marine and US Marine elements -- and construction battalions and Seabee elements. In the Pusan area, greater cooperation was seen between US naval elements providing close-in force protection and ROK elements. In all there seemed to be greater cooperation between the units. Because of the on-going six-party talks and the 13 Feb agreement, this year's RSOI/FE has been highly politicized. The DPRK toned down its condemnation of the exercise, while the USFK attempted to take steps to NOT appear to be preparing for an invasion -- such as not having US Marines charging the beaches and only the ROK troops taking the initiatives. The big show stopper for the ROK is that its intel capabilities have come up short. See Military Failing to Gather Intelligence on North (Mar 2007). The ROK large scale exercises highlighted this deficiency and the admitted reliance on the US intel for the foreseeable future -- at least until 2012.) Name Change for Area Support Units: US Army Garrison-Yongsan, Camp Humphreys, Daegu, while Uijeongbu still undecided (Mar 2007) The units are part of the Army's Installation Management Command (IMCOM). It's making the changes so that its subordinate organizations worldwide will be named according to the same standard format. The Area II Support Activity at Yongsan Garrison in Seoul will become the U.S. Army Garrison-Yongsan; the Area III Support Activity at Camp Humphreys in Pyeongtaek becomes the U.S. Army Garrison-Humphreys; the Area IV Support Activity at Camp Henry in Daegu becomes the U.S. Army Garrison-Daegu. The Area I Support Activity at Camp Red Cloud in Uijeongbu is expected to decide what its new name will be sometime before this Friday, officials said. IMCOM is headquartered in Arlington, Va., and oversees day-to-day operation of all Army installations. The names will change on unit signs, stationary, vehicles, and in any other official references. But when the U.S. military in South Korea wants to indicate the geographic area of the peninsula that’s covered by one of the four units, rather than to the units themselves, it’ll stick with the “Area” names, said John Nowell, an IMCOM–Korea spokesman. That means, for example, that when it issues weather alerts, for example, officials will speak of the weather in “Area I” or “Area IV,” Nowell said. The same goes for posting off-limits restrictions and announcements about such things as noncombatant evacuation exercises, he said. USFK Commander wary of N.K. intentions despite 6-party accord (Mar 2007) Gen. B.B. Bell also told lawmakers in Washington that he remained wary of North Korea's intentions, despite the North's recent agreement to begin dismantling its nuclear weapons programs in return for aid. South Korea plans to cut the number of its troops to 500,000 by 2020, and gradually shorten the current two-year term of compulsory military service by six months by 2014 as part of its defense reform and efforts to boost the civilian workforce. "It is our hope that the Republic of Korea will carefully (re)consider these large force cuts, unless they are matched by similar North Korean reductions," he said. The reduction of the term of military duty "could stress the number of available conscripts from the population, or result in either hollowness or smaller units." "This change to ROK draft and conscription laws should be carefully weighed against the threat postured along the Demilitarized Zone," he stressed. Bell was wary of DPRK moves during the six-party talks. He noted that North Korean leader Kim Jong-il has a long history of manipulating negotiations over his nuclear program for his regime's gain, often emphasizing symbolism over substantial efforts to abandon bomb-making. He said that while he supported the recent six-nation disarmament deal, he saw no signs that North Korea would reduce its huge military spending or curb its efforts to split the U.S.-South Korean alliance."Kim Jong-il has the option to continue to manipulate the international community by alternating provocations and engagement overtures in an attempt to shape the political and military environment to meet his objectives," Bell said in testimony before the House of Representatives' Armed Services Committee. If the international nuclear talks do not succeed, he said, U.S. military officials expect North Korea to continue developing nuclear weapons to intimidate its neighbors. Additional nuclear tests will likely be conducted, he said. The North conducted its first nuclear test in October. (Source: Korea Herald.) In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Army Gen. B.B. Bell also said he plans, in the near future, to give accompanied tour status to troops with unauthorized spouses in South Korea. Bell also spoke of his desire to have most of the tours become 3-year accompanied tours to increase continuity and morale. Currently, fewer than 3,000 of the 29,000 U.S. servicemembers in South Korea are on multi-year accompanied tours; the rest are there on a one-year rotation. But officials estimate that more than 17,000 of them are married. Shifting from one-year to three-year tours will require a change in Defense Department regulations. Bell said he has spoken with Pentagon officials and will submit formal proposals in the near future. Members of the committee were split over the plan, with several expressing concerns over the safety of families living within striking distance of North Korea. But others said the change was long overdue, and could cut military costs significantly by reducing troop movements. The top U.S. commander in Korea urged Congress Tuesday to help him introduce standard three-year rotational tours for military forces in South Korea over the next several years.Bell said that having more people will require infrastructure and facility improvements to accommodate the additional numbers, and said moving the entire force to three-year accompanied tours will have to be an incremental change. (Source: Stars and Stripes.) However, this increase in dependent status hinges upon the ROK agreeing to a cost-sharing formula that would provide for such a plan. (SEE Cost Sharing Fiasco Continues.) But the key phrase of his report was: "We will remain in Korea as a trusted ally as long as we are welcome and wanted." In another portion of his report he stated, "Clearly, defense burden sharing is advantageous to both Alliance partners. For the United States, the Republic of Korea's willingness to equitably share appropriate defense costs is a clear indicator the United States forces in Korea are welcome, wanted, and held necessary by our host." (Source: Gen Bell before House Armed Services Committee, 7 Mar 2007.) Bell Asks Congress for FULL budget support for 2008 Military Facilities in Korea (Mar 2007) Gen Bell asked for full budget support of new 2008 fiscal year military facilities, which is currently small, at the beginning of the hearing. He explained that funds for construction expenses are urgently needed to prevent officers, non-commissioned officers, and army civilian employees from being apart from their families. The number of U.S. military families in Korea numbers around is 5,000. Despite a “ten percent regulation” in effect, Bell has allowed 2,000 more to accompany their families with his authority as long as residence space is provided. Overseas working regulations stipulate “one year alone, three years with family” in the U.S. armed forces. At the moment, 60 percent of U.S. personnel in Korea are married, and 13,000 of the married ones are living alone. That means that they rotate living with their families every year. Commander Bell asked for an improvement in the ten percent regulation, recalling his time as an officer in Berlin, East Germany, the center of cold war in the 1970s. He said, “Even though two Soviet army divisions were stationed over the Berlin wall 12km away, I, then a second lieutenant in the armored forces, lived with my wife and had my son in Germany. I don’t understand why accompanying families should be limited, especially when North Korea’s conventional military strength has weakened. These soldiers have already been separated from their families three or four times, fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.” Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter asked if officers and men and their families have the same thoughts. Commander Bell answered, “I talked with a majority of their spouses and they did not turn down offers of living abroad.’ He did not forget to say that long stays are essential to the development of the ROK-U.S. alliance. He said, “Families from Korea and the U.S. could be life-long friends and exchange cultures on weekends. The opportunity to become closer to Korea, an alliance based on families, is being compromised.” (Source: Donga Ilbo.) (SITE NOTE: Bell was laying the ground works for the master plan to move to Pyeongtaek WITH accompanied families. In effect it is a money-saving move as an accompanied member is a three-four year tour with possible extensions, which provides continuity and reduced training costs. Increased dependents means justifications for the many quality-of-life programs -- including AAFES and services programs -- that remote tours are not offered. BUT the bottomline is that with the family housing and new barracks, the movement of the forces off the DMZ can be accelerated. Under Build-to-Lease (BTL) programs, the moves could be accelerated even more and have proven cost-effective with the first units at Kimpo in 2005. The US contributed $250 million in 2004 for facilities when the plan to relocate was proposed. Though the plan has changed, the units that were funded -- WITHOUT ROK AID -- are now under construction and due for completion in 2007. Expect moves -- albeit small unit ones -- in 2007 as facilities become available.) USFK commander says longer assignments send a positive message to South Korea Three-year accompanied tours for troops in South Korea won’t be a reality for at least a decade, the commander of U.S. Forces Korea told a Senate panel on 11 Mar. But Gen. B.B. Bell said he is still committed to the idea, calling it an important step in defining the United States’ enduring role in the country and in easing the strain that unaccompanied deployments can cause troops. “I’m convinced the one-year tours send a message of temporary commitment,” he said. “I think three years is better for families … and would send a message that South Korea is important to our long-term plans.” The move also would dump all assignment incentive pay for troops in South Korea, and require millions in new construction funds. Any such change in tour lengths would have to be approved by both U.S. and Korean lawmakers. Even after that, Bell said, building housing and support services for a large influx of U.S. military families in South Korea could take 10 to 15 years. “You can’t just bring 15,000 families over here tomorrow,” he said. Currently more than 27,000 U.S. troops are in South Korea, but fewer than 3,000 are on accompanied tours. Bell said making bases there more like those in Japan or Germany would create a better quality of life for both servicemembers and the surrounding communities. He said he has discussed the idea with Korean officials, and is optimistic they would accept such a move. A recent State Department survey found that 68 percent of locals surveyed would prefer to have a U.S. presence in South Korea even if relations with North Korea were normalized. South Korean military leaders are on track to take over wartime military command of their forces by 2012, Bell told the senators. This August they’ll test those plans, with South Korean forces taking the lead in military exercises and U.S. commanders assuming support roles only. The lawmakers said they’re pleased that U.S. forces are held in high regard there, but concerned that the command transfer won’t take place sooner. “It’s been 58 years, and you’re telling me it’s going to take another four for them to step up and take more responsibility?” said Sen. John Warner, R-Va., ranking member on the committee. “This should be a sense of pride for them. I can’t understand why they don’t step up and accept that sooner.” Bell said initially he hoped that transfer would take place in as early as next year, but senior officials from both countries have compromised on the 2012 target. (Source: Stars and Stripes.) Anthrax Shots Begin Again in Korea for USAF (Mar 2007) This comes after the Pentagon's top health official approved plans to restart anthrax vaccinations for troops serving in South Korea or in the U.S. Central Command area of operations. Since 2005 the shots had been voluntary. But when only half of U.S. troops chose to get them, the Pentagon in 2006 announced they would become mandatory for those deemed most at risk. On 7 Mar, the Air Force became the first branch to resume the shots in South Korea. It could not immediately be learned from USFK when the other services on the peninsula are scheduled to begin anthrax shots. Refusal to take the shots was considered failure to obey a direct order. (Source: Stars and Stripes.) April 2007Pocheon City Wants Compensation for Hosting Rodriguez Range (Apr 2007) Pocheon city officials are asking the South Korean government for millions of dollars worth of funding to make up for the continued presence of U.S. Forces Korea's largest live-fire range. Although USFK plans to relocate its northernmost bases south of Seoul by 2012, it will continue to use the 22 ranges within the Rodriguez Range complex in Pocheon.Kim Hong-jin, chief of Pocheon's Policy Development Division, said that local residents put up with noise, property damage and disruptions to daily life that call for governmental compensation. Pocheon is asking for wide-ranging financial assistance that would include paying for the extension of a Seoul subway line to the city. In December, South Korea opened its northernmost subway station at Soyosan, which lies north of Dongducheon and about 30 minutes by vehicle from Rodriguez Range. Pocheon also wants support for projects in neighborhoods next to the range, additional highway funding, support in upgrading the Hantan River dam and other regulatory and economic considerations, Kim said. However, Kim strongly denied a South Korean media report last week that quoted an anonymous city official as saying that Pocheon would launch protests and rallies calling for the range's relocation if they weren't compensated. Pocheon is making its case to the South Korean government, not USFK. No discussions have taken place between the U.S. and South Korean government regarding Pocheon compensation, a USFK spokesman said. (Source: Stars and Stripes.) ROK JCS Kim Kwan-jin and Gen. Bell Visit UN Command Base in Japan (Apr 2007) The head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the commander of U.S. forces stationed in Korea are reportedly visiting a United Nations Command rear base in Camp Zama, Japan. The visit by JCS Chairman Kim Kwan-jin comes as U.S. officers have stressed the need to adjust the U.N. Command's role and function since Seoul and Washington set a timetable last February for returning wartime operational control to Korea. JCS officials said 3 Apr that Kim left Seoul the previous day for a six-day visit to Japan at the invitation of USFK Commander Burwell Bell, who also heads the U.N. forces in Korea. The officials said that Kim will examine the base's location, organization and operations as it conducts contigency support for the Korean Peninsula. (SITE NOTE: What was NOT mentioned in the story is that the ROK JCS visit includes a trip to Guam to view the relocation process from Okinawa -- which also directly impacts the support for Korea in case of war. We have been reporting on this site the moves in Japan and Guam for over two years and finally now it is coming home to roost. The RSOI/FE-07 opened the eyes of the ROK as to how deep in the hole they are when it comes to their self-defense. This will give the ROK JCS the "big picture.") (SITE NOTE: It was reported that on 30 Apr that Gen Bell and ROK JCS Chairman came to Japan as a part of UNC (rear) tour. Throughout the visit, Gen Bell painstakingly pointed out Japan's cost share for host nation support (almost 80%)…. thus hinting that the ROK needs to catch up. In May, Maj Gen Sargent (Deputy COS) will be bringing in contingent of ROK GO/FOs again…. I'm pretty sure he will be also trying to "educate" them on the ideal share of the ROK portion. (Gen Sargent is a former wing commander of the 8th FW and 35th FW, thus has first-hand knowledge of the situation.) HTACC: War Room (Apr 2007) The following is a Stars and Stripes article on 10 Apr about the HTACC operations during the recent RSOI/FE-07:
Americans Can Expect Fair Trial in Korean Courts -- BUT... (Apr 2007) The following was excerpted from the Stars and Stripes on 14 Apr. Brian Carr, an attorney in Seoul, is a frequent commentator on many blogs dealing with Korean affairs. 'Civil settlements' common in S. Korea A common feature of South Korea's legal system is the voluntary payment of money to the victim in exchange for dropping charges or hope for a lighter sentence. "The settlement with the accuser is a way to make many charges go away," said Brendon Carr, a lawyer with the Hwang Mok Park firm in Seoul. "Murder, rape, don't go away. But a lot of the petty assault charges disappear by financial settlement. ... And refusal to participate in the financial settlement is going to result in a more harsh sentence." U.S. Forces Korea issued guidance memo to the military community last June regarding the matter. The "civil settlement:" also known as restitution, is "voluntary payment to the victim to compensate for damage done," USFK said in the memo. It can cover the victim's costs for repairing or replacing damaged property, medical expenses and lost earnings. It should be a written document in which the victim "releases you from further claims and expresses a desire not to have you prosecuted criminally," the memo said. U.S. military attorneys were informed that civil settlements can be an extremely important factor in Korean criminal cases. "We must help our clients understand how a civil settlement can affect a criminal case," USFK said in the guidance. It said Korean culture views settlements as a form of restitution, not as "bribes" or admissions of guilt. While there is no guarantee a civil settlement will resolve a case, prosecutors consider them when determining whether to file an indictment. And judges, if an indictment has been filed, often factor in settlements when determining punishment. (Source: Stars and Stripes.) Troops paying victims
An exception is when those servicemembers' actions occurred while they were on official duty. In those cases, South Korean authorities may question servicemembers but must release them to U.S. military custody until judicial proceedings are concluded. But two exceptions were created to this in a 2001 SOFA revision. Under the first exception, South Korean authorities may keep custody of a servicemember whom they apprehend at a crime scene or during a "hot pursuit" in connection with a "heinous crime of murder or an egregious rape." Under the second exception, South Korean authorities may request custody for pretrial confinement if prosecutors have indicted a servicemember for actual and attempted murder, rape, kidnapping for ransom, manufacturing or trafficking in illegal drugs, arson, robbery with a dangerous weapon. Also, assault resulting in death, driving under the influence of alcohol resulting in death and when any of the previous are considered "lesser included offenses" among a larger set of criminal charges. South Korean authorities have held six troops in pre-trial confinement since the 2001 revision. (Source: Stars and Stripes.) (SITE NOTE: According to the 1961 CINCPAC Command History, pp 154-159: "In 1960, when the Republic of Korea raised the question of a Status of Forces Agreement, the US reluctant to discuss it. The question, including the matter of criminal jurisdiction over members of US Forces, came up again in March 1961. After reviewing a study of Korean Law made by Eight US Army Korea, CINCPAC advised the JCS that Korean justice and confinement systems were totally unacceptable by US standards. Pointing out that treaty provisions could not prevent bribery of judges, insulate Korean courts from susceptibility to mob pressures, or insure compliance with Korean constitution or statutes, CINCPAC claimed hat no arrangements which might be worked out would insure US personnel of adequate trials by US standards. Therefore, this fundamental condition for negotiating agreement on criminal jurisdiction set forth in the State Department decision could not be met."S. Korean defense attorney upset by quality of court translators (Apr 2007) The quality of translators used in trials for soldiers has been criticized in the past -- mainly by incarcerated US soldiers on appeals and by those who after their release claimed that the trial transcripts were filled with errors that prejudiced their cases. The Stars and Stripes published an article on 16 Apr that quoted a Korean defense lawyer on the poor quality of translators. When he's defended U.S. servicemembers in South Korean courts, Jin Hyo-guen has encountered court-appointed translators whose English was so inadequate that he's taken to showing up with his own. "It is very difficult to find a perfect translator," said the Seoul-based attorney, "so in that case I ask the investigative authority — the Korean National Police — that we might bring our translator, usually a KATUSA or any other U.S. military officials [who] are fluent in Korean and can help them for translation." KATUSAs are South Korean soldiers assigned to the U.S. Army.South Korean legal officials acknowledged that the English translation system for U.S. troops in local courts has flaws, but they’re working to fix many of the issues. “We are currently trying hard to select simultaneous interpreters who are … proven capable of carrying out the court trial proceedings translation,” said an official with the Criminal Judicial Policy Division of the Supreme Court of Korea who declined to provide his name. Translators in Seoul are paid 70,000 won — about $75 — for the first 30 minutes in court with an additional 50,000 — about $54 — for each additional 30 minutes. While they don’t consider it a low salary, “we are considering raising the pay,” the official said. The official also said there isn’t a regulation that sets standards for hire, but that they plan to review that idea. (Source: Stars and Stripes.) U.S. servicemembers treated differently in South Korean prisons (Apr 2007) The South Korean cellblock housing U.S. military inmates is a gray, concrete hallway stretching the length of the building, with iron cell-doors spaced along the side. At the Cheonan Juvenile Correctional Institute, U.S. inmates live in one half of the cellblock, South Korean violent juvenile offenders in the other, according to past interviews with prison officials and American inmates. Currently there are three U.S. soldiers serving their prison time there for convictions involving a Christmas Day robbery of a taxi driver in 2005, according to Gu Dae-whan, a prison guard chief in charge of caring for the soldiers. The U.S. servicemembers are treated differently than South Korean inmates because of the status of forces agreement, which dictates how they must be handled. For example, the Americans don’t perform the sort of hard labor assigned to adult inmates convicted of serious offenses. SOFA regulations also dictate that U.S. inmates get individual cells, whereas Koreans share cells. They get an hour of exercise time each day, and are allowed to cook western-style meals, such as spaghetti and salads, according to a past interview with an inmate. The American prisoners also have access to college classes and can subscribe to English-language newspapers. Broadcast television is limited to Korean-language shows. In the past, the Korean prison guards have had some trouble controlling American inmates when they act out, according to Gu. More recently, U.S. Forces Korea officials have played a larger role in working with inmates’ behavior problems, something that has helped quell incidents, Gu said. The prisoners can receive visits from military chaplains. Some also receive visits from family members, but that is rare, one prisoner told Stripes. The cost of traveling to South Korea prohibits many visits, he said. (Source: Stars and Stripes.) (SITE NOTE: In the past, there have been news reports of the US prisoners held in Korean prisons and the impression was that the prisoners were basically left alone if certain disciplinary rules were followed. The US prisoners received much more "lenient" treatment as compared to other Korean prisoners housed in the same facility. In Mar 2007, the Korean newspapers stated that they were considering building a separate facility for foreigners -- especially as the numbers of illegal immigrants are rising in Korea -- along with resultant crimes committed by these individuals. This prison is not specifically for US prisoners.) ROK JCS Kim Kwan-jin and Gen. Bell Visit UN Command Base in Japan (Apr 2007) The head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the commander of U.S. forces stationed in Korea are reportedly visiting a United Nations Command rear base in Camp Zama, Japan. The visit by JCS Chairman Kim Kwan-jin comes as U.S. officers have stressed the need to adjust the U.N. Command's role and function since Seoul and Washington set a timetable last February for returning wartime operational control to Korea. JCS officials said 3 Apr that Kim left Seoul the previous day for a six-day visit to Japan at the invitation of USFK Commander Burwell Bell, who also heads the U.N. forces in Korea. The officials said that Kim will examine the base's location, organization and operations as it conducts contigency support for the Korean Peninsula. (SITE NOTE: What was NOT mentioned in the story is that the ROK JCS visit includes a trip to Guam to view the relocation process from Okinawa -- which also directly impacts the support for Korea in case of war. We have been reporting on this site the moves in Japan and Guam for over two years and finally now it is coming home to roost. The RSOI/FE-07 opened the eyes of the ROK as to how deep in the hole they are when it comes to their self-defense. This will give the ROK JCS the "big picture.") (SITE NOTE: It was reported that on 30 Apr that Gen Bell and ROK JCS Chairman came to Japan as a part of UNC (rear) tour. Throughout the visit, Gen Bell painstakingly pointed out Japan's cost share for host nation support (almost 80%)…. thus hinting that the ROK needs to catch up. In May, Maj Gen Sargent (Deputy COS) will be bringing in contingent of ROK GO/FOs again…. I'm pretty sure he will be also trying to "educate" them on the ideal share of the ROK portion. (Gen Sargent is a former wing commander of the 8th FW and 35th FW, thus has first-hand knowledge of the situation.) USFK Chief Hints at Review of Base Relocation Plan (Apr 2007) On 25 Apr it was reported that Gen. Burwell Bell has hinted that a review of U.S. base relocations in Korea will be inevitable unless the Korean government shoulders a bigger share in the upkeep of U.S. forces here. In a written statement to a Senate Armed Service Committee hearing on Monday, Gen. Burwell Bell said, "Without more equitable allied SMA funding, we may be forced to recommend a range of fiscal measures to the U.S. government, including a review of base relocation and consolidation plans." Commenting on a new Special Measures Agreement (SMA) on Korea's cost sharing support for the USFK for 2007-2008 concluded at the end of last year, Bell said, "The two allied nations should contribute approximately 50 percent each of the non-personnel stationing costs (NPSC) for U.S. forces in Korea." But Korea paid 38 percent of upkeep last year and is to pay 41 percent this year. Bell said that was "still short of the principle of equitable 50-50 cost sharing." He added, "I cannot allow readiness to suffer, and I will not allow the quality of life of my service members or families to suffer." Washington has called on Seoul to pay more. But it is highly unusual for a USFK commander to flag a review of base relocation plans to pressure Korea to bear a bigger burden. Bell also urged Korea to buy the latest Patriot missiles (PAC-3). "Korea must purchase and field its own theater missile defense (TMD) system, capable of full integration with the U.S. system," he said. (Source: Chosun Ilbo.) (SITE NOTE: According to the Hankyoreh News on 25 Apr, "The remarks by Gen. Burwell Bell are not helpful to bilateral interests," said a senior government policymaker. He said that the commander's statement could be misinterpreted, and claimed that there was a lack of "balance" in the way the officer looked at the issue. This, the official said, is regrettable. Unfortunately, the ROK policy makers seem to have not been listening to the last "cost-sharing" statement of the General. What he said was the willingness of the ROK to equitably share the burden of defense was an indicator of how the American military was wanted and welcomed in the ROK. The point was very clear in 2005...2006... and now 2007.) May 2007WRSA Negotiations Start (May 2007) According to the Tongil News on 3 May, the MND announced that negotiations were underway to procure munitions from the now defunct WRSA stocks maintained in Korea. The ROK shortages in munitions were being downplayed -- with some estimates saying it only has 10 days of munitions if a war broke out. Washington plans to dispose of the 600,000 tons of former WRSA-K munitions by the end of 2008. Korea hopes to purchase part of the stockpile at reduced prices. The United States has maintained the munitions with an estimated value of 5 trillion won ($5.3 billion) under the U.S. War Reserve Stocks for Allies program in Korea (WRSA-K) which began in 1974. After the WRSA-K was killed in Dec 2005, the US offered the remaining WRSA-K munitions to the ROK for $500 million, but the ROK wanted a "bargain" instead. The ROK position was that it wanted to "selectively" purchase the stocks, but in truth, it is no position to bargain. The US Congress approves the WRSA sale and has stated it wanted the munitions were to be sold at "fair market value." (SITE NOTE: SEE WRSA-K stockpiles to be Dumped??? Also SEEROK Military Events: WRSA-K Stock Authorized for Sale to ROK -- but... (Jan-Sep 2006) for background information of WRSA-K and the REAL situation of the ROK's lack of munitions to fight a war.)The ROK feels it has a "bargaining chip" in that the US will be faced with massive costs to ship the WRSA munitions out of country -- as munitions can no longer be demolished "in place" in country. However, the US forked up the money in 2004 to construct a Korean facility for the disposal of munitions in country -- so disposal of outdated munitions in country is NOT a problem. The new environmentally-friendly treatment facilities was completed in 2006 and cost W49.6 billion ($42 million), half paid by Washington, half by Seoul. It is able to treat up to 10,000 tons of old ammunition, and was to save W120 billion won over the next 15 years by eliminating management and storage costs. Unfortunately, the ROK does not seem to realize that it is NOT in a bargaining position as the US Congress must agree to the sale which will be at "fair market value" -- or else there will be no deal. However, if a deal cannot be struck between the MND and the US, the US may simply opt to transport the munitions out of country -- or give them gratis -- to spite Korea -- to any allied country that wants them if they pay for shipment.) Amazingly, the media stated that the US wanted to "get rid of weapons stockpile" but claimed the offered price was too high. The Joongang Ilbo on 3 May made it appear that the stockpiles were for USFK use -- but the munitions in question are in reality from the WRSA-K that was killed in Dec 2005. Colonel Lee Ki-soo, who heads the Defense Ministry's department in charge of ammunition, said the United States and Korea will hold talks May 31 to June 1 to talk about "ending the program." Both sides must finish negotiations by the end of next year. A U.S. law passed in December 2005 allowing such programs to be terminated said all transfers of the stockpiles must be completed within three years. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 established the War Reserve Stocks for Allies (WRSA) program, which allows the stockpiling of U.S.-owned war reserve materiel during peacetime in selected allies' territory. Since 1974, a total of 600,000 tons of ammunition, worth an estimated 5 trillion won ($5.3 billion) ranging from rifle ammunition to missiles, has been stored at sites throughout the country. The media did not mention that the WRSA-K was for the ROK use -- NOT for the USFK use. The two sides have agreed to hold the "first round" of talks from May 31 to June 1 -- though in actuality, the talks started in Apr 2006 but the ROK stalled. According to the MND, both sides will discuss a road map for the negotiations and related processes "with the aim of terminating the WRSA program in Korea by the end of 2008" -- though the WRSA program ended on Dec 2005. In 2005, President. Bush signed a bill allowing the United States to sell its war reserve stockpiles to Korea. The U.S. bill stipulates the United States must sell the WRSA items to Korea at "fair market value," but cheaper than any benefits the U.S. government can gain from the transfer. Under the bill, Washington has to complete the transaction negotiations with Seoul in three years. If the two countries fail to accomplish the sales transfer within three years, the remaining items will be removed or disposed of upon termination of the WRSA program. Meanwhile, Korea is hoping for selective purchase of the items at a low price according to its needs because most of the WRSA items are outdated. About 90 percent of the stockpile is over 20 years old, according to sources. Korea has previously refused a U.S. offer for the stock, citing high prices. While Washington's official position is not yet known, the official said the United States is likely to seek fair market value for the ammunition. (Source: Joongang Ilbo and Korea Herald.) On 24 Mar 2006, it was reported that the U.S. asked $500 million for the WRSA stockpile of ammunition and military supplies. It reportedly was America's first public disclosure of an offer price for the supplies. WRSA transfer talks between Korea and the U.S. started in April 2006 -- but the ROK stalled stating they had to look over what their actual needs were. Korea refused the U.S. initially suggested a price tag of $2 billion, stating that it wanted to a "selective" process -- or accepting only those items it wanted. (SITE NOTE: We questioned this news report of the $500 million asking price as the US had not started negotiations at that time. The $500 million figure may have been simply ROK wishful thinking. People in the military have estimated the cost of purchasing WRSA items -- EXCEPT for old ammunition -- at about one trillion won ($1 billon).) The United States currently maintains more than 600,000 tons of munitions estimated at 5 trillion won ($5.3 billion) under the WRSA-K program that began in 1974. The stockpile includes 280 kinds of munitions, equipment and materials including tanks, trucks, artillery, mortars, bombs and repair parts. According to a military source on 23 March 2006, the Military Assistance Program (MAP), which was handling the WRSA transfer, met with officials of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) under the Defense Department, the U.S. Pacific Command and the State Department, and decided to write off the $5.3 billion in WRSA items, including $639 million worth of ammunition, $1.17 billion in expendables, and other items worth $1.2 billion. (SITE NOTE: This report seems reasonable, but the point is that once an item is written off, it will be destroyed or sent to salvage -- not marked for resale or grants to the ROK under the Military Assistance Program (MAP). In the case of ordnance, this means disposal. This is a key point in our minds as to the report that the offer of $500 million was so low.) Korea, U.S. begin talks on "old" munitions (June 2007) On 30 May Korea and the US began negotiations on how to dispose of U.S. war stockpiles on the peninsula in accordance with the U.S. plan to remove munitions reserved for use in case of war. During the two-day talks, both sides will discuss a road map for the negotiations and related processes with the aim of terminating the U.S. War Reserve Stocks for Allies program in Korea by the end of 2008. (SITE NOTE: The US killed the WRSA-K in Dec 2006 after repeated announcements. It is NOT a plan -- the WRSA-K is dead. The ROK wishes to extend the date of the defunct program until 2008 -- mainly because it has only ten days of ammunition in case of a breakout of war...and it has done nothing to resolve the situation. It is using the three-year grace period the US has to get rid of the munitions from Korea to haggle over the sale at what it wants as rock-bottom prices. It's ridiculous offer is $500 million for $5 billion in munitions.)  WRSA-K Meeting (4 Jun 2007) The United States currently maintains more than 600,000 tons of munitions estimated at 5 trillion won ($5.3 billion) under the WRSA-K program, which began in 1974. The stockpile includes 280 kinds of munitions, equipment and materials including tanks, trucks, artillery, mortars, bombs and repair parts. (SITE NOTE: SEE WRSA-K stockpiles to be Dumped??? Also SEEROK Military Events: WRSA-K Stock Authorized for Sale to ROK -- but... (Jan-Sep 2006) for background information of WRSA-K and the REAL situation of the ROK's lack of munitions to fight a war.)  WRSA-K Protest (4 Jun 2007) In 2005, the United States enacted a bill allowing the United States to sell its war reserve stockpiles to Korea at "fair market value." Korea is hoping to purchase some of the items at a low price according to its needs because most of the WRSA items are outdated. About 90 percent of the stockpile is known to be over 20 years old. Under the U.S. bill, Washington has to complete the transaction negotiations with Seoul in three years. If the two sides fail to accomplish the sales transfer within three years, the remaining items will be removed or disposed of upon termination of the WRSA program. (SITE NOTE: The 6th Ordnance Battalion has shutdown all operations on the DMZ where the most of the munitions were stored. Munitions do remain in Magnums throughout Korea under the ROK control but owned by US -- though the US no longer responsible for inventory.) S. Korea to ask for speedy supply of U.S. military equipment (Jun 2007) South Korea planned to ask the United States to facilitate the supply of military parts and equipment when their defense chiefs meet in Singapore on 2 Jun. South Korean Defense Minister Kim Jang-soo was to deliver Seoul's worries about Japan's move to procure high-tech stealth jets, F-22A Raptor, during a meeting with U.S. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. (SITE NOTE: The US has already discounted the US sale of the F-22 to Japan in May 2007 and it is a non-issue. The broad topic of "facilitate the supply of military parts and equipment" deals with the upgraded FMS sales status and the on-going WRSA-K munitions discussions underway in Jun 2007.) U.S. to test old munitions in early July (Jun 2007) Korea and the United States yesterday agreed to test old U.S. war stockpiles on the peninsula in early July. Washington aims to dispose of the munitions reserved for use in case of war by the end of 2008. Korea hopes to purchase part of the stockpile at reduced prices. Korea claims that about 90 percent of the items are 20 years old -- and therefore, should be "discounted." (SITE NOTE: The serviceability check would probably be more of an inventory rather than any physical test. The US needs accurate documentation to refute any claims the ROK may make in the July meeting.) "Beginning in early July, the U.S. side will conduct performance tests on aged ammunitions and provide the results," the Defense Ministry said after the first round of negotiations on the munitions. The two sides agreed to complete the negotiations by October, the ministry said. The next round of meetings will be held in July. (Source: Korea Herald.) Decision on U.S. munitions due in February 2008 (Jun 2007) Korea will decide by February on next year how much of the old U.S. war stockpiles of munitions on the peninsula it will purchase, after conducting a series of tests, the Defense Ministry said on 13 Jun. "We are seeking to conclude by February next year the amount of WRSA munitions to be acquired and are pushing for a timeline that both defense ministers will sign on a sales agreement at Korea-U.S. Security Consultative Meeting in October the same year," the ministry said in a report presented to the National Assembly's defense committee. The ministry said it will try to minimize the purchase -- meaning that it still wants to selectively pick and choose which munitions it wants.  WRSA-K Protest (23 Jun 2007) The remaining items excluded from the purchase list will be taken out of the peninsula. In 2003, Washington enacted a law to abolish the WRSA-K program due to high costs for maintaining the stockpile. Under the law that took effect in 2005, Washington has to complete the transaction negotiations with Seoul within three years. SEE WRSA: Seoul asks additional testing of reserve U.S. ammunition (Feb 2008) for continuing negotiations in 2008. U.S. reluctant to meet Seoul's demands over FMS arms exports (May 2007) The US is reluctant to meet Seoul's demand to upgrade its status in the American Foreign Military Sales (FMS) arms exporting program for allies on 6 May. The Seoul government recently asked Washington to amend Korea's standing in the U.S. Foreign Military Sales program at a Security Cooperation Committee meeting. However, the U.S. side again rebuffed the demand, saying the status upgrade requires the revision of related U.S. laws, such as overseas support laws and arms export control laws. But the MND will continue with its efforts for the amendment in this year's SCM meeting in September. FMS is Washington's arms exporting program under which U.S. allies are allowed to purchase weapons with U.S. guarantees of quality. Its membership rating differentiates sales conditions among the U.S. allies, including regulations related to the export authorization process and the listing of items under export control. (SITE NOTE: It is a bargain basement sales program, but the top clients with large sales -- and are political allies -- get the best deals. Korea is a shaky ally at best. However, critics say Korea has been discriminated against with stricter regulations as well as extra costs due to its lowest FMS ratings. The ROK is desparately seeking good deals as it must undergo massive weapons upgrade programs -- as well as procurement fills for its munitions. FMS is also the cheapest method to procure spare parts for its existing weapons systems. The Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program manages government-to-government purchases of weapons and other defense articles, defense services, and military training. A military buying weapons through the FMS program does not deal directly with the company that makes them. The Defense Department serves as an intermediary, usually handling procurement, logistics and delivery and often providing product support and training. (See CIP online for details of FMS program.) In the FMS program, Korea is grouped in the third-ranked "Major non-NATO Ally" group with Egypt, the Philippines, and Thailand, among others. Citing the country's low FMS rating, Korean lawmakers and experts have claimed Korea is being "improperly discriminated against" by the U.S. government, despite making huge purchases of U.S.-made weapons and equipment. Korea is the fifth-largest U.S. weapons buyer, purchasing about a 5 percent share of all U.S. weapons exports. Under the current rating, Korea's arms purchases exceeding $50 million require the approval of the U.S. Congress, whose deliberation process usually takes 30 days. Meanwhile, for the "NATO+3" group of nations, the U.S. Congress reviews arms purchases only if the total cost exceeds $100 million. That deliberation is completed in less than 15 days. In the NATO+3 group, the 26 member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Japan, Australia and New Zealand are included. (Source: Korea Herald.) MYTH: FMS Program at Discount Rates Why the sudden interest in the FMS program? The prime interest is the WRSA-K fiasco that is on-going where the ROK munitions -- mainly naval -- are becoming outdated and unsafe. The second is the "follow-on" packages for advanced missiles for the F-15K -- as well as future buys. The basic legal controls of FMS which restrict the FMS program from quickly responding to a crisis, however, have not changed. This is normally a long and drawn out process because of the multiple levels of approval and regulations involved. This is NOT the method the ROK would seek to use because their shortfall is IMMEDIATE -- which is why the ROK wants an upgrade in its status. Their crisis is immediate and an upgrade in status will bypass the layers of approvals -- and grant them priority on purchases of highly prized military hardware items. Perhaps the ROK is looking for some cheap buys under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Program in the form of FMS grants ("free" gratis transfers) -- a program separate from the WRSA-K. This will NOT happen as FMS gratis programs stopped in 1986. (See DISAM: Greenbook: Conditions of Eligibility for criteria of "grant" aid.) Though the ROK continues to purchase equipment through the FMS program, the "free" FMS grants ended on 16 Dec 1986. The FMS grants to the ROK (gratis transfers) stopped in 1987. (See ROK MND: 2003. After 1986, the US was starting to recognize that the "miracle of the Han" had made the ROK into one of the four dragons of Asia -- a country well able to support its own defense.) Normally munitions do NOT fall under FMS -- though missile and weapons development and aircraft upgrade kits for munitions does. The items that could fall within the FMS area are (1) munitions, sub-systems, and related equipment for possible sale of F-15K aircraft, including 105 AIM-9X Sidewinder missiles and 157 AIM-120C Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAMs); (2) 45 AGM-84-H Standoff Land Attack Missiles-Expanded Response missile systems, 1 ATM-84-H Exercise Missile and related equipment for use on F-15K aircraft. (3) Cooperative Logistics Supply Support agreement for radar and missiles. (4) Three MK-41 Vertical Launch Systems for South Korean destroyers. (5) 36 AH-1Z Super Cobra or AH-64D Apache attack helicopters with weapons and support equipment. The FMS program is normally for "hardware" meaning ships, spare parts, electronics and such. FMS Sales are primarily for "hardware" such as popular U.S. Army systems, including the Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS), Black Hawk helicopter, and TOW missile upgrades. However, there is increasing global competition in the international sales community, typified by intense competition for main battle tanks, attack helicopters, and tactical missile systems. The FMS program is legally sanctioned in the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) of 1976, as amended. The FMS program is the means by which military articles and services are transferred from a component of the U.S. government to a foreign government or international organization in non-emergency circumstances. From a legal perspective, the FMS program is a peace-time program, but world events now has made the FMS into a critical component of coalition defense operations, war-time planning, and logistics support. The ROK media seems to be under the mis-impression that the latest high-tech missiles and munitions are going to be sold at discount rates. This is up to Congress to approve these types of sales. Selling off "special" munitions (JDAMS, etc.) may not be in the offing as there are current shortfalls. The following article from the Chosun Ilbo on 6 Apr 2005, was refuted by the USFK. The USFK stated that the "USFK has not offered to sell the stocks to the ROK government, nor engaged in any negotiations concerning the potential sale of WRSA assets. The sale, destruction or removal of the stocks is a U.S. Congressional decision." Even if the munitions were declared Excess Defense Equipment (EDA) and offered on a grant basis, the DoD must still notify the Congressional Committees on Appropriations. "Before issuing a letter of offer (LOA) to sell EDA under the AECA, DoD shall notify the Committees on Appropriations in accordance with regular notification procedures if the articles are significant military equipment (SME) or are valued (original acquisition cost) at $7,000,000 or more, or if notification is required elsewhere in this Act for the use of appropriated funds for specific countries that would receive such EDA. The notification is to include the original acquisition cost for the articles." The WRSA munitions could possibly be interpreted to fall within this category. (SOURCE: 2005: WRSA-K.) ROK to Seek F-16 Spare Parts under FMS (May 2007) Then it became clear why the ROK surfaced the FMS ranking. The ROKAF was considering purchasing spare parts of F-16 fighter aircraft from the Lockheed Martin, under a commercial deal to supply needed aircraft components cheaper and faster -- meaning under an FMS deal. The Air Force also plans a similar contract with U.S. aircraft maker Boeing, the supplier of F-15Ks. The Air Force buys aging F-16 parts from the U.S. government under a Foreign Military Sale (FMS) agreement that requires guarantee money and complicated bureaucratic procedures for approval, the MND said on 10 May 2007. With most F-16 production lines being closed worldwide, South Korea has had difficulty supplying needed parts to its F-16 units in time, and the cost of aircraft parts has risen. An F-16 crash last March, involving a lack of spare parts and, subsequently, poor maintenance, resulted in the resignation of the Air Force chief. ``The Korean Air Force recently proposed the plan to us,'' a Lockheed Martin official told The Korea Times, requesting to remain anonymous. ``Under a three- or four-year contract, South Korea will get F-16 or C-130 aircraft spare parts cheaper and faster than before.'' South Korea has nearly 140 F-16s in operation. Under the FMS deal, South Korea has a low priority, as the U.S. focuses on Iraq, Afghanistan and other allies. Lockheed Martin has similar contracts with the United Kingdom and Italy, and plans to sign a deal with Singapore, Poland and other nations. Last month, a military source from the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) said the country is mulling aging U.S. arms components, including F-16 spare parts from third nations in a bid to improve the operational rate of weapons, which has decreased due to difficulties in securing components for U.S. weapons systems more than 30 years old. ``We will try to sign related deals with other foreign nations that have used U.S. weapons systems by the end of next year,'' he said, adding the potential suppliers of U.S. weapons components surpluses include Switzerland, Turkey and Israel. For example, the agency wants to purchase AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles for F-5 fighters from the Swiss, he said. The agency signed a similar pact with Spain last November. Under the deal, South Korea procured a total of 17 components for F-4 Phantom aircraft, such as landing gear, from Spain in December. See FAS: FMS Items (2006) for a listing of items under FMS sent to Congress for approval. Korea or Japan not on list. S. Korea to ask for speedy supply of U.S. military equipment (Jun 2007) South Korea planned to ask the United States to facilitate the supply of military parts and equipment when their defense chiefs meet in Singapore on 2 Jun. South Korean Defense Minister Kim Jang-soo was to deliver Seoul's worries about Japan's move to procure high-tech stealth jets, F-22A Raptor, during a meeting with U.S. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. (SITE NOTE: The US has already discounted the US sale of the F-22 to Japan in May 2007 and it is a non-issue. The broad topic of "facilitate the supply of military parts and equipment" deals with the upgraded FMS sales status and the on-going WRSA-K munitions discussions underway in Jun 2007. Some Congressmen have promised to aid Korea in upgrading their status on FMS sales.) South Korea's efforts to procure U.S. military equipment as early as possible has gained more urgency amid reports that almost half of its F-16 fighter jets imported from the U.S. are grounded due to faulty parts. Officials said it takes up to one and a half year for South Korea to receive some parts. (SITE NOTE: Notice how the media gives the impression the US parts were faulty, but in truth the ROKAF mechanics (with pressure from superiors) failed to replace aircraft parts called for in inspection guidelines.) FMS Sales Program Upgraded Status Bill (Feb 2008) On 14 Feb Congressman Ed Royce (R–CA 40th) submitted a bill that calls for strengthening military cooperation between the two countries by upgrading South Korea to the level of "NATO Plus Three (Japan, Australia, New Zealand)" in the U.S. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program. According to Royce, Korea imported $3.7 billion worth of arms from the United States in the last year alone. He noted the amount is more than any of the other three nations. Royce said, "It's unreasonable not to grant preferential treatment to South Korea, which has been a 60-year-long friend of the U.S. and where 29,000 American soldiers are stationed." If the bill is approved, Korea would be allowed to purchase more advanced U.S. arms, including F-22s and the Global Hawk, an unmanned spy aircraft. If the bill is passed, U.S. congressional approval for Korean arms purchases would be quickened from the current 50 days to 15 days. (SITE NOTE: The sale of the F-22s and Global Hawk would probably not be allowed because of technology transfer concerns.) A similar bill was introduced by Senator Christopher Bond at the end of last year. No action has been taken. U.S. Senator Christopher Bond (R–Mo.) submitted a bill that would make South Korea's purchase of U.S. weapons cheaper and faster by shortening the review period, reducing the number of weapons subject to review and cutting the purchasing commission. (Source: Joongang Ilbo.) (SITE NOTE: This is on the eve of President-elect Lee Myeong-bak's inauguration and the relief the US has felt over the removal of Roh Moo-hyun from office. In April 2008, the conservatives are expected to sweep the elections and create a pro-US atmosphere in Korea that has been missing for a decade.) Bills may set South Korea as preferred buyer of arms (Mar 2008) Two U.S. congressional bills that would make defense purchases easier for South Korea are being closely watched, spokesmen for the South Korean Ministry of Defense and U.S. Forces Korea said on 17 Mar. If passed by the House and Senate, South Korea would receive the most preferential treatment possible for foreign military sales under U.S. law. “Obviously, we believe this presents a win-win for U.S. and South Korea relations,” USFK spokesman Col. Franklin Childress said during a phone interview on 17 Mar. The House bill, known as H.R. 5443, was introduced by Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA) and Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) in February. A similar senate version was introduced by Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) in June 2007. Both bills are with their respective foreign affairs committees. The highest foreign military sales status is known as “NATO-plus-three” and conferred to members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, plus Japan, Australia and New Zealand. If given status as the fourth non-NATO member, South Korea would only have to notify Congress of weapons purchases from U.S. companies of more than $25 million and services or technical help above $100 million. Currently, South Korea must notify Congress of military purchases costing $14 million or more and services above $50 million. Right now, Congress responds to South Korean purchase requests within 50 days; under preferred status, the wait would be cut to 15 days. Three former Soviet Union states, now NATO members, have superior military sales status to South Korea, USFK commander Gen. B.B. Bell told the House Armed Services Committee on March 12, according to a news release from Royce’s office. Bell said South Korea was the United States’ most reliable ally and largest customer on a yearly basis. “So it is, from my perspective, bizarre and strange that we would give a higher level of foreign military sales status to anyone other than [South Korea],” Bell said. A South Korean Ministry of Defense official told Stars and Stripes on Monday that an upgrade in the country’s purchasing status “is very important” and could reduce costs because of the greater ability to buy in bulk in a shorter time frame. Easing South Korean defense purchases South Korea would receive the most preferential treatment possible for foreign military sales. South Korea would only have to notify Congress of weapons purchases from U.S. companies of more than $25 million and services or technical help above $100 million. Congress would respond to South Korean purchases requests within 15 days; under current status, the wait would can be up to 50. (Source: Stars and Stripes.) (SITE NOTE: The USFK should watch out for its use of "win-win" in its announcements. The LPP program was a win-win scenario that degenerated into a morass. Other announcements have also done the same -- because the US plays by one set of rules and the ROK is simply in it for getting bargain basement prices -- not anything about alliance or interoperability or other horse manure terms.) US Senate Approves Seoul's Privileged Arms Purchase (Oct 20008) The U.S. Senate passed Thursday a bill aimed at granting the most preferential treatment to South Korea in government-to-government sales of U.S. weapons systems, a Cheong Wa Dae official said. He called it a ``symbolic move'' to signal further strengthening the Korea-U.S. alliance. The House of Representatives already passed similar legislation Sept. 24 that would give South Korea the same privileged foreign military sales (FMS) status as members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and three other nations ? Australia, Japan and New Zealand ? known as NATO+3. The fate of the bill now rests in the U.S. President. ``Since the mid-1990s, South Korea has asked the U.S. to upgrade its FMS status, but failed to make progress. But the bill has finally been approved by the U.S. Congress six years after Presidents Lee Myung-bak and George W. Bush agreed on the issue in April at their summit at Camp David,'' the official told reporters, asking not to be named. ``Now we can call the highest U.S. FMS group `NATO+4,''' he said. ``That is a symbolic move to prove the Korea-U.S. alliance has been upgraded further.'' FMS centers on the government-to-government method for selling U.S. defense equipment, services and training, rather than buying weapons directly from various defense firms. NATO countries, along with the three favored nations mentioned above, have been granted a faster track for military sales. On the other hand, South Korea, the third largest buyer of U.S. defense products, has been categorized as a major ``non-NATO'' ally since 1987. The low FMS status has made Seoul pay extra charges such as contract fees and non-recurring costs when the government buys U.S.-made weapons systems. South Korea also needs to wait a longer period for U.S. government approval than NATO+3. The new bill, however, calls for revision of related U.S. laws, such as overseas support and arms export control laws, to give Congress 15 days to decide whether to endorse an arms sale to South Korea, instead of the normal requirement of 30 days. The bill is also aimed at simplifying procedures during Congressional deliberation for arms exports to South Korea. The U.S. government is required to notify Congress of proposed ``major defense equipment" sales exceeding $25 million under the bill. Current U.S. laws require the U.S. government to get permission from Congress for the sale of major defense equipment worth over $14 million. As for ``ordinary equipment," the U.S. government is supposed to get permission for the total sales valued at $100 million, up from the current $50 million. South Korea has purchased $6.9 billion worth of U.S. defense goods over the past decade with the figure breaking down to $840 million in 2007 and $610 million in 2006, both the eighth biggest among foreign buyers, according to Seoul's government data. South Korea bought $1.52 billion worth of defense products from the United States on a commercial basis in the fiscal year 2007. Seoul is expected to purchase more than $57 billion worth of military equipment from the United States by 2020, according to arms procurement agency officials. (Source: Korea Times.) First of Patriot missile troops arrive at Suwon (May 2007) On 17 May, the first 170 troops of 1st Battalion, 7th Air Defense Artillery, which had been stationed at Fort Bliss as part of the 108th Air Defense Artillery Brigade, arrived at Suwon to switch places with the 1st Battalion, 43rd Air Defense Artillery. With the move to South Korea, the battalion becomes part of the 35th Air Defense Artillery Brigade, which maintains Patriot firing batteries at several points around the peninsula. The move was set for completion by the end of May. The battalion has about 660 soldiers. The 1-43 ADA had already begun returning to Fort Bliss after 13 years in South Korea. “It’s a transition — both at the same time,” 35th Air Defense Artillery Brigade spokesman Capt. David Marlow said. The switch marks the first time the U.S. Army in South Korea has rotated its Patriot units at battalion size. Previously, it had deployed those battalions piecemeal, several batteries at a time. Brigade officials have said the larger rotation will help sustain unit cohesion by keeping gunnery crews, supervisors and other battalion personnel together as a working team. It also will help ensure all unit members are equipped, trained and managed so they’re ready for any deployment the Army may assign them, the officials have said. (Source: Stars and Stripes.) ROK purchases US$1 billion worth of U.S. weapons in 2007 (Jun 2007) It was reported on 16 Jun that South Korea will purchase nearly US$1 billion worth of weapons from the United States in the fiscal year 2007 which ends in September, the fifth-largest amount in the world, but at a slightly higher price than others due to U.S. restrictions. According to the budget bill for 2008, now under review by Congress, South Korea will likely have purchased a total of $955 million worth of weapons through the foreign military sales (FMS) program in the fiscal year, which ends in September 2007, following Turkey with a little over $3.4 billion, Afghanistan ($3.1 billion), Saudi Arabia ($1.59 billion) and Iraq with about $1 billion. The FMS program manages government-to-government sales of weapons and other military articles and training. Seoul purchased about $410 million worth of weapons through the FMS program in 2006. It was expected to buy some $350 million worth of weapons in fiscal year 2008, according to the U.S. bill. Despite such large amounts of purchases, however, Seoul continues to buy U.S. weapons at a slightly higher price than most of other U.S. allies due to its lack of preferential status in the FMS system, the bill showed. Washington currently categorizes its main weapons purchases in three classes: North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), NATO plus 3 and major non-NATO allies. Seoul belongs to the lowest category of major non-NATO allies along with 13 others, including Egypt, Thailand and Pakistan, who have to pay an extra 1.7 percent of their total purchase amounts to cover administrative costs. Members of NATO and those belonging to the NATO plus 3 group, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and the recently added Israel, are asked to pay between 0.2 percent to 1 percent. (Source: Yonhap News.) (SITE NOTE: The main point as allies is "interoperability" as the main selling point for weapons systems. As allies using like systems, the ROK can ask for assistance in repairing parts that are above their capabilities for repair due to lack of repair mockups or test benches. In addition, as the US phases out a weapons system that the ROK uses, the US "boneyards" become sources of parts at discounted rates.) Summer Protests Start up Fizzles (May 2007) Just as the Spring protests at military bases fizzled, so has the summer protests. In speaking with Casey Lee, head of the Shinjang Mall Chamber of Commerce, the activists attempted to stage protests at the Main Gate of Osan AB, but instead he took out a protest permit for the Main Gate that effectively blocked the activists protests. But from watching the national news, there seems to be little interest in protests -- almost as though their energies were all spent on the US-ROK FTA protests. It was announced in the Stars and Stripes that two planned anti-U.S. demonstrations fizzled on 23 May, but the groups may not be done protesting. Planners from the leftist Democratic Labor Party had planned a demonstration to protest U.S. Forces Korea and U.S. policy on 23 May, but none of the protesters showed up. However, the group has a permit to protest at any time through June 18 according to their permit, police said. Meanwhile, a North Gyeonggi Peace Party protest drew 10 demonstrators in front of Camp Red Cloud’s main gate from 11 a.m. to noon, police said. The group chanted slogans and denounced recent alleged off-post crimes by U.S. soldiers. The protesters also called for South Korea not to share costs for relocating U.S. bases, and wants the United States to pay for environmental clean-up of bases returned to South Korea. It should be noted that the Korean National Police were also not expecting many problems. Only a 30-man combat police platoon guarded the camp. (Source: Stars and Stripes.) Protests in Seoul and Yongsan on 26-27 May (May 2007) Small protests over the weekend of 26-27 May in Seoul. On 26 May, the anti-war group of about 250 people led by Father Mun of Daechuri-fame held a peaceful protest march from Seoul Train Station. The group was protesting the relocation of USFK forces to Pyeongtaek.   Protest of USFK Relocation to Pyeongtaek in Seoul (26 May 2007) (Tongil News) On 27 May, the same group gathered outside Yongsan Garrison and again protested the relocation of USFK forces to Pyeongtaek. There were approximately 300 protestors. The entrance to the gate was blocked by riot police buses to which the protestors affixed their protest sheets. The protest was peaceful. Of course, there was the obligatory anti-American sign: "Yanky Go Home" that was pasted on the police bus.   Protest of USFK Relocation to Pyeongtaek at Yongsan Garrison (27 May 2007) (Tongil News)  "Yanky Go Home" (27 May 2007) (Tongil News) Gen B.B. Bell, commander of the USFK, was targeted with a "wanted poster" with the sum of $964,000,000. We are uncertain how they arrived at the figure. The number is the approximate total sum to relocate the forces from the DMZ -- except that it was off by one zero. The cost to the ROK will be about $9,640,000,000 (W10 trillion) to relocate the USFK from Yongsan and the DMZ.   Protest of Gen Bell with Fr Moon speaking (27 May 2007) (Tongil News) In Mar 2007, the Ministry of Defense said it will cost about W10 trillion to relocate several U.S. military bases, including the Yongsan Garrison and the 2nd U.S. Infantry Division, to Pyeongtaek. South Korea will pay W5.59 trillion of the total cost. South Korean and U.S. military authorities have agreed to finish the relocation, which was previously slated for the end of 2008, by 2011 or 2012 when construction on the new base is scheduled to be done. South Korea is expected to spend W4.58 trillion on construction and W1.01 billion for land for the military base, for a total of W5.59 trillion. The U.S. will bear a similar cost for relocating their bases from the outskirts of Seoul. Closed bases draw Korean activists' ire (May 2007) A small group of South Korean environmental activists gathered in Seoul on 30 May to blast their country's decision to accept nine more closed U.S. military facilities. Sixteen members of the environmentalist group Green Korea United and four people who live near the former Koon-ni Range gathered for about an hour outside South Korea's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade building in Seoul to demand a full-scale environmental cleanup of the returned bases.   Camp Closure Protest (30 May 2007) (Tongil News) (NOTE: Green Korea United brings up Maehang-ri (Kooni Range) and the dummy bombs left at site.) They condemned South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun's administration for accepting the facilities and presented a letter of complaint to the ministry. A Ministry of National Defense official said Wednesday that the decision to accept the facilities was made during Security Policy Initiative talks between U.S. and South Korean officials last month. The status of forces agreement between the countries states that USFK can return land without environmental treatment of pollutants beyond those posing "known, imminent, and substantial endangerments to human health." In return, South Korea receives the sites and infrastructure, which USFK estimates as worth more than $1 billion, at no cost. When the United States began its push in recent years to return closed bases as part of the transformation of its forces, South Korea balked and refused to accept the facilities. In April 2006, USFK announced that it would go beyond its SOFA requirements by removing underground fuel tanks at all returned bases and heavy metals from firing ranges. USFK also contracted with a South Korean company to remove fuel contamination of ground water at five closed camps. After 18 months, South Korea finally accepted 15 closed facilities in July 2006. A joint statement South Korea's ministries of defense, environment and foreign affairs at the time stated, "Although negotiations fell short of the expectations of our government, we believe we have done our best to draw out the best outcome, based on seeing other overseas examples." USFK officials have said they will return 59 camps totaling more than 33,000 acres in the next three years.  Camp Closure Protest (30 May 2007) (Tongil News) Outside the MOFAT on 30 May, activists carried signs demanding that the United States clean up its bases and calling for South Korea to re-open negotiations. Green Korea's Seo Jae-chul said the U.S. military is avoiding its responsibility in cleaning up the land. And the South Korean government, "remains silent," and accepted contaminated lands, Seo said. He added that a "equal and reciprocal alliance between Korea and the U.S. cannot" exist until the issue is resolved. After a series of speeches, the activists brought a big box covered in pink wrapping paper with a matching ribbon. A statement on the box explained it was the gift of returned bases from the United States to South Korea. When they ripped the paper off the box, the contents included a fake "PCB Poisons," explosives and oil-contaminated containers. (Source: Stars and Stripes.) June 2007Tour Acquaints Civic Leaders with Bases (Jun 2007) Seventy-five business and civic leaders, most Koreans, toured Camp Humphreys and Osan Air Base on Wednesday, the first time most had seen the bases at the center of a massive plan to consolidate the U.S. military presence here.(SITE NOTE: These "young leaders" would be more impressed if they were invited to share their views at an organized and well-publicized symposium at a major Seoul university with a tour of the bases afterwards. These "big-picture" tours do NOT have anything to do with changing the attitudes of the common folks who live just outside the base/garrison fences. The USFK leaders need to start thinking small to make the biggest changes. What the USFK really needs is less of these "young leader" tours and more grass-roots action.“We don’t have an opportunity to showcase what we’re doing and why we’re here,” said Air Force Brig. Gen. Joseph Reynes Jr., 51st Fighter Wing commander, as he showed the group F-16 and A-10 fighters at Osan. “These people are the Korean taxpayers, and they have a right to see this, and we should have an opportunity to show them what we do.” The visitors toured the bases as part of the Young Leaders Program, an 18-month-old U.S. Forces Korea effort aimed at educating 30- to 50-year-olds on the U.S. military’s role in South Korea. (SITE NOTE: From the history of Osan AB, we see that the base locked its gates in the late 1970s with the growing democracy movement and then sealed itself off from the Songtan local area with the aim to become self-sufficient in its enclosed community. By and large, the local community didn't feel connected to the base and viewed the base as an essential economic factor for their community, but not necessarily its friends. Tours in the past have been arranged for high-ranking leaders -- like these "young leaders." Now the base needs to arrange for tours for grass-roots leaders -- which will be where the big pay-off comes. These people are the ones that interact daily with other Koreans in the community. Hopefully the Osan leaders will see this.)At Camp Humphreys, the group took a bus ride past vacant fields that in a few years will be turned into apartment towers, a hotel, training facilities, schools and a golf course. Army Brig. Gen. Kurt Stein, who oversees the expansion project as the deputy commanding general of U.S. Forces Korea (Advance Element), said closing northern bases and shifting servicemembers to Humphreys will ease friction with South Koreans who live near urban bases, and decrease the amount of land used by USFK by two-thirds. Moving troops to Humphreys also would make it easier for troops to mobilize during an attack, he said. “Bottom line: It will provide a more stable, secure and less intrusive environment,” he said. Air Force Maj. Gen. Stephen Sargeant, USFK deputy chief of staff, said the program is a way to reach out to influential community members who grew up after the Korean War. Of the nearly 300 people who have taken trips with the Young Leaders Program to the Demilitarized Zone, only 5 percent had been there before, he said. “By capturing this group, we’re capturing 30 to 50 years of support,” he said. (SITE NOTE: Gen Sargeant should know. He was Major Sargeant, flight safety officer, when the Koreans were throwing molotov cocktails at the gate of Kunsan AB. He was the wing commander of Kunsan AB as Col Sargeant when the wing had isolated itself from the community because of the growing anti-American feeling. Hopefully, he will remember that the "young leaders" are not the ones who throw stones at the gate. It is the common folks. These are the ones that need to be impressed -- to change their attitudes by allowing them to see the real folks of the USAF/US Army community. In the 1960s-1970s in Korea, the open houses on the bases and camps did this, but somewhere along the line it has been lost.)Young Leaders participants said they were impressed by the friendliness of USFK officials during the tour. Pak Chan-jun, executive director of the Korea Defense and Security Forum, said through a translator that he was impressed by the tour and thought it was important for USFK to continue trying to build a good relationship with South Koreans living near Camp Humphreys. He questioned, however, USFK’s plan to fire large-caliber weapons only near the DMZ, and smaller weapons at Camp Humphreys. “I doubt whether it will be really effective in terms of military efficiency to have those two separate firing ranges for heavy and light equipment,” he said. (SITE NOTE: Park Chan-jun would not have made these same remarks if he had to live near the large guns firing. Recently villagers near the Rodriquez range applied to the ROK government for compensation for putting up with the noise. The promised dedicated train to Rodriquez Range is a better solution. To transport large artillery pieces (i.e., Paladins) there for training exercises is a lot better than suffering the inevitable protests from the local community over the ear-deafening noise. Besides, the Rodriquez range provides for more realistic terrain training than the flat areas of the converted rice fields at Camp Humphreys.)South Korean Brig. Gen. Chun Inbum told the Young Leaders to tell others about what they learned on the tour. “We have to spread the word to people … about how important security is, about how important the U.S. alliance is,” he said. “If we don’t spread the word, we might be in great danger.” (Source: Stars and Stripes.) (SITE NOTE: This is preaching to the choir. These people will spread the word amongst the upper strata of society. In most cases, these are conservatives who already understand the realities of Korea's defense needs. These people have already been swayed to the US point of view. The middle-class folks are the ones the USFK really wants to reach. Most Koreans like Americans, but they don't like the government the USFK represents. The USFK needs to change its public image amongst the common folks.) Former Defense Ministers Oppose Wartime Control Change (Jun 2007) A group of 17 former defense ministers yesterday pledged to continue a signature-seeking campaign against the planned transition of wartime operational control and North Korea's nuclear program. The campaign launched in September last year, is seeking to secure the signatures of 10 million people. "Deterring the transfer of wartime operational control and dismantlement of the Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command are ultimate goals of this campaign," Lee Sang-hoon, one of the ex-defense ministers, said. (SITE NOTE: Unfortunately, it is too late. Things have progressed too far. Changing governments -- with a new President -- will not change a thing.) ROK, US to Hold SPI Security Meeting (Jun 2007) South Korea and the United States held a working-level security meeting on 8 Jun to review developments of bilateral agreements including the relocation of U.S. military bases and the transfer of wartime control of South Korean troops. Jeon Jei-guk, assistant defense minister for policy, will represent the Korean delegation at the 13th Security Policy Initiative (SPI), while Richard Lawless, U.S. deputy undersecretary of defense, will lead the U.S. delegation. (SITE NOTE: The presence of one of the "big guns" Richard Lawless at a "working-level" security meeting would indicate that some heavy issues will be discussed. On 8 Jun no local news was reported on the SPI meeting. It is assumed the major topic of discussion was again the cost sharing issues and relocation now set in concrete for 2012. Later on 28 Jun, Gen Burwell Burke and ROK JCS Chief, Gen Kim Kwan-jin signed the documents that set the timeline for a new military organization to replace the CFC indicating that this was what was on the agenda.) The return of U.S. military facilities is in the spotlight again, as environmental civic groups claim some of the returned bases were polluted beyond national environmental standards. The two sides will discuss details on the transition of operational control of the Korean military during wartime from the United States to South Korea, which is set for 2012. The Tongil News reported on 8 Jun that a small group of protestors held a sit-down protest with signs proclaiming, "US Military Out of Korea" and "Peace Treaty Now." The protest was peaceful. (SITE NOTE: This was in preparation for the 10 June 20th Anniversary of the Democracy Movement in 1987. Thousands took to the streets in small peaceful demonstrations throughout the country, but there were none of the anti-American overtones that were present in the past. The Koreans believe the US allowed Chun Doo-hwan to use CFC troops to suppress the student demonstrators and outbreak in Kwangju. The photos in Tongil News of 500 participants in Seould showed no confrontations with police and none of the anti-American banners as seen in the past. A civil rights group in Gwangju organized an event Saturday. About 1,000 citizens took part in it. 1,000 Busan residents participated in a similar ceremony Sunday afternoon. In all it turned into more of a nostalgia event, with former students reliving their days in the fight against the military dictatorship.) Bell: 'Relocation of US Bases to Be Finished by 2012' (Mar 2007) In an interview with the Stars & Stripes, Gen. B. B. Bell, commander of U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) said the defense chiefs from the two countries agreed on the timeline during their talks in Washington, D.C. in Feb 2007. The South Korean consortium that wins the bid to run the Camp Humphreys expansion project will be tasked to complete it by 2012, Gen. B.B. Bell confirmed in a recent interview. However, Bell stressed that units will begin to move to Humphreys, as the facilities are ready. Seoul and Washington have differed over the timetable of the $10-billion project. Seoul officials said it was unavoidable to postpone the plan for about four to five years because of a delay in the construction of new facilities and differences over how to share the relocation spending. Washington, however, opposed the move, arguing the project should be completed by 2008 as agreed in 2004.  Camp Humphreys Relocation (Mar 2007) The 2004 land-swap pact (Land Partnership Plan) calls for moving the Yongsan Garrision and the 2d ID to Pyongtaek, Kyonggi Province, where a consolidated U.S. base is to be built by 2008. Bell stressed that the relocation will begin in stages even before the target year if facilities are ready. The plan isn't to wait until the entire project is complete in five years, he said. ``We've agreed ever since day one -- and we're going to execute this -- whenever facilities are ready for a unit to move into, we're going to move them,'' he said. ``So I would anticipate as soon as buildings … are completed and if we have room, we'll begin to move units down there _ small ones." "So there's not going to be a giant movement one afternoon of thousands of Americans to Pyeongtaek," he said. "It will be a deliberate effort, and it will be gauged against the completion of appropriate facilities." The two governments plan to draw up a master plan on the timetable, facility management and cost sharing for the U.S. base relocation project by May. Officials recently began work on a 200-acre plot of land called Parcel 1. Bell said the decision to give operational wartime command — or OPCOM — of South Korean forces back to their own military and to inactivate the Combined Forces Command affected part of the master plan. It's also being considered in the decision on when to move U.S. Forces Korea to Humphreys. "The original plan for the headquarters is clearly different now than it was two years ago," he said. The original master plan called for the Combined Forces Command to move to Humphreys. "Hundreds of Republic of Korea staff officers and commanders and leaders would have moved down there with that operation," he said. "That is now not going to happen." South Korea will form its own new headquarters with the transfer of OPCOM.  Yongsan Garrison Bell said he assumes South Korea will build the headquarters in Seoul to house what he refers to as a "Republic of Korea Joint Forces Command." "We could move USFK to Pyeongtaek before the transfer of OPCOM," he said. "We could — and still be able to function as Combined Forces Command." But it would be difficult, he stressed. "It's much easier to move after transfer of OPCOM," he said. "We have to make a judgment about what makes the most sense in terms of this headquarters — USFK — moving to Pyeongtaek versus the inactivation date of CFC, versus the building program." (SITE NOTE: We are not certain where the USFK is going with this. On one hand, Gen Bell stated that the units would continue moving -- in small increments as housing becomes available, but the USFK Headquarters moving from Yongsan is awaiting the construction of its headquarters and housing for families. But what after that? That is uncertain but it's at least a year off in 2008. Everyone is still waiting for a completed master plan. However, the biggee not mentioned here is the cost sharing formula and the reluctance of the ROK in footing the relocation costs.) Pointing at the command colors on display in his office, he said he wasn't sure when they would move south. "What I do know is this: Before that set of colors can move from this building down to Pyeongtaek we need adequate facilities, we need a headquarters and we need adequate housing for all the families of the servicemembers that man U.S. Forces Korea," he said. (Source: Stars and Stripes.) Camp Humphreys Move Date is 2012 (Jun 2007) Joongang Ilbo reported that the relocation of US military installations to a base in southern Gyeonggi Province is expected to be completed by November 2012, about a year earlier than previously expected, a ROK Defense Ministry official said. The business plan submitted by Kunwon-CH2M HILL, the consortium in charge of the project, includes that timeline, according to a release from the USFK Base Relocation Project Management Group, which is under the ministry. The consortium will cooperate with the U.S. Forces Korea Base Relocation Office at the Defense Ministry to take charge of the project. That includes project controls, planning and management, support for placing orders and making contracts, design and supervision, and quality and environmental controls. The ministry on signed a contract with the consortium to manage the W160 billion (US$1=W938) project. The construction schedule is set for five years and five months, putting the completion date at November 2012. However the ministry has not yet officially confirmed this with U.S. authorities. Korea and the United States initially agreed to consolidate U.S. military bases located north of Seoul into Pyeongtaek by 2008. Delays in purchasing the land and other administrative interruptions pushed the date back, and the two countries had estimated the project would be completed in 2013. The United States will hand over wartime operational control of Korean forces to the South by April 14, 2012. “South Korea and the United States will verify the proposed schedule and finalize the plan one more time,” according to the release. Lee Jae-young, a spokesman at the U.S. Forces Korea Base Relocation Office at the Defense Ministry, said in a news release that the United States and South Korea will review the project and may revise the completion date if necessary. When consolidation of several installations into a hub base at Camp Humphreys was initially planned, USFK had targeted a completion by 2008. But that deadline was extended due to political opposition, funding and other delays. The groundbreaking ceremony is scheduled for September in Pyeongtaek. The ministry’s project management group signed an official contract with the consortium on Thursday. The consortium consists of the U.S. company, CH2M HILL, and Kunwon Engineering of South Korea, as well as several other Korean construction firms. In April, the consortium won the 160-billion-won ($173 million) contract, to last five years and five months. Seoul and Washington had agreed to decide a concrete date for the completion of base construction in accordance with PMC's investigations, due to their differences over the timetable. The United States has complained over Korea's expectation that the base relocation is likely to be delayed until 2013 because of strong opposition from local residents and civic groups. According to sources familiar with the project, the consortium presented a cost-saving plan to the ministry. The USFK Base Relocation Project Management Group said South Korea will spend about 5.59 trillion won for the relocation project, including more than 1.1 trillion won to buy the land. U.S. Forces Korea is currently levelling the Pyeongtaek site to prepare the site against flooding. The South is currently building roads to be used during the construction. An archeological survey is also ongoing. (Source: Joongang Ilbo.) Meanwhile, residents of Seotan-myon in Pyeongtaek are protesting an Air Force decision to buy a 462,000-sq.m site in the area for a base to be built by 2010. That site is near a 2.11 million-sq.m plot earmarked for the U.S. military. A Defense Ministry official said, "The [462,000-sq.m] site will be developed to secure a safety zone for an Air Force ammunition depot. It has nothing to do with the expansion of the U.S. military base." (Source: Chosun Ilbo.) US military deploys warplanes from Europe to Pacific for first time (Jun 2007) According to the Associated Press, the U.S. military said on 14 Jun it will temporarily deploy about 20 F-16 fighter jets to South Korea, as the international standoff over North Korea's nuclear weapons program drags on. The warplanes and about 300 airmen were set to arrive this weekend from Aviano Air Base in Italy — the first time forces from Europe have served on a rotation in the Pacific — a U.S. military statement said. The aircraft will be stationed for about four months at Kunsan Air Base. The deployment "signifies the United States' continued commitment to regional stability and security," the military statement said. (Source: International Herald Tribune Aviano squadron rotating to South Korea (Jun 2007) Almost half the firepower of Aviano Air Base will soon be on display in the Republic of South Korea. The bulk of the 555th Fighter Squadron and its F-16 aircraft have been participating in a Red Flag exercise in Alaska. Air Force officials confirmed Thursday that the Italy-based squadron will continue on to South Korea after the exercise and serve a four-month rotation there. (SITE NOTE: "Triple Nickle" is one of the most famous MIG-killer fighter units from the Vietnam War flying out of Udorn RTAFB, Thailand.) Capt. Tiffany Payette, public affairs chief for the 8th Air Force based at Kunsan Air Base in South Korea, told Stars and Stripes that the rotation “absolutely” does not indicate an increased security threat in South Korea. “It’s just kind of the luck of the draw” that they’re coming to Kunsan, said Payette. “They could have been tasked to go to Iraq or Afghanistan.”  555th FS Arrives at Kunsan (15 Jun 2007) (Tongil News) The 510th Fighter Squadron at Aviano recently returned from such a deployment and both squadrons have served multiple times in various rotations to the Central Command’s area of responsibility. But Payette confirmed that this is the first time such a unit based in Europe has been tasked to the Pacific under the Aerospace Expeditionary Force program. Capt. Jennifer Ferrau, chief of public affairs for the 31st Fighter Wing at Aviano, said Friday that the deployment and exercise in Alaska give the airmen from the Triple Nickel new opportunities. “The deployment of forces throughout the Pacific provides unique opportunities to integrate various forces into joint, coalition and bilateral training,” she said Ferrau declined to provide specific numbers of airmen or aircraft from Aviano involved, or disclose when they would arrive in South Korea. Payette said Thursday that 18 aircraft and about 300 airmen would be involved. That represents most of the aircraft assigned to the squadron and about 40 percent of the F-16s assigned to Aviano. Ferrau forwarded a statement from Air Force public affairs rebutting an earlier wire report that implied that the forces were being sent to bolster U.S. forces in a sign of high tensions in the Korean peninsula: “AEF rotations occur worldwide, not just in the CENTCOM AOR — this was a normal AEF rotation in support of an (Air Force) tasking. These rotations help maintain the peace and security in the Asian-Pacific region and show the AEF is truly a global look at where we need forces.” (Source: Stars and Stripes.) (SITE NOTE: This whole deployment does not make sense. In a time when USAF funding is very short, this type of deployment seems very unusual -- UNLESS THERE IS INTEL THAT IS NOT BEING RELEASED. Or else this is a "back-fill" for a squadron that it being deployed outside of the ROK on an exercise -- or one that will stand in for the three F-16 squadrons to rotate out to update their pilot proficiency in the Philippines or Japan. This last suggestion is strictly off-the-wall speculation since the Chikdo Range issue has still not been resolved. (NOTE: In Sep 2007, there was notification that the WISS system was in place on Chikdo, but the issues of a 7 ROKAF:3 USAF split of range time and the Kunsan City government threat that it would shut it down if government aid promises were not met. In addition, the environmentalists still will have to review the Chikdo area before there is a final ok.)Aviano squadron right at home (Aug 2007) Approximately 300 airmen with the 555th have been stationed at Kunsan since June as part of an Aerospace Expeditionary Force rotation, the first time a squadron from Europe has been sent to a Pacific air base for the routine deployment. The squadron and its 18 fighter jets will return to Italy in October. “Here, it’s just a daily training routine,” said Lt. Col. Lance Landrum, squadron operations officer. “It’s good training, especially for some of our young guys. Most F-16 pilots come through Korea.” “Work is more rewarding right now. We don’t have the distractions we have back home,” Ferguson said. “There’s very few times we don’t have everybody here every day. We’ve really been able to pile on a lot of training for our guys.” (Source: Stars and Stripes.) Korea, U.S. agree to complete new alliance structure by 2009 (Jun 2007) Korea and the United States agreed to set up a new joint military structure by 2009 as part of preparations for the planned transfer of wartime operational control of Korean armed forces from Washington to Seoul, the Defense Ministry said on 28 Jun. Gen. Kim Kwan-jin, chairman of the Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. Burwell Bell, commander of U.S. Forces Korea, on 28 Jun signed an action plan for implementing the transition scheduled for Apr. 17, 2012. The roadmap was signed at U.S. Yongsan Garrison in downtown Seoul. The agreement sets several milestones in the turnover of operational wartime command to South Korea. The United States and South Korea agreed in October 2006 to the "New Alliance Military Structure Roadmap," and decided that a transition plan should be completed by mid-2007. According to the "Strategic Implementation Plan," allies aim to complete by late 2009 new joint command structures which would see Seoul play a leading role in case of war on the Korean Peninsula.  Gen Burwell Bell and Gen Kim Kwan-jin signing document (28 Jun 2008) (Tongil News) "Through a deliberate process incorporating multiple theater-level exercises and evaluations, the JCS will achieve initial operational capability as the theater war fighting command by late 2009 and attain full operational capability by the end of 2011," the JCS said in a press release. The JCS will overhaul its organization to have sufficient capability to exercise independent wartime operational control by the target date. In the first major overhaul of the JCS in about two decades, the apparatus will enhance its operation department by the first half of 2009, becoming the Joint Forces Command. Eight combat institutions will be created in the organization. It said the USFK will change into a ``supporting war-fighting command." The allies will also establish a new joint military coordination system by 2009 to replace the current Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command. They plan to establish an Alliance Military Coordination Center (AMCC) under the highest defense channel, the Military Committee (MC), for close coordination of armistice management and strategic issues. The Korea-U.S. Military Committee is a consultative body consisting of the chairmen of the Korean and U.S. joint chiefs of staff, to assist the military committee and strengthen cooperation. The AMCC will link the separate US and ROK commands, with its 10 subordinate institutions. About six coordination bureaus including those regarding information sharing, strategic planning, joint logistics support and digital command operations will also be set up. The two countries are to establish altogether six cooperative bodies, including (1) a joint information center, (2) a joint operational center, and (3) a combined logistics cooperation center to ensure smooth cooperation between Korean troops and the USFK. They also agreed to maintain a combined aviation and space operations center between Korean Army, Navy and Air Force operation commands and their USFK counterparts. They will conduct five joint military exercises in preparation for the handover from 2010 until early 2012 to make sure operational capability is up to scratch. The 10 institutions will cover joint operational planning, information sharing, crisis management, joint military exercises, combat tactics development, military cooperation abroad, logistics support and the C4I digital command system. Under the new alliance system, ground and naval forces operations will be led by the Korean military, while the United States will provide aerial-centric support to the Korean troops. The alliance's air forces will create a combined air and space operation center to enhance joint command for U.S.-led aerial operations in wartime. By 2009, the two countries will also repeal the allies' combined war scenario OPLAN 5027 and draw up a new war plan designed for independent operations of the two militaries. Under the OPLAN 5027, if hostilities break out, the United States would deploy up to 690,000 troops, 160 vessels and 2,000 aircraft to the peninsula, in addition to the current troops, which number about 29,000, to remove the regime of North Korean leader Kim Jong-il and defeat his 1.17-million-member military. Under a new joint war plan, the number of American soldiers to be deployed and the allies strategy may be changed, defense officials said. Korean military experts say the new war scenario will mainly aim to depose the North's core leaders and neutralize its main war-fighting installations. "We plan to draw up a new operational plan by the end of 2009," said Brig. Gen. Shin Hyun-don, vice chief of the JCS's strategic planning division. "But the plan is not a final version, as it can be modified through a review based on several exercises till the OPCON transfer," he added. "The South Korean and the U.S. military will use the OPLAN 5027 during their joint drills in the spring and the new operational plan in summer exercises until the OPCON transfer." He stressed that South Korea will take the initiative in making the new plan, with the U.S. supporting the efforts, adding OPLAN 5027 will be scrapped with the return of OPCON to Seoul. OPLAN 5027, first drawn up in 1974, aims to deter and execute a retaliatory offensive against North Korean forces with an overwhelming projection of troops, fighter jets and combat vessels in the case of a war on the Korean Peninsula. Under the plan, the United States is supposed to dispatch up to 690,000 troops, 2,000 aircraft and 160 ships to the peninsula within 90 days after a war breaks out. OPLAN 5027 is revised every two years and the latest one is 5027-04, made in 2003. As for concerns about the scope of U.S. force reinforcements under the Korean-led war plan, the official stressed the U.S. commitment to security on the peninsula. ``Numbers like 690,000 something are not important now. It is more important what forces will come," he said. ``Prior to the joint war plan, the two countries have a mutual defense treaty, and prior to the treaty, we have strong confidence in each other as trusted allies." The Defense Ministry did not say whether the reinforcements will be downsized once Combined Forces Command ceases to exist. But military sources said substantial cuts to the 690,000 U.S. troops now envisaged will be inevitable. U.S. reinforcements are a key component in South Korea's deterrence. (SITE NOTE: This sets the stage for opening negotiations on reductions in the numbers of land troops to be committed to the ROK in case of war. In a "war-fighting support role," the US may radically change the follow-on packages for the ROK. Shin said the number of American soldiers to be dispatched may be changed under the new war plan. He refused to provide details, however, citing the sensitivity of the information. The US previously stated it will concentrate on aerial-centric support meaning air bombardment. In other words, the US will ensure that there is no North Korea to return to if the DPRK invades the South, but the initial land battles will the responsibility of the ROK alone to hold on until follow-on troops arrive.) After initial implementation, the allies will conduct five joint military exercises between 2010 and 2012 to adapt themselves to the new alliance structure, officials said. During the exercises in the spring of 2010 and 2011, the two allies will carry out drills based on OPLAN 5027, while training during the autumn will be conducted in accordance with the new war plan. The final joint training exercise will be held late February or early March, he said. Seoul voluntarily put operational control of its military under the U.S.-led U.N. Command shortly after the Korean War broke out in 1950. It took back peacetime operational control of its forces in 1994, and is due to regain wartime operational control as of 10:00 a.m. on April 17, 2012. (Source: Korea Herald and Korea Times.) June 2007ROK-USFK Joint Military Drills Renamed (Jul 2007) On 2 Jul it was announced that South Korea and the United States have agreed to change the names of large-scale joint military exercises in line with the planned transition of wartime operational control. The RSOI (Reception, Staging, Onward Movement, Integration) command post exercise in the spring will be called ``Key Resolve (KR)’’ exercise, while the Ulchi Focus Lens (UFL) exercise in the late summer will be called ``Ulchi-Freedom Guardian (UFG),’’ they said. The agreement was made during a meeting between ROK Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Kim Kwan-jin and USFK Commander Gen. B. B. Bell in mid-June. The names of Foal Eagle and Ulchi exercises, which are held simulatenously with the RSOI and UFL exercises, respectively, will remain intact.``The two sides shared the view that the names should be changed in accordance with the new military structure under which South Korea will lead any training exercises with operational control of Korean and American armed forces during wartime,’’ a ministry official said, asking not to be named. He said the names will be used from next year to early 2012, when South Korea is to take over the authority to command and control its forces during wartime. The South Korean and U.S. militaries have conducted the RSOI/FE exercises, large-scale joint drills, every March since 1994, when Soutb Korea retrieved peacetime control of its troops from the U.S. military. RSOI is a simulation-driven, defense-oriented combined command-post exercise to evaluate the allied forces’ capability to receive forces from bases outside of the country in the case of an emergency on the Korean Peninsula. FE is a joint and combined field training exercise focused on rear area security and stability operations, movement of equipment and war training events.UFL is the CFC’s annual war-fighting command post exercise that began in 1994. The training is designed to exercise, evaluate and improve crisis action measures and procedures for the combined war plans in the defense of South Korea in accordance with joint war scenarios. (Source: Korea Times.) July 20078th U.S. Army staying in Korea? (Jul 2007) According to an unidentified Seoul government source on 7 Jul, the U.S. military has decided to retain its 8th Army headquarters on the peninsula even after South Korea takes over wartime operational control of its armed forces from the United States. The 8th Army has long been the symbol of U.S. military commitment to South Korea, but expectations had been high recently that Washington will withdraw the unit from the peninsula in line with the U.S. military's global-wide troop realignment plan. "The fate of the U.S. 8th Army has recently drawn keen interest over whether it will stay on or leave the peninsula. As far as I know, the U.S. side has determined to continue maintaining the 8th Army headquarters on the peninsula. The name of the unit will also remain intact," said the source, who is well acquainted with the U.S. military. "I understand that Washington has changed its plans and decided to keep the Eighth U.S. Army on the Korean Peninsula, but will reorganize it as a U.S. ground forces command in Korea around 2012,” when wartime operational control is transferred to Korean forces, a military source said Sunday. That would mean the Eighth is reorganized according to Washington’s need to maintain a self-reliant military command in South Korea once the CFC disappears.Speaking on condition of anonymity, the source said the 8th Army, currently an administrative unit, will transform to a war-fighting command to lead American ground troop operations here after the transition of operational control scheduled in 2012. After reorganization, the unit will be attached to a new top U.S. military command in South Korea that will replace the current U.S. Forces Korea command. The new command is tentatively named U.S. KORCOM, he said. However, the USFK said on 7 Jul it had received no official notice from higher authority regarding the decision. "I have no knowledge on that. We are not in a position to confirm it," USFK spokesman Kim Yong-kyu said. (Source: Korea Herald.) (SITE NOTE: Tentative plans include the redeployment of Eighth Army to Hawaii where it will merge with US Army Pacific. US Army Pacific and Eighth Army will then serve as the Army component command of US Pacific Command (PACOM). This is akin to the Army merged command structure (i.e. US Army Europe and Seventh Army) that supports US European Command (EUCOM). (Source: Wikipedia. In the past, there have been denials of this, but US Army Pacific has expanded at Fort Shafter, HI and I Corps has started to move some of its elements into Camp Zama, Japan. According to the Army Transformation Roadmap of 2004, I Corps should transition to its UEx model by 2010. The part of I Corps relocating to Camp Zama will be the headquarters elements to handle the Korean contingency operations. The other parts of I Corps will remain at Fort Lewis ready for global deployments. I Corps base units include approximately 20,000 active-duty soldiers at Fort Lewis, Washington -- including the 3d Bde, 2d ID (Stryker) -- and an equal number of U.S. Army Reserve and National Guard soldiers based in many of the fifty states. Under I Corps at Fort Lewis, Wash., California's 40th Infantry Division (Mechanized) is teamed with the Army's 2nd Infantry Division in Korea, while the Corps also includes three of the Guard's enchanced brigades -- the 116th Armored Cavalry Brigade in Idaho, the 29th Infantry Brigade in Hawaii, and Washington's 81st Infantry Brigade. I Corps is unique among the three continental United States (CONUS) Corps in that it has no assigned active Army divisions in peacetime and is composed of a balance of Active and Reserve base units in peacetime and wartime. It is further unique in that it is under the Combatant Command of U.S. Pacific Command and under the Operational Control of U.S. Army Pacific. As it is CONUS-based, it relies on U.S. Army Forces Command for Title 10 U.S. Code support, or in Joint terminology, is Administratively Controlled (ADCON) to Forces Command. War plans for I Corps include the Defense of Korea or the Defense of Japan. As a U.S. PACOM major operational headquarters, I Corps is designated by CINCPAC as a standing Joint Task Force (JTF) for theater-wide contingencies. The other primary PACOM standing JTF's are 7th Fleet in Yokosuka, Japan, and III MEF in Okinawa, Japan. Thus, I Corps' readiness responsibilities range from conventional Corps roles in a medium-intensity conflict to a full spectrum of missions as a USPACOM JTF. (Source: GlobalSecurity.org.) ) 8th Army Says Relocation Undecided (Jul 2007) The 8th U.S. Army confirmed on 9 Jul it would continue staying on the Korean Peninsula after the planned 2012 turnover of wartime operational control from the United States to Korea. But it has not been decided whether its administrative headquarters will leave the country or not. "The 8th Army will undergo changes to make it a more capable and relevant force here on the peninsula, while adhering to U.S. Army transformation criteria," Lt. Gen. David P. Valcourt, the 8th Army commander, said in a press release. "The future transformation and positioning of 8th Army Main and Operational Command Posts in the Pacific and Korea Areas of Operation will be a function of United States and Republic of Korea Alliance consultative discussions and agreements." "We were never going to leave," said Maj. Jerome Pionk, 8th Army spokesman. "The 8th Army has not been deactivated and will not go anywhere." Pionk said the 8th Army's administrative offices could move out of South Korea as part of a worldwide transformation of the U.S. military, but a decision has not been made. "It will still be 8th Army, but you might have the headquarters flag somewhere else," he said. "From day to day, nothing will look different to normal people." Pionk said U.S. officials never considered moving it. The 8th Army said its headquarters will transform into the Army UEY (Unit of Employment Y) modular design as part of the U.S. military's worldwide transformation. UEY is a new design of U.S. Army headquarters combining current corps and field Army functions. The U.S. military currently has six field Army units worldwide, but plans to reorganize them into five regional Army headquarters (UEY) that will respectively cover the U.S. mainland, the Pacific, Middle East, the Americas and Africa. In line with the changes, the 8th Army's administrative offices could relocate outside South Korea, but its subordinate units will remain intact on the Korean Peninsula, the 8th Army said. However, a decision has not been made yet, it said. The 8th Army maintains various units, such as the 2nd Infantry Division, 19th Sustainment Command, 35th Air Defense Artillery Brigade, 1st Signal Brigade, 501st Military Intelligence Brigade and 18th Medical Command, in South Korea as its subordinates. (Source: Korea Herald and Stars and Stripes.) Eighth US Army to Stay (Jul 2007) The Eighth U.S. Army Command on on 10 Jul said the force will be reorganized but stay in Korea as a deterrent. It was the first time the Eighth Army has broken its silence about its future amid feverish speculation that it could leave. The Eighth will probably be reshaped under a new worldwide U.S. military plan into a “unit of employment”, or UEy for short, which is superior to an army corps. The concept was introduced when the U.S. Army started reorganizing brigades and divisions. The Eighth will apparently take charge of the entire Asia-Pacific region alongside U.S. Pacific Army Command in Hawaii. (SITE NOTE: This is what we've been saying all along. EUSA will combine with US Pacific Army Command in Hawaii under PACOM. What's left in Korea will only handle the follow-ons -- as it does right now.) Eighth Army Commander Lt. Gen. David Valcourt said the Eighth is undergoing changes to make it a “more capable and relevant” force here on the peninsula while adhering to U.S. Army transformation criteria. A senior military source close to the U.S. Forces Korea said, "It is highly likely that the Eighth will stay on the Korean Peninsula as a UEy in the form of a forward operations command, while another UEy will be stationed in Hawaii in the form of a rear support command." The U.S. military currently has field units worldwide, but plans to reorganize them into five regional headquarters (UEy) that will respectively cover the U.S. mainland, the Pacific, central and southern regions, and Africa. With its functions reduced, it now only serves as an administrative support command. (Source: Chosun Ilbo.) S. Korea Seeks Formal End to Korean War (Jul 2007) State-funded think tanks on foreign, defense and North Korean affairs have proposed that South Korea take the initiative in ending the Korean War by proposing a peace treaty on the Korean Peninsula to replace the ceasefire, military sources said Monday. The institutions said the formal end to the armistice treaty signed at the end of the 1950-53 Korean War by the U.S.-led United Nations Command (UNC), North Korea and China should be declared before the Aug. 15 Liberation Day, they said. The three major think tanks on security affairs are the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses (KIDA), the Institute of Foreign Affairs & National Security (IFAN) and the Korea Institute for National Unification (KINU). The proposal was made during a closed-door meeting in May, where officials from the presidential office for national security also attended, the sources said. During the meeting, the participants reached a compromise on a KIDA-proposed four-point process to put a peace regime on the peninsula in place, they said. In the first ``preparation'' stage, South Korea should push for a formal end to the Korean War before Aug. 15, as well as the establishment of a multilateral forum on the peace regime issue and an inter-Korean consultative body on military affairs. (SITE NOTE: This appears as an end-run by the Roh administration to set up an excuse for having an inter-Korea summit by Aug -- or even as late as December. In May when the meeting was held, Roh was desperately seeking ways to arrange a summit in order to somehow cement his place in Korean history. However, Kim Jong-il's heart surgery in Jun (as it was later revealed) put a damper on the inquiries. The Roh administration is reviving it again. Yonhap News on 9 Jul reported that the ROK has begun preparations for an inter-Korean summit that will likely take place this year. "Unless there are any unexpected obstacles, it (the inter-Korean summit) will be possible this year," Lee Hae-chan, who served as Roh's prime minister, said in an interview with the daily Kyunghyang Shinmun. Lee Hae-chan is also running for a Presidential nomination and initiated the inter-Korean summit suggestion as a "representative of the Uri Party" -- though he was in the position of a special Presidential advisor directly under Roh.) A second inter-Korean summit is also high on the agenda in the initial stage. ``South Korea should seize the initiative in the discussions of a peace mechanism on the peninsula, as the country directly concerned, by spearheading the declaration of an end to the Korean War,'' a KIDA researcher who participated in the May meeting said, asking not to be identified. Cheong Wa Dae was wary of speculations about the declaration. ``Nothing has been determined,'' presidential spokesman Cheon Ho-seon said. ``The KIDA's suggestions are merely the opinions of an individual research institute and thus could be studied in the decision-making process.'' North Korea has called for replacing the armistice with a peace treaty but tried to exclude South Korea from peace talks in the past on the grounds that the South did not sign the armistice treaty. In February, however, North Korea and five other participating nations at the six-party nuclear talks agreed to deal with the peace regime in a multilateral framework in parallel with discussions over ways to dismantle the North's nuclear weapons program. The United States is also positive about the peace talks, which it considers an incentive for Pyongyang to pick up the pace of denuclearization aimed at disabling and sealing the North's main nuclear reactor in return for economic assistance and political concessions including the normalization of ties. In the second ``entry'' stage, a committee to deal with the termination of the war is to be set up. The committee will be tasked with supervising the Military Demarcation Line and the Demilitarized Zone between the two Koreas, according to KIDA. The UNC is to play a role as an international peacekeeping organization in the second stage, it said. The North wants the UNC to be dismantled with an end to the war. (SITE NOTE: The "fly in the ointment" is that the UNC is NOT a viable peace-keeping force in Korea. It is more of an administrative entity in monitoring the DMZ. If the UNC is released from administrative duties on the DMZ, it will be swiftly disbanded -- or as a minimum moved to Japan with an "in case" mission for a flare up of Korean hostilities.) The third ``transitional'' stage is focused on completing the dismantlement of North Korean nuclear programs and putting a peace treaty in place. The roles and missions of the peace treaty committee are to be expanded and the UNC is to be replaced with a new international peacekeeping organization, according to the KIDA proposal. (SITE NOTE: There are serious faults in this "plan" as the UNC once removed from the ROK will NOT come back in with a peace-keeping force since a peace regime will be in place by then.) In the last ``peace settlement'' stage, the two Koreas are to begin implementing arms reductions and eventually create a unified military command. (SITE NOTE: This phase could be tricky if the topic of peace reparations for damages inflicted in the Korean War arises -- with both sides justifying its claims for reparations with the other side starting it first.) (Source: Korea Times.) Vershbow: US Prepared to Begin Talks with N.Korea for Peace Regime within Year (Jul 2007) Hankoryeh reported on 11 Jul that Alexander Vershbow said the United States was ready to begin negotiating with the DPRK before the end of 2007 to establish a permanent peace regime on the Korean Peninsula if the nation makes a strategic decision to completely give up its nuclear ambition. August 2007Ulchi-Focus-Lens-07 (Jul 2007) The USFK informed North Korea on 27 Jul of its plan to hold the Ulchi Focus Lens training on Aug. 20-31. It is a computerized command and control exercise to foster the allies' joint defense capability against a possible North Korean attack. North Korea usually denounces the annual exercise, which began in 1975, calling it preparation for a preemptive strike against the communist regime. "Ulchi Focus Lens 2007 is a simulation-driven, command-post exercise that will involve both United States and Republic of Korea forces who are currently stationed here. A small number of U.S. personnel will also travel to Korea to participate," the USFK said in a press release. About 10,000 American troops will join in the exercise, with about half of them to come from outside of Korea, according to the spokesman. "But some 500 key players among the troops from outside Korea will actually be deployed here," he said. The UFL is one of the two main annual joint military drills of the allies, along with the Reception, Staging, Onward Movement, Integration (RSOI) exercise. (Source: Joongang Ilbo.)The USFK expressed concerns for the welfare of the soldiers training in the hottest part of the year and advised caution for heat stress. (Source: Stars and Stripes.) Ulchi Focu Lens will undergo a name change. The RSOI (Reception, Staging, Onward Movement, Integration) command post exercise in the spring will be called ``Key Resolve (KR)'' exercise, while the Ulchi Focus Lens (UFL) exercise in the late summer will be called ``Ulchi-Freedom Guardian (UFG)." (SITE NOTE: The name changes reflect the changing mission of the forces as the ROK assumes war-time control and the USFK moves into a "support" role -- indicating that future exercises will rely more and more on simulations instead of actual deployments. Ulchi Focus Lens was originally combined from the Korean "Ulchi" exercise and the USFK "Focus Lens" exercise in 1975.) Ulchi-Focus Lens Speculation of Delay or Downsize due to Summit (Aug 2007) Seoul is considering delaying or reducing the scale of the annual UFL war game exercise with the United States in order to avoid raising tensions with the North before this month's inter-Korean summit, several sources said 9 Aug in Washington. (SITE NOTE: This is as a result of the surprise 28-30 Aug summit between Roh Moo-hyun and Kim Jong-il announced on 8 Aug. The North has already called the UFL a "provocation" and the Roh administration does not want any hiccups to affect the summit. The summit meeting of the two Koreas has been welcomed by the nations involved in the six-party nuclear talks, but Washington stressed on 9 Aug that the focus on the nuclear talks should not be lost. There are still "questions that need to be answered in terms of whether or not North Korea has truly made that strategic decision to give up its nuclear programs. The Bush administration was not convinced that Pyongyang had actually committed itself to giving up its nuclear ambitions. The United States remains the key player in the six-party talks, because North Korea wants to normalize relations with Washington as a step toward greater international legitimacy. Official recognition by Washington would carry both economic and security benefits for North Korea. Washington wants the North to come clean on an alleged uranium-based nuclear program, while it also wants all nuclear weapons scrapped. Pyongyang has only expressed a willingness to close down nuclear facilities.)One of the options discussed was to hold only part of the joint exercise, while the Defense Ministry is arguing that the drill should be held as planned. Other government agencies are opposed to holding a full-scale exercise. The USFK public affairs stated that no word had been received dealing with a UFL curtailment yet. (SITE NOTE: Both the ROK Ministry of Defense (MND) and the USFK know that to stop such a large commitment of forces at this late date is impossible. The forces committed from the CONUS or other parts of the world cannot be stopped at this date. When asked whether the exercise would be scaled back, Unification Minister Lee Jae-joung said the issue would be discussed later. However, concerns are the "later" is "NOW.") The exercise, Ulji Focus Lens, involved 8,000 U.S. troops and an undisclosed number of Korean soldiers last year. It is one of two major joint war game exercises held annually between the United States and South Korea. The drill, scheduled to be held from Aug. 20 to 31, simulates an armed confrontation with the North. It has been conducted since 1975 and involves real troops and computer simulations to map responses to different battlefield scenarios. (SITE NOTE: There are precedents for scaling back the UFL. In 2000, UFL-00 was scaled down to avoid irritating North Korea. The South Korean military did not send as many reserve troops to Ulchi Focus Lens. A large tank crossing on the Han River in the middle of Seoul also was canceled. in the wake of a successful summit June 13-15 between South Korean President Kim Dae-jung and North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, the two countries sought to reduce tensions. However, note that this was AFTER the summit. (Source: GlobalSecurity.org.) By UFL-03, the joint drill numbers had dropped from 14,000 US troops stationed in Korea and 56,000 ROK troops to some 6,500 U.S. troops in Korea (with an equal number in outside Korea) and 8,000 South Korean soldiers deployed in South Korea, along with troops sent here specifically for the exercise. Roughly 14,500 U.S. forces personnel total participated in UFL-03. UFL-2007 will involve about 10,000 American troops in the exercise, with about half of them from outside of Korea -- while some 500 key players from outside Korea will actually be deployed to Korea. The numbers of ROK involved was not announced. The estimated total number will be 10,000 US forces with around 56,000 ROK troops.)As of 12 Aug, the exercise was scheduled to go on as planned according to the Ministry of Defense and the USFK. USFK spokesman David Oten said Friday there is no planned change to the exercise dates, times or participants. A spokeswoman for South Korean president Roh Moo-hyun echoed Oten's statement. (Source: Stars and Stripes.)  Protesters stage a rally denouncing a South Korea-U.S. military exercise, "Ulchi Focus Lens," in front of Korean and United States War Command Center TANGO, Theater Air, Navy, Ground Operation, in Seongnam, south of Seoul on 20 Aug 2007, South Korea and the United States kicked off their annual joint military drill on Monday as scheduled despite strong protest from North Korea ahead of a summit between the rival Koreas. (20 Aug 2007) (Tongil News) Seoul Delays Military Exercises for Inter-Korean Summit (Aug 2007) South Korea has decided to postpone two drills that were to form part of joint military exercises with the U.S. known as the Ulchi Focus Lens. The two are a field maneuver exercise and an emergency preparation and war mobilization drill. Seoul wants to postpone them until September-October. As a result, the joint exercises will focus only on computer-based war games. The Ministry of Defense announced it is postponing the Hwarang Exercise, a corps-level field maneuver exercise for the South Korean Army that was scheduled to be carried out simultaneously with the joint drills, until after September. "To create an atmosphere for a successful inter-Korean summit, we rescheduled the Korean armed forces' own field training exercise and field maneuvering exercise until after the summit." In the Hwarang Exercise, civilians, government officials and the military in the rear area jointly prepare for an emergency. Until last year, the exercise was carried out twice annually -- in spring and autumn - independently of the UFL exercises. But to improve efficiency, military authorities had decided to carry it out alongside the UFL for the first time this year. "We had intended to carry out the exercise along with the UFL exercises to enhance its training efficiency," an officer said. "If it is carried out separately from the UFL once again, the effect will be considerably reduced. In a press release the same day, the Emergency Planning Commission also announced its decision to postpone the Chungmu Plan until October. It is aimed at checking if personnel and materiel can be mobilized smoothly so that government officials can support military operations. Presidential spokesman Cheon Ho-seon said, "The decisions aim at creating a proper atmosphere for the inter-Korean summit and taking the summit partner into consideration." (Source: Chosun Ilbo.) (SEE Mar 2007: Large FTX for details of the Mar 2007 Large Scale FTX and the problems associated with this exercise -- and its training effectiveness.) "Although the summit was deferred, we still plan to hold the Hwarang Exercise after September," Defense Ministry spokesman Kim Hyung gi told reporters. However, criticism is rising that South Korea actually scaled down the UFL exercise, contrasting with the confirmation that no changes would be made to the joint drills. Critics say the delayed field drills were a crucial part of this year's UFL. This year, South Korea had planned to combine the field drills with UFL for the first time, as part of preparations for the transfer of wartime operational control to Seoul from Washington in 2012, they said. UAV crashes near Casey (Aug 2007) A remote-controlled plane crashed near Camp Casey on Thursday night during what U.S. Forces Korea officials described as a routine training mission. The Shadow 200 Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle’s engine probably failed soon after its 10:30 p.m. takeoff. The cause of the accident remained under investigation, according to a USFK news release. The Army suspended Shadow flights in South Korea in October 2003 when one of the planes, which had been acquired weeks before, crashed by a river near Dongducheon. Flights resumed the following month. As of 24 Aug, there was no plan to ground the UAVs. The Army routinely flies unmanned aerial vehicles in South Korea and avoids flying the planes in populated areas, coordinating flights with local authorities and flight controllers. The Shadow 200 is manufactured by AAI Corp., a Hunt Valley, Md.-based company. It's built from composite materials and powered by a 38-horsepower rotary gasoline engine. In its standard configuration, the 11.2-foot plane weighs 327 pounds without fuel and has a wingspan of about 14 feet. It can carry 45 to 60 pounds of payload, which usually includes surveillance equipment, according to the AAI Web site. The remote control maximum range is nearly 80 miles and the plane can fly up to 19,000 feet, according to AAI. Its operations are generally conducted from 8,000 to 10,000 feet above ground level during the day and 6,000 to 8,000 feet above ground level at night. (Source: globalsecurity.org.) Additions to Andersen: 554th RED HORSE (Aug 2007) Lt. Gen. Chip Utterback, 13th Air Force boss, caught up on the details of the 36th Contingency Response Group's planned expansion and the relocation of two Pacific Air Force contingency training courses when he visited the 36th at Andersen AFB, Guam, reports A1C Dainel Owen. The 554th RED HORSE is moving from Osan AB, Korea, to Andersen to merge with the 36th CRG. The 644th Combat Communications Squadron will stand up to join the 36th CRG soon. The squadron is projected to have two complete teams-growing from 16 to 75 personnel-by late December 2007. And, the bare-base build-up Silver Flag course at Kadena AB, Japan, is set to move to Andersen, as is the Commando Warrior ground defense school at Osan. (Source: AFA Magazine Online (27 Aug 2007).) September 2007U.S., Japan, Australia push triangular alliance (Sep 2007) The Korea Herald had an article on the movement towards a trilateral alliance. This is not news as the US-Japan-Australia have participated in increasing numbers of exercises from the PSI Anti-terrorism to support of Iraq-Iran forces. The article stated:As the United States, Japan and Australia are expediting moves to build a trilateral military alliance, South Korean experts are concerned that Seoul may be getting sidelined in an evolving security partnership in the Pacific. The leaders of the three countries are scheduled to attend a security summit on 8 Sep on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. Australian Prime Minister John Howard on Sunday said that his summit with U.S. President George W. Bush and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will deal with common security issues. He called the meeting "an expression of the commonality of interests that the three Pacific democracies have." They are also expected to discuss North Korea's nuclear disarmament and China's growing military power, reports said. "Washington is seeking to construct a trilateral strategic security relationship in the Asia-Pacific region among the economically developed countries of the United States, Japan and Australia, which share common values of freedom, democracy and market economies," said professor Yun Duk-min of the Institute for Foreign Affairs and National Security. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the trio have strengthened their joint responsibility in regard to international security through such operations as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Since last March, the U.S., Japanese and Australian foreign ministers have held a series of strategic talks. The three countries have no formal three-way alliance arrangement yet, but are working on expanding their bilateral security agreements to encompass trilateral mandates. In line with the moves, Japan and Australia recently made the Japan-Australia Joint Security Declaration, which essentially embodies comprehensive cooperation on security matters, such as measures regarding terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and humanitarian aid. The United States and Australia will also reportedly outline a new security agreement later this week to allow the Australian military more access to secret U.S. weapons technology. U.S. Ambassador to Australia Robert McCallum said the development would allow U.S. and Australian forces to cooperate more closely on military operations from the Middle East to the Pacific. The strengthened trilateral security cooperation between those three countries has the purpose of checking China and jointly tackling the spread of terrorism and WMDs, experts say. ... China has long worried that the triangular alliance is targeted to frustrate its ambitions, and has sought enhanced military ties with Russia and Central Asian countries. The three allies are also seeking to expand their alliance to include India as a fourth axis covering the India Ocean. Last month, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe proposed forming a coalition of democracies, including the United States, Japan, Australia and India. The proposal appears to be a countermeasure against the rapid emergence of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, an alliance of China, Russia and Central Asian countries, analysts said. Such a U.S. alliance plan deepens Seoul's concerns that it is losing ground in Washington's strategy in the Asia-Pacific. ... But there are other factors to consider. In the 2006 U.S. Quadrennial Defense Review, the United States designated four strategic regions in the world where it should deter conflicts: Northeast Asia, the East Asian littoral region (which refers to Pacific shore nations and maritime defense), the Middle East, and Europe. The mandate for Northeast Asia was allotted to U.S. forces in South Korea and Japan. Meanwhile, for the East Asian littoral region, Washington is pursuing a triangular alliance with Japan and Australia. South Korea's plan to build a blue-water (deep sea) navy is part of its efforts to play a role in the littoral region. To extend the radius of its operations, the South Korean Navy is planning to build a strategic mobile fleet, and construct a naval base on the southern island of Jeju. ... Experts say Washington may want to build a trilateral alliance with Seoul and Tokyo for its Northeast Asian strategy, which is seen as an optimal framework for the trio to maintain regional security. But most experts rebutted the idea as unfeasible, citing strained relations between South Korea and Japan. ... Differing views on China will also impede the triangular military ties, experts said. The United States and Japan are wary of the rise of China, but South Korea can't help but to at least partly accept China's emergence due to its geographic location and China's influence on North Korea, they said. During President Bush's first term, the Bush administration planned to upgrade its alliance with Japan to cover the "arc of instability" region ranging from Central Asia and the Middle East to the Indian Ocean. Under the plan, a U.S. Army UEY (Unit of Employment Y) would be located in Japan to lead UEXs (Unit of Employment X) in South Korea and other Pacific region locations. As a result, South Korea's UEX would join the main U.S.-Japan alliance as an affiliate. The United States and Japan have been strengthening their almost half-century alliance, in conjunction with a U.S. troop realignment in Japan. The U.S. Forces Japan plans to reshuffle the presence of its 50,000 troops to cope with new security challenges in the East Asian region. The USFJ transformation is also intertwined with its move toward establishing a more united command structure with Japan's Self-Defense Forces, which will become the "axis of the U.S. power projection in East Asia to maintain regional stability and security," according to a document from a U.S. consulate office. Experts say the U.S. plan was designed with Taiwan and North Korea in mind, and was also the basis of U.S. strategy to contain China's rise. The United States aimed to encircle China through alliances with China's neighbors under the containment policy. The U.S. military is already deployed in Central Asia, west of China, in the nations of Afghanistan and Kazakhstan. The United States also sought to enhance military cooperation with India, Vietnam and Mongolia for this strategic goal, according to the experts. However, the United States scrapped the plan in the face of opposition from Seoul and Tokyo. The Seoul government was concerned about the South Korea-U.S. alliance's subordination to the U.S.-Japan alliance. It also refused to accept the U.S. strategy to contain China. Meanwhile, Tokyo protested, citing the so-called "Far East" clause that limits the mandate of the U.S.-Japan alliance to Japan and its waters. "Thus, the second-term Bush administration ameliorated its hostility a bit in dealing with China," Cho Seong-ryoul said. The United States also changed its plan for locating a UEY in Japan, he said. Instead, it decided to transform the 8th Army headquarters stationed in South Korea into a UEY to cover the Pacific region, according to Cho. The U.S. military currently has six field army units worldwide. In accordance with the Global (Defense) Posture Review, it now plans to reorganize them into five regional army headquarters that will cover the U.S. mainland, the Pacific, the Middle East, the Americas and Africa. The U.S. military has not yet decided whether to relocate the 8th Army headquarters, but Daegu or Hawaii are being considered as possible locations for the unit. "In the new plan, the United States appears to have restored South Korea's position in its regional strategy. The decision has partly addressed Seoul's concerns that an upgraded U.S.-Japan alliance would subordinate the Korea-U.S. alliance," Cho said. Meanwhile, South Korea needs to expand its military cooperation, although a formal military alliance is impossible, experts say. They note the organic connection between U.S. Forces Korea and U.S. Forces Japan under the U.S. defense commitment to the Korean Peninsula. If hostility breaks out on the peninsula, the current joint war scenario of Seoul and Washington requires mobilization of U.S. troops in Japan and logistical support from USFJ forces. The U.S. military maintains the 8th Army and 7th Air Force in South Korea, and operates the U.S. 5th Air Force, the 7th Fleet and the III Marine Expeditionary Force in Japan. Currently, the United Nations Command in Korea links U.S. troop operations in South Korea and Japan. The UNC, a 16-member unified command structure for the multinational military forces supporting South Korea, maintains seven rear bases in Japan. In case of fighting on the peninsula, the UNC is to operate as a "force provider" for the defense of Korea by using the forces of member nations. The rear bases are located on Honshu (Camp Zama, Yokota Air Base, and Yokosuka Naval Base), Kyushu (Sasebo Naval Base), and Okinawa (Kadena Air Base, Futenma Marine Corps Air Station, White Beach Naval Facility). The use of the UNC bases is governed by a status of forces agreement between the UNC and the Japanese government. However, if a peace system is established on the Korean Peninsula, the UNC would be disbanded. "Discussion about the creation of a peace system is expected to loom given the recent developments in the six-party nuclear talks. If the UNC is disbanded, the United States will lose a strategic loop that connects the U.S. Forces Korea and U.S. Forces Japan," said Cho Seong-ryoul. "The deployment of USFJ forces to South Korea in case of contingencies will be hampered with the loss of the UNC," Cho said. Cha Du-hyeon of the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses also agreed that Seoul should quickly fasten ties with Washington, ahead of future dismantlement of the UNC. He also stressed that Seoul and Tokyo need to appropriately coordinate their bilateral security cooperation. (Source: Korea Herald.) New Chikdo WISS Bombing System Ready for Use (Sep 2007) The Korean Air Force and the U.S. Air Force plan to start using a new scoring system built on a bombing range on the island of Jikdo in Gunsan, North Jeolla Province. The Korean Air Force said on 4 Sep that testing was finished on the so-called weapons impact scoring system (WISS), which had been approved for construction by the city of Gunsan. The two air forces will begin using the system on 5 Sep 2007. While the WISS was under construction, the Korean Air Force exercised at four other bombing ranges in Korea. The U.S. Air Force, however, had to fly to Guam and Alaska to meet its training needs following the closure of the Maehyang-ni bombing range in Aug. 2005. The Jikdo WISS consists of a mark about ten meters in diameter, two steel towers with cameras, a transmission tower and solar power facilities. The system pinpoints the impact point of each practice bomb, and the cameras send the video to monitors at an air base.  Chikdo WISS (Sep 2007) (Kunsan Govt) The Korean Air Force originally planned to break ground on the WISS last December and complete it by the first half of this year. Extreme weather on the uninhabited island delayed the construction. Gunsan approved the WISS on 31 Aug on the condition that its use can be curtailed by the government at any time if promised regional projects are not executed. In addition, environmental conditions must be checked by the Ministry of Defense and reported to the public, and residents must be allowed to participate in the studies. The new scoring system cost W2.6 billion. The Korean Air Force and the U.S. Air Force plan to use it on a seven to three ratio. (Source: Chosun Ilbo.) (SITE NOTE: Kunsan City civic relations is important from the standpoint that Chikdo Range -- about 70km off the coast of Kunsan -- is controlled by the Kunsan City government. The use of the range -- and the conditions of usage -- are in negotiations with the city. Kunsan City approved the use of Chikdo, but some of the conditions were very restrictive. In the past, civic activists have sought to block the USAF usage of the range completely. In 2006, then 7AF Commander threatened the removal of USAF units from Korea if the problem was not resolved. When Kunsan finally agreed to the range, some of the stipulations were hard to accept. First bombing runs altitudes were increased to 1400 feet and the safety zone was reduced to 5km from the island. In addition, the 7:3 ratio was supposed to be renegotiated, but it appears to have not been done.)USFK Needs More Ranges (Sep 2007) U.S. pilots will begin training next week on an improved South Korean bombing range, as both countries continue discussing whether South Korea will provide more ranges for U.S. troops stationed there, a 7th Air Force spokeswoman said. “Two ranges, each with unique limitations, are not enough to cover all of our training requirements,” Lt. Col. René White said. The improved range on Chikdo Island, 40 miles off South Korea’s west coast, has a new Weapons Impact Scoring System, which uses cameras to measure how far simulated weapons land from their targets. South Korea spent about $5.2 million to install the system and make improvements to the range, a South Korean Ministry of National Defense spokesman said. South Korean pilots were scheduled to begin using the air-to-ground bombing range at Chikdo on 5 Sep, but flights were grounded due to bad weather. South Korean airmen will use the facility 70 percent of the time, and U.S. airmen will train there the remaining time. U.S. Air Force officials said American pilots will use Chikdo on all flight training days, but the amount of flying time has not been determined. (SITE NOTE: Originally the WISS system was to cost 2 million, then 3 million -- but now the final cost is $5.2 million. The ROK states it spent 2.6 billion won (about $3 million), but the US states it was $5.2 billion. Something is not right. It may have been that the ROK government wanted a "cheap" system, but the US demanded that an approved US system be installed. With the dropping US:won exchange rate, the cost skyrocketed. It may also have been that the US kicked in the extra $2 million to make up the deficit as it had demanded the US system. But now nobody's talking.) White said the U.S. Air Force still needs other ranges to meet its training needs, because each range is different and pilots need to train over different landscapes. “It’s not about a specific number of ranges, it’s about expanding our access to training ranges which helps accommodate our varied mission requirements,” she said. Chikdo’s new weapons scoring system comes two years after South Korea closed its Kooni Range Complex. Chikdo is smaller than Kooni and, because of its size, pilots cannot use live weapons there. Several high-ranking U.S. officials, including U.S. Forces Korea commander Gen. B.B. Bell, said the closure left U.S. troops without adequate training facilities. (SITE NOTE: Kooni range was actually closed long before 2005 -- but used it only for strafing runs and not for bombing. The ROK government abetted the NGO group protests by accepting to pay a court judgement on the "damage" to the people living near the range. The Green Korea NGO group is the main protest group over supposed environmental damage.) “One thing is for sure: We are not going to allow American aircrews to go into a war, or to propose that they can deter a war, unless they’re trained and ready,” Bell told Stripes in July 2006. “If I can’t get access to an air-to-ground range, I’m going to have to do something.” Since the Kooni complex’s closure, USFK pilots have been training at a firing range at Pilsung, which has a weapons scoring system similar to the one at Chikdo, and at ranges off the peninsula, including in Japan. South Korean officials selected the weapons scoring system, but USFK was involved in “integrating the design of the range” for its use, Air Force officials said. South Korea hired a U.S. company to install the system at Chikdo, but it is being maintained by South Korea without any U.S. military involvement. (Source: Stars and Stripes.) Shorted, Again: AFA (Sep 2007) According to the According to the Air Force Association, the US Pacific Command master plan for infrastructure failed again to mention the little problem the US Air Force has been having in South Korea, namely getting a suitable air-to-surface training range, according to a newly released Government Accountability Office GAO-07-1015 Defense Infrastructure report (Sept 2007). Last year, this problem prompted then-Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld to threaten to remove USAF forces from the peninsula. The good news is that GAO found that US officials believe the training problem will be overcome this year. Still, as it recommended last year, GAO believes the situation was worth a mention in the PACOM master plan, considering 7th Air Force "may be unable to maintain combat capability in the long term." Go figure." (Source: Air Force Association Daily Report, 13 Sep 2007) On p25 it stated, "We have previously recommended that overseas regional commands address residual value issues and that PACOM explain how it plans to address existing training limitations in our prior reports. We believe that identifying these issues would make Congress aware of potential challenges to obtaining residual value and to training U.S. forces in South Korea, which may affect facility requirements and funding in this country. Even though our prior recommendations have not been fully addressed, we continue to believe that they have merit and that Congress would benefit from disclosure of this information." The report deals mainly with the Master Plan for relocation to Guam, but it provides a recommendation that the "regional command" (USFK) should seek compensation for bases returned under the LPP process for the US capital investment in the bases. As it stands now the bases are returned "as is" with all infrastructure intact at no cost to the ROK. However, the remediation of pollution needs to be addressed. Dealing with the range training problems and the range deficiencies, it stated on p24, "Second, while PACOM’s master plan provided details on other challenges, it did not describe the challenges the command faces in addressing training limitations for the Seventh Air Force in South Korea, although senior officials told us that these limitations could cause the United States to pursue alternatives, such as training in other locations, downsizing, or relocating, which could affect overseas basing plans. "Specifically, we found that the PACOM master plan did not point out that the Seventh Air Force in South Korea may be unable to maintain combat capability in the long term because of a lack of adequate air-to-surface ranges, according to senior Air Force and USFK officials. For decades, the Government of South Korea has attempted to relocate the Koon-Ni range, which had served as the primary air-to-ground range for the Seventh Air Force. The air and ground range management of the Koon-Ni training range was transferred to the Government of South Korea, which closed the range in August 2005. "While there is an agreement with the Government of South Korea to train at other ranges, according to senior Air Force and USFK officials, the other ranges do not provide electronic scoring capabilities necessary to meet the Air Force’s air-to-surface training requirements and there is difficultly in scheduling these ranges. As a result, the Air Force has been using ranges in Japan and Alaska to meet its training requirements, which results in additional transportation costs to the U.S. government. In May 2007, officials said that some progress had been made in addressing the Air Force’s training challenges in South Korea and that they expected the needed upgrades to be completed by mid-2007." (SITE NOTE: The Chikdo range WISS system was completed in Sep 2007, but Kunsan City government continued to state that if the promised aid from the ROK government is not delivered, it will shut down the range. In addition, it stated that environmental groups will have a say in the operation of the range through environmental impact studies.) Kunsan Air Base to expand by 315 acres (Jun-Sep 2007) On 6 Jun the Stars and Stripes reported that South Korean officials said they hope they won't see the types of violent protests at Kunsan Air Base that have at times plagued plans to expand Camp Humphreys in Pyeongtaek. But the potential is there, a South Korean ministry official with the U.S. Forces Korea relocation business division acknowledged. Pyeongtaek protester Rev. Moon Jung-hyun's brother, Moon Gyu-hyun, is forming another protest group, he said. "We are very concerned that hard-liners aggressively involved in the anti-Pyeongtaek expansion movement could come here (to Kunsan) to set off another anti-relocation movement again," the ministry official said. Yoon Chul-soo, the leader of a Kunsan civic group, said the expansion would upset his members. "This is an ambitious plan of USFK wanting the entire city of Kunsan," Yoon said. "It is going to become the second Pyeongtaek crisis." Kunsan residents have been holding small, nonviolent protests outside the base gates regarding a nearby targeting range on a regular basis this year, but haven't made relocation plans the target of their ire at this point, officials said. U.S. Forces Korea and South Korea are planning a large expansion of Kunsan Air Base. A final decision on what will fill that expanded base has not been made, a USFK spokesman said Monday. South Korean Ministry of Defense officials, however, expect two Army helicopter battalions to move there, and an Army Corps of Engineers Web site mentions past planning for such a move. The 8th Fighter Wing currently is using South Korean relocation funds to build a fence around land bordering the base, USFK spokesman David Oten said. Koreans plan protest outside Kunsan (Sep 2007) About 35 South Korean civic groups are planning a 8 Sep protest outside Kunsan Air Base, according to local police and U.S. military officials. The groups are protesting a planned expansion of the U.S. air base and the 10th anniversary of one of the group's weekly Wednesday protests outside Kunsan. The groups claim they'll have 1,000 protesters but South Korean police said about 500 protesters are expected between 2 and 7 p.m. (SITE NOTE: In truth the Wednesday protests are simply a means of tying up traffic and on inclement weather days, they never showed up. However, the riot police and Security Forces had to show up. It is more of a joke that even Kunsan residents don't pay attention to as it is based on the farmers around the base who want the land to be removed from the restricted zone they can sell the land for high prices. Even in this instance, the KNP are not really giving it much credibility.) If the weather is good, police said, protesters are expected to march along the base's coastal fence line. If it rains, however, they are expected to stage the protest at Kunsan's main gate. A warning posted on the U.S. Forces Korea Web site says about 2,400 riot-control police are to deploy for the protest, but South Korean police said a final determination had not been made as of late 5 Sep. Korean Ministry of National Defense officials have said they fear the Kunsan Air Base expansion would bring violent protests similar to those in Pyeongtaek over the Camp Humphreys expansion last year. But during a phone interview Wednesday, ministry officials said they don't think the weekend's protest will be anything like those he feared, despite the fact that the Rev. Moon Jung-hyun — a central figure in the Pyeongtaek protests — will lead the groups.The Kunsan residents, he said, have long wanted to vacate the area. "The only question with it is how much they would be compensated," he said. The Pyeongtaek protesters, however, fought not to leave the land they farmed. (Source: Stars and Stripes.) (SITE NOTE: Not much has been heard of the Rev Moon Jung-hyun, head of the anti-war NGO group, lately. He has been a firebrand radical of Kunsan since the 1970s. However, he left the local area after the MDS (missile defense system protests) and headed to Seoul to protest the anti-war causes dealing deploying the troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. He then shifted his residence to Daechuri when the protests started there. He seems much frailer now as he limps on his cane. Towards the end of the Pyeongtaek (Daechuri) protests, he was seen less and less. He seems to have been supplanted in the activist leadership of the pan-Korea protest movements by Rev. Han Sang-ryul, part of the Solidarity for Peace and Reunification of Korea and active participant in any anti-US protest.) October 2007USFK Asks ROK to Pay More for RSOI (Oct 2007) The Hankyoreh Shinmun (hangul) reported that USFK asked Korea to pay twice as much for the RSOI and UFL joint training exercises this year, but when the ROK military refused, USFK reduced the number of workstations alloted to the ROK for the exercises.Since the exercises are primarily computer wargames, reducing the number of workstations in fact means reducing the participation of the ROK military in the exercises. Reportedly, the demand that Korea double its contribution for the exercises was made at talks earlier this year. The USFK side noted during talks that Korea accounted for 47$ of the user cost of the exercises, but paid only 24%. Korea refused to boost its contribution to the desired level, and USFK notified the ROK military it would be getting fewer computers this year. (Source: .) (SITE NOTE: See ROK C4I Systems on Track -- but does it work? for the ROK latest on its C4I "fixes.") 15th Security Policy Initiative Talks Held (Oct 2007) Working level military talks were held to discuss the transfer of the UNC mission to the ROK. The UNC is empowered to allow people to transit the DMZ as part of the mandate to oversee the 1953 Armistice Agreement. But the multinational command is tied up with a heavy administrative workload due to the heavy traffic headed to Kaesong and the Gumgang Tourist Center. Supposedly the size of vehicles and increase in people crossing the DMZ is creating a problem. 6.686 vehicles crossed the DMZ last year, a 38 percent increase from 2005. During the talks, both sides discussed preparatory measures for the transfer of the UNC role. The progress on the movement to Pyeongtaek at Camp Humphreys was also discussed. The UNC transfer is targetted for next year. The results of the talks will be reported at the 39th Security Consultative Meeting to be held on 6-7 Nov. (SITE NOTE: When the Kaesong area was developed, the UNC-ROK stand off over crossing the border was handled by a "slight of hand" documentation to reduce the paperwork. The ROK Unification Ministry presents the UNC with a list of individuals crossing the DMZ and the UNC rubber-stamps the approval to fudge on the Armistice Agreement specifications. The bottomline is that if you are still in a state of war, why are you crossing into enemy territory to work?) There was the obligatory tiny demonstration in the rain saying "Stop the SPI Talks", but no one paid any attention except the Tongil News. The UNC issue was raised by Gen Bell in Jan 2007 and will be a topic of discussion at the SCM in Nov -- along with the cost-sharing issues. The two countries have a Special Measures Agreement, under which South Korea pays the United States a set amount for such costs as contracts and wages for South Korean employees who work on U.S. bases. American Ambassador Jackson McDonald and Kim Byong-gi, of the South Korean Ministry of National Defense International Cooperation Office, finished two days of discussions on 24 Oct about extending the agreement when it expires at the end of 2008. Under the current cost-sharing agreement, South Korea is providing approximately $789 million for 2007 and $810 million in 2008 -- which the US claims is still not a 50-50 share portion. November 2007More billets means more families can join soldiers in South Korea (Nov 2007) USFK commander Gen. B.B. Bell has nearly doubled the amount of accompanied billets in South Korea, meaning more than 5,600 troops now will be able to bring their families with them while serving in South Korea. The move is historic — for more than five decades, South Korea has been considered an unaccompanied duty station, meaning most families stayed stateside during soldiers’ one-year tours on the peninsula. Bell signed a memo on Aug. 20 that converted 2,823 billets to the accompanied status beginning Oct. 1. That raised the accompanied slots from 2,930 to 5,653 out of about 29,000 billets in South Korea.“This is a real and measurable move away from unaccompanied one-year family separations — which have been our norm here in Korea since the end of the war — to three-year family accompanied tours,” Bell said during a speech Friday on Knight Field to announce the restructuring of the Army’s medical community in South Korea. Increasing the number of command sponsorships to enhance force stability and diminish stress on families is something Bell has addressed since taking command in South Korea in February 2006. USFK deputy director of personnel Lt. Col. Alan Bernard told Stripes on Friday that the goal obviously couldn’t be accomplished overnight. Infrastructure and logistical concerns had to be addressed before the command could accommodate the influx of people, he said. “Of course, the challenge is to meter the increase instead of throwing open the flood gates,” Bernard said. Bernard was a member of the team assigned to address issues such as educational and medical facilities that would be needed. Bell addressed some of those concerns during Friday’s speech, saying he “directed the immediate construction of additional school space here in Yongsan Garrison to accommodate up to 500 additional children in our schools here, effective with the start of next fall’s school year. (Source: Stars and Stripes.) (SITE NOTE: What is interesting is that this was done just before the SCM where the increased billets will have a direct relationship to the ROK providing housing and thus increasing their cost-sharing.) SCM: Review of OPCON transfer, base relocation at defense talks (Nov 2007) ROK-US defense chiefs on 7 Oct were to review the alliance between the two nations, as South Korea seeks more independence from the U.S. The yearly Security Consultative Meeting (SCM) comes less than a month before rare inter-Korean defense ministerial talks will be held in Pyongyang under an agreement reached at last month's inter-Korean summit. "We will explain the significance of last month's inter-Korean summit and the upcoming inter-Korean defense ministers' meeting, in light of the expectation that they will facilitate the advancement of North-South relations and the resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue," the Defense Ministry said in a press release. To that end, the two sides will discuss the importance of closer mutual cooperation, it added. During their first meeting in Washington in February, Gates and Kim reached a deal on the transfer of wartime operational control (OPCON) of South Korean troops from Washington to Seoul in 2012. In June, the two sides signed a joint action plan on the agreement. This year's SCM, the 29th in its kind, is likely to focus on reviewing the plan for the OPCON transfer and the future role of the United Nations Command (UNC). Also to be discussed is ongoing work to consolidate U.S. bases in Seoul and other areas into two hub compounds in Pyeongtaek, 70 km south of Seoul, and Daegu, 300 km south of the capital, they added. In addition, South Korea plans to ask the U.S. to sell to it the U.S.'s Global Hawk advanced surveillance aircraft that is restricted in sales by the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). The MTCR bans the sale of the unmanned aerial vehicle, which is considered a delivery system for weapons of mass destruction. (SITE NOTE: Chances are slim -- primarily because of the fear of technology leaks from the ROK -- and the reluctance of Russia as part of the MTCR.) "The defense ministers of the two nations will focus largely on reviewing the alliance-related agreements already in place, rather than trying to reach a new deal at this week's talks," a source privy to the SCM said. (Source: Yonhap News.) The obligatory protests with "Gates Get Out"; "Hands Off our Land" and "No SCM" signs appeared with small groups of anti-war factions on 6 Nov. Besides a few incidents where vocal protestors had to be physically hauled off, the protests were peaceful. (Source: Tongil News.) Other protests targetted Adm Mullen, US Head of the JCS, who was also attending the MCM (Military Committee Meeting) on 6 Nov. Chosun Ilbo on 7 Nov reported that the ROK agreed with the US that military threats from the DPRK like the buildup of conventional weapons remain and vowed to deter a war on the Korean Peninsula and maintain stability in the Northeast Asian region through their joint defense system. In the 29th bilateral Military Committee Meeting at the Defense Ministry in Seoul, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Kim Kwan-jin reached the agreement with his visiting US counterpart Adm. Michael Mullen. They also vowed to work together for the smooth transfer of wartime operational control of Korean troops to Seoul. Results of SCM (Nov 2007) Gates, a former CIA director, said it is too early to conclude that the North's military threats have eased, although the communist nation has taken initial steps to abandon its nuclear program. The South Korean defense minister agreed with Gates on the issue of North Korean threats, saying Seoul has no intelligence showing that they have decreased. In a joint communique released after the press conference, they also said "North Korea's continued development of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, along with the danger of the proliferation, were a challenge to the ROK-U.S. Alliance." Kim and Gates also emphasized the need to maximize the two nations' joint war readiness amid the "successful readjustment" of their alliance. While reaffirming Washington's commitment to the security of the Korean Peninsula, Gates indicated that the number of American troops here will be flexible. Currently, about 28,000 U.S. soldiers are stationed in South Korea, and the number will be reduced to 25,000 by the end of next year. "The level of our troops will depend on the security situation," Gates said. It will be decided by the joint appraisal with South Korea, he added. The secretary also tried to quell worries over a possible change in the schedule to hand over wartime operational control (OPCON) of South Korean troops to Seoul in 2012. The request for increasing the ROK priority under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program was turned down, though the Secretary of Defense voiced his support for legislation introduced in Congress in July to upgrade the ROK classification under the FMS. The increase in status would guaranteed improved speed in procurement with US guarantees on quality. The stated reason for the reluctance was the relevant laws would need revision -- such as overseas support laws and export control laws. As such the ROK remains as a third-tier "Major Non-NATO ally" along with Thailand, Philippines and Egypt. (Source: Yonhap News.) "The Minister and the Secretary reviewed the progress since the ROK-US Ministerial Meeting held on February 23, 2007, where the two countries agreed to complete the transition of wartime operational control on April 17, 2012. Both sides praised the substantial and significant progress that has been made towards implementation since the ROK Chairman of Joint Chief of Staff and Senior United States Military Officer Assigned to Korea, representing the US Chairman of Joint Chief of Staff, agreed upon the Strategic Transition Plan (STP) on June 28, 2007." The US will continue to provide "significant bridging capabilities" until the ROK achieves "full self-defense capabilities." Both sides pledged to meet the agreed upon "benchmarks and timelines regarding the transition." (SITE NOTE: Conservatives wish to delay the date and expect the next president to renegotiate the timeline.) On the future of the United Nations Command, which monitors the cease-fire that ended the Korean War, Gates said a road map for the Armistice Maintenance Responsibility (AMR) is in the process of being worked out and South Korea will assume the responsibility for maintaining the armistice before 2012. (SITE NOTE: UNC responsibility transfer is expected to start in 2008. The two countries will readjust the duties by next year and the UNC will gradually hand them over to the South Korean Army between 2009 and April 2012. The duties include issuing entry permits for the DMZ, investigation of accidents in the DMZ, and management of barriers and military markers.) The Chikdo Range "successful completion" was noted -- thus putting to rest the confrontational tone set in 2006. Item No. 11 in the communiqué states that Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Defense Minister Kim Jang Soo noted the "successful completion of the modernization of Jik-do training range [which] is helping to ensure appropriate training conditions for the [Republic of Korea] and US Air Forces." The issue was glossed over. (SITE NOTE: However, the US still claims that it needs more air training time as well as differing ranges. The lack of suitable air training ranges prompted former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to issue an ultimatum, but as recently as September, the Government Accountability Office expressed concern that the issue had fallen through the crack. In Sep 2007, there was notification that the WISS system was in place on Chikdo, but the issues of a 7 ROKAF:3 USAF split of range time and the Kunsan City government threat that it would shut it down if government aid promises were not met. In addition, the environmentalists still will have to review the Chikdo area before there is a final ok.) The cost sharing issue under the Special Measures Agreement for 2007-2008 was left up in the air. The negotiations are on-going. (SITE NOTE: The SCM put a "happy face" on these discussions, but they is still significant disagreement on cost-sharing formulas. SEE Cost Sharing Fiasco Continues: 2007-2008) Also on-going were the negotiations for the WRSA-K. The communique stated that it should be completed in the next year and report to the 40th SCM next year. This is a contentious problem when negotiations were restarted in May 2007 and was glossed over in the communique. (SITE NOTE: This can be an explosive issue as the ROK does NOT have sufficient munitions to engage in an open war with the North -- but this is not publicized. The ROK is also trying to get bargain prices on the "old" munitions, but the price is set by Congress.) ROK to Pay for 55 percent of Earthwork at Camp Humphreys (Nov 2007) Seoul agreed to pay for 55 percent of the land elevation work required at information sources found on the internet. Previously the US demanded that the ROK carry 60 percent of the burden, but the ROK negotiated it down to 55 percent. The base expansion is located on relatively low-lying land and is surrounded by a river. The plan is to elevate the land one-three meters to prevent flooding during the rainy season. The experts estimate the cost to be between $334 million - $445 million, depending on where the sand needed for fill will be transported from. According to the agreement, Seoul is expected to spend between 165-220 billion won, while the US is expected to spend between 135-180 billion won. The two countries are also close to concluding an agreement where the ROK will shoulder 60 percent of the C4I relocation to Camp Humphreys. These are part of the big budget items that the US-ROK have differed up on cost-sharing measures. Originally the US had proposed spending 300 billion won on relocating the C4I from Yongsan to Camp Humphreys. The ROK is attempting to lower the costs to 200 billion won. Accordingly, the ROK may spend 120 billion won and the US 80 billion won. The agreement is still a big increase in cost share. Under the previous ROK proposal, the ROK pledged to build the new C4I installation and Camp Humphreys would spend $9 million on replacing obsolete parts. (SITE NOTE: The ROK grandiose idea was to install an indigenous C4I system that is being installed at this time. However, reality has set in that without the tie in to satellite intelligence the value is degraded -- and the ROK military satellite is still only as good as Google Earth. In addition, it will be many years before the inter-service glitches can be worked out. The ROKAF C4I supposedly is on-line, but no more word has been heard of its operation. The Army command posts have also been upgraded, but unfortunately the tanks and other equipment are not modified to provide real-time battlefield informaton. As an interim "fix" the USFK has offered to "bridge" the ROK capabilities until it is ready to assume control -- meaning that it can still used the "old" GSS-K system where they are provided a manual interface with the US C4I system.) The big problem is that Korea has earmarked 5.6 trillion won for the relocation -- while the US estimate of 11 trillion won remains as it was in the beginning. (SITE NOTE: This cost-sharing problem is far from over. The cost-sharing formula for 2008-2009 is still being hammered out -- with a lot of acrimony involved.) (Source: Korea Herald.) December 2007I Corps Establishes Forward HQ at Zama (Dec 2007) Don't expect to see fresh infantry battalions, large new training areas or a hardware expansion following the arrival of an I Corps forward headquarters at Zama. To some extent, it's a matter of soldiers changing patches and switching their classification from U.S. Army Japan to I Corps. But Lt. Gen. Charles H. Jacoby, the I Corps commander from Fort Lewis, Wash., said that's a simplified view. "We're developing an operational capability here that's truly different than the administrative capability found here in the past," he said Wednesday, adding that the move has significant meaning for the alliance and was a shared objective."It's time to move from administrative to operational." He could not say how many extra soldiers would come to Zama but added, "The numbers we increase are in double digits, not triple digits." Maj. Gen. Elbert N. Perkins, the U.S. Army Japan commander, becomes deputy I Corps commander and also will head up its new forward headquarters element. Officials said U.S. Army Japan remains the command authority for soldiers at Zama and Torii Station, Okinawa. But both posts can support I Corps during exercises and other regional missions, just as they have in the past. Zama has gotten an influx of Humvees to accommodate possible deployments, according to Maj. Jim Crawford, a U.S. Army Japan spokesman. He declined to say how many. He said the installation also is receiving communications equipment to support the shift toward a modernized tactical headquarters. A battle simulation center will be built at Sagami Depot, but ground hasn't been broken yet and no time line is set, Crawford added. The facility will allow computer war games to be played out. "We need training in how to command and control infantry units," he said. A big piece of the U.S. military's realignment puzzle in Japan fell into place Wednesday as the I Corps forward headquarters was formally established here during a ceremony in the Yano Fitness Center. The new forward-deployed element provides I Corps at Fort Lewis, Wash., with a modernized command platform allowing it to deploy more rapidly and effectively for the defense of Japan and other Far East contingencies, officials say. During remarks, Lt. Gen. Charles H. Jacoby, the I Corps commander, called it a significant moment in the history of the unit and U.S. Army in Japan, adding that the two nations have been "partners in peace for over 50 years." "This is an important milestone in the continued development between 1st Corps and the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force," he said. "It will serve the mutual security interests of our two great countries." In an interview with Stars and Stripes after the ceremony, Jacoby said establishing an I Corps forward element will lead to even more cooperation and coordination. It's also a critical facet in transformation plans set forth by the U.S. and Japan, he said. The move doesn't mean more tanks, artillery battalions or Bradley Fighting Vehicles for Camp Zama. It's about restructuring and modernizing communications within the Army. An estimated 200 Japanese protesters marched past Zama's main gate and demonstrated in a nearby park as activation took place. "Some people are worried about a buildup of U.S. troops," Jacoby said. "It's not. It's a buildup of cooperation and better command and control functions. The element here will be a headquarters element. We don't make noise." I Corps has conducted frequent exercises with the JGSDF, including Yama Sakura, which ended Sunday in Sendai. Jacoby says this is merely the continuation of a longtime relationship, and the two sides will now work together on a routine basis. "This isn't something new," he said. "It's resuming in a more meaningful way I Corps participation in the defense of Japan and enhancing mutual security interests in the region. "This represents a maturing between the Army and Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force. … You can expect greater efficiency in the way we plan and train together." (Source: Stars and Stripes.) (SITE NOTE: What does this mean to the ROK? Now the "platform" is in place to move the UNC commitment to Japan -- at least on the oplans. The bases in Japan are still on the books as UNC committed. The second item of significance is that the I Corps started moving folks into Camp Zama in Jul 2006 -- but denied what is happening now as ever being in the works. So much for believing the DoD press releases -- though many columnists did state that this is what would be taking place as early as 2005 -- which incidentally the USFK and DoD denied.) US Opposes Renegotiation of Wartime Control Transfer (Dec 2007) The top U.S. envoy here said on 21 Dec that the transition of wartime operational control of the South Korean military from the United States to Korean commanders should be completed by 2012 as planned. The remarks by U.S. Ambassador Alexander Vershbow came amid speculation that the two countries would renegotiate the timing of the wartime control transfer during the conservative Lee Myung-bak administration. Lee said during the presidential campaign that he will reconsider the date for the transfer, although he has yet to clarify his position on the issue since his election. Lee is under pressure from his supporters to postpone the transfer. Conservative forces led by Lee's Grand National Party have claimed the transfer of operational control (OPCON) is premature given lingering threats by North Korea's nuclear and missile programs. (SITE NOTE: Seoul is due to regain wartime operational control as of 10 a.m. on April 17, 2012.) ``As I said, the strategic transition plan was already agreed upon and it is being implemented,'' Vershbow said in a security forum, organized by the state-funded Korea Defense Institute for Analyses, in Seoul. He said the agreed five-year framework for the transition is enough to prepare for new command rearrangements between the two militaries, adding Seoul and Washington will keep reviewing the relevant process to prevent a security vacuum on the Korean peninsula. Experts here viewed Vershbow's comments as aimed at reaffirming Washington's desire to to push for the OPCON transfer as scheduled. "His remarks on the OPCON issue are very noteworthy. It seems that the envoy wanted to convey Washington's clear message again to South Korea's next government that the OPCON transfer should be implemented as planned," said Baek Seung-joo, senior analyst at the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses who attended the forum. Critics say the command transfer would likely compromise combined forces capabilities of the two militaries against the heavily armed North. They argue chances for the Korean military to secure self-reliant defense strategies based on intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets by 2012 are slim. During the forum, Vershbow expressed high hopes that the Seoul-Washington alliance will be further developed during the Lee government, saying the strong alliance will serve as a backbone for South Korea's economic growth. (Source: Korea Times.) Lee Myeong-bak to Reconsider Transfer of Wartime Control (Jan 2008) Joongang Ilbo on 8 Jan reported that the scheduled transfer to Seoul of wartime operational control over ROK forces from the United States needs to be reconsidered, the presidential transition team indicated. Transition team spokesman Lee Dong-gwan said, "The transfer of wartime control has to be considered in light of the North Korean nuclear issue and the security situation on the Korean Peninsula." He added, "A close consultation with the United States is a given; the transfer timing and other issues need to be carefully reconsidered." An official at the U.S. Embassy, requesting anonymity, said that Washington would be open to such discussions. The ROK Ministry of Defense is opposed to any renegotiation of the date. U.S. defense officials to visit Seoul, address OPCON transfer (Jan 2008) U.S. officials, intent on transferring wartime operational control of South Korean forces to Seoul in 2012, will travel to South Korea next week to meet President-elect Lee Myung-bak's transition team, sources here said 10 Jan. David Sedney, deputy assistant secretary of defense for East Asia, will lead the delegation that will be in Seoul from Monday, the sources told Yonhap. The schedule in Seoul is still being worked out, "but the focus will clearly be on the meeting with the transition team," one of the sources said. Sedney and his team will also visit Tokyo, a trip that was previously scheduled. The Pentagon has been planning the Seoul visit for some time, hoping to engage the incoming Seoul government in bilateral negotiations as the two countries pursue alliance readjustments. Lee's transition team on 9 Jan said that the agreed transfer of wartime operation control, commonly called OPCON, from the United States to the South Korea needs to be reviewed, based on full consultation with the Pentagon. No preference for a transfer date has been specified. Although the team spokesman said the South Korean Defense Ministry has agreed to reconsider the timing of the transfer, the ministry spokesman soon after clarified that the understanding with the U.S. is that the issue is already closed and not open for renegotiation. Maj. Stewart Upton, a Pentagon spokesman, said the U.S. position was stated at last November's security consultative meeting. "There has been no change to our policy stance since then," he told Yonhap through e-mail. In a joint statement from the annual bilateral meeting of defense chiefs held in Seoul, South Korea and the U.S. said that "both sides pledged their fullest commitment to meeting agreed upon benchmarks and timelines regarding the transition." The U.S. had both peacetime and wartime operational control of its own forces stationed in South Korea, as well as South Korean forces, placed in the hands of the U.S.-led United Nations Command shortly after the outbreak of the 1950-1953 Korean War. Seoul regained peacetime OPCON in 1994. In February last year, the two governments agreed that South Korea will take over the wartime OPCON of its military on April 17, 2012. The deal was hailed as one of the staunchest signals that South Korea was ready to take on more responsibility for its own defense as it redefined its alliance with the U.S. But President-elect Lee and his conservative Grand National Party have long suggested that the issue needs to be revisited, questioning whether Seoul would indeed be ready by the agreed date, and if decreasing the U.S. presence in South Korea is wise. "We will be engaging the transition team on this subject, the source said. "Our message hasn't changed on this topic, though. OPCON transition is good for the alliance, and will only strengthen the capabilities that we have today." (Source: Yonhap News.) Wartime control deadline is final: Bell (Jan 2008) General Bell said that the U.S. military is unwilling to renegotiate the terms of the transfer of wartime operational control from the United States to Korea, sending a stern message to the incoming Korean administration that has said it wants to renegotiate the deal. Bell, in a speech to the Korea Society in New York on Jan. 28, said he sees “no military rationale” to delay handing over wartime operational control, currently scheduled for completion by 2012, even if the new government proposes a rethink. “We trust the Korean general officers to lead theater and battle control operations,” Bell said. The Korean government, under President Roh Moo-hyun’s administration, repeatedly demanded that the U.S. military hand wartime operational control over to the Korean military. The U.S. and Korea finally reached an agreement last summer to do so by April 2012, a move that angered right-wingers in Korea who feared a weakening of national security. The transition team for President-elect Lee Myung-bak has indicated the government may seek to delay the transfer. (Source: Joongang Ilbo Defense Minister Criticizes Roh administration (Feb 2008) Defense Minister Kim Jang-soo, during a meeting with Pres.-elect Lee Myung Bak, “criticized” the current administration’s handling of the USFK’s move to Pyongtaek. Specifically, he stated that “because of the current administration bringing up the issue of the move first, the ROK was left in a position of burdening the entire cost of the move.” The Defense Minister also told Lee that “any attempt to renegotiatie the wartime command transfer will result in the ROK burdening the entire cost of the transfer, and that it is better to talk about the delay after the command transfer plan is implemented on 2009.” (Source: Naver.com (hangul).) ROK Military Sets Up Team for Wartime Control Transfer (Dec 2007) The Korean military on 26 Dec launched a task force that will proceed with the plan to transfer wartime operational control of Korean troops from the United States to Korea, the Joint Chiefs of Staff said. Korea and the United States signed an action plan in June for implementing the transition scheduled for April 2012. The team, comprised of 47 military officers, will deal with all the tasks that are related to the control changeover, the JCS said. The tasks will include preparations for creating the allies new joint-command structures, and negotiations with the U.S. military regarding details of the transition. The task force will lead six subordinate teams which will focus on strategy, operations, war plans, intelligence, logistics, and overall planning. According to the transition roadmap, the allies will establish a new joint-military coordination system by 2009 to replace the current Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command. The Alliance Military Coordination Center (AMCC) will link the two separate commands of Korean and U.S. troops with its six subordinate teams. By 2009, the two countries will also repeal the allies combined war scenario, code-named OPLAN 5027, and draw up a new war plan designed for independent operation of the two militaries. After the initial implementation, the allies will conduct five joint military exercises between 2010 and 2012 to adapt themselves to the new alliance structure. January 2008New bunker-buster fitted aboard stealth B-2 bomber (Jan 2008) The Air Force’s deep-earth “bunker-buster” weapon is one step closer to reality, now that engineers have tested modifications to the B-2 bomber to carry two of the 30,000-pound bombs. On Dec. 18, Air Force ordnance handlers at Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo., loaded a dummy version of the 20.5-foot long Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, into a mocked-up duplicate of the stealth bomber’s weapons bay.What the Air Force was checking in the test was whether the B-2’s existing mounting hardware is adequate, and if the bomb fit in the bay, according to Airman 1st Class Stephen Linch, a spokesman for the 509th Bomb Wing at Whiteman. The combined weight of the two MOPs is 20,000 pounds more more than the published 40,000-pound maximum payload the B-2 is listed as carrying. However, according to 1st Lt. Candace Cutrufo, Air Force engineers have calculated that the airframe of the aircraft is capable of handling them. “The B-2 hasn’t actually done a test flight carrying the actual bombs,” Cutrufo, a spokeswoman at Whiteman, told Stars and Stripes on Thursday by phone. She didn’t know when those tests would be held. “But once that occurs, the B-2 will have achieved a new milestone for payload capacity,” and the old payload of 40,000 will be updated to reflect that the bomber can carry 60,000 pounds, she said. The Pentagon has asked Congress for nearly $88 million to fund the development of the MOP in fiscal 2008. Because the MOP’s purpose is to destroy deeply buried and what the military calls “hardened” targets — those specifically reinforced to survive strikes with high explosives — the bomb can burrow up to 200 feet before exploding, according to Linch. Once the MOP gets to its target, Linch said, the weapon will deliver 5,300 pounds of explosives “with more than 10 times the explosive power” of the BLU-109, its bunker-busting predecessor, Linch said. The first successful tests of the MOP’s explosive capabilities took place at the end of March at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. (SITE NOTE: This announcement was first seen in Yonhap News in response to the North's new war-like rhetoric after it failed to meet its deadline for declaring its nuclear weapons -- just as many stated they would do. The bunker busters would counter the deeply embedded control centers and artillery in mountains that the North possesses. It is interesting that other bunker buster tests were reported in Jan through AFA Magazine.) (Source: Stars and Stripes.) Successful Two-Phase Bunker Buster Unveiled (Feb 2008) The Raytheon Company successfully demonstrated a new two-phase bunker busting weapon in the New Mexico desert three weeks ago, company officials announced Friday at AFA's Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando. They cited its possible use on cruise missiles or as part of another robust penetrator. In a static test on a 300-ton, the Tandem Warhead System managed to penetrate 19.5 feet of the target, said Harry Schulte, Raytheon's VP for strike products. Unlike weapons, such as massive earth penetrators that rely on kinetics largely to burrow into concrete and hardened surfaces, the tandem warhead system couples a precursor charge (500 pounds of high explosive in the recent test) with a narrow follow-on warhead that speeds through the initial blast to hit inside a hard target. A standard precursor charge would be around 650 pounds. with a 500-pound follow-on warhead, said Douglas Hayner, a senior manager in Raytheon's strike product shop. Both warheads would be contained in the same cruise missile, effectively blasting a hole into the target and allowing other weapons to hit the target once it's penetrated. Raytheon is in talks with both the Navy and Air Force on possible fielding of the scaleable weapon. Schulte said the company is closer to partnering with a Navy concept demonstration called the Multiple Effect Warhead System on a Tomahawk and has spoken to the Air Force about hosting the weapon on some de-milled Advanced Cruise Missiles (currently being stripped of their nuclear warheads and retired). Given the green light, the weapon could be on the shelf in 24 to 30 months, said the Raytheon officials. Lies!!! Says Gen Burke on 2d ID Becoming Rotational Unit (Jan 2008) According to Marmot's Hole, the Kyunghyang Shinmun reported that Washington planned to turn the US 2nd Infantry Division, currently deployed permanently in Korea, into a rotational unit. It also reported that Washington planned to officially launch Korea Command, or KORCOM, on Oct 14, 2010 — a full year and a half before the transfer of wartime operational command to the Korean military. The Kyunghyang quoted a Korean government source as saying that that as part of its global deployment strategy of strategic flexibility, the US planned to leave 2ID’s heavy weaponry permanently in Korea, but the manpower — focused on the 1st Heavy Brigade — would be deployed to Korea on a rotational basis. The source added that Washington judged that it couldn’t have 2ID just sitting in Korea permanently at a time when the US was facing manpower shortages. (SITE NOTE: Units from the 2d ID are currently rotated into Iraq so this is nothing new. In 2003, the US and ROK agreed to disagree on the regional role. The US changing force structure meant it would go to a regional defense role regardless of what the ROK wanted. The bottomline is that this article's premise is absurd as the 2d ID is a rotational force as we speak -- but it is not politically correct to use the term "regional force" since the ROK does not recognize the USFK as such.)The source also said the Korean government was opposed to the plan. He said, “When one considers the special situation on the Korean Peninsula, where [we’re] confronting the North Korean military, the US Second Infantry Division must be permanently deployed here, like it is now… The government plans to sufficiently convince the American side during the course of discussions on the transfer of operational command.” (SITE NOTE: Lee Myeong-bak seems to want to renegotiate the USFK presence, but the US seems firm on maintaining the current wartime control transfer date in 2012. The ROK Ministry of Defense also does not support renegotiating the wartime control issue.) Should the US plan go through, 2ID could easily be deployed to the Middle East and other hot spots. In fact, on Dec 20, Washington announced its largest redeployment plan since World War II, involving the redeployment of one third of US forces by 2011. A high-ranking Korean military official told the Kyunghyang Shinmun that the US military — with speedy deployment in mind — originally planned to deploy a Stryker Battalion Combat Team to Korea, but this plan was scrapped years ago due to the force’s lack of survivability and firepower. Instead, he said, it appears the US wants to improve firepower by keeping 2ID’s equipment in Korea, while rotationally deploying manpower in order to maintain the advantages of a rapid deployment force. He also said the US military would officially launch KORCOM in October 2010. This would be done since the US military, having sufficiently trained through “Key Resolve,” believes it would be able to carry out its mission to support the Korean military by then. Key Resolve, formerly known as RSOI, is a training operation focusing on the rapid reception, staging, onward movement and integration of US reinforcements in the event of an emergency on the Korean Peninsula. (SITE NOTE: The 3rd BCT Stryker looked that it might be headed to Korea, but as soon as it became the first operational Stryker unit, it headed to Iraq -- and then redeployed to Fort Lewis after its tour. The major change was the (1) ROK refusal to accept the USFK in a regional defense role -- of which the Stryker BCT would be an integral component; and (2) ROK anti-American protests staged some violent protests -- with the protestors for the first time being punished by the ROK at the insistence of the USFK -- when the Stryker came to Korea for a test demonstration.With the creation of KORCOM, 8th Army Command would turn into a headquarters commanding US ground forces in Korea, 7th Fleet would turn into a maritime command headquarters, while 7th Air Force would become an air command headquarters. The US decision to launch KORCOM ahead of schedule is being interpreted as strong statement by the United States that it plans to turn over wartime operational command on schedule. In addition, with the abandonment of the “X” terminology — indicating a future-oriented reorganized unit — 2ID will not be called UEX, nor US 8th Army Command called UEY. USFK plans to keep the concept of “future-oriented divisions,” but the new terminology seems to have led to some confusion, so it’s been ditched. Lies!!! Says Gen Burke on 2d ID Becoming Rotational Unit -- Hopes to Extend tours to three years (Jan 2008) The top U.S. military official in South Korea hopes to extend to three years tours by American troops to South Korea that will enable them to bring their families with them. "It is his desire," the USFK statement added, "(to) transform all assigned U.S. forces to three-year family-accompanied tours for U.S. servicemembers, instead of the one-year family-unaccompanied tours which currently characterize U.S. Forces Korea stationing." The remarks came as a response to an earlier report by Seoul's Kyunghyang Shinmun newspaper that the United States plans to transform its frontline 2nd Infantry Division in South Korea into a rotating unit, which will enable Washington to quickly redeploy the unit to outside of Korea when there are conflicts in other areas. "To suggest that the 2nd Infantry Division will become a rotating unit is a complete fabrication," Gen. Bell was quoted by the CFC spokesman as saying. (Source: Yonhap News.) In the Stars and Stripes, Bell was quoted as saying in a release, “Uninformed speculation and fabrication about the future of the United States commitment on the Korean peninsula are not helpful.” Shaw AFB F-16s Deploy to Kunsan (Jan 2008) About 20 U.S. fighter jets arrived in South Korea in Jan for a four-month deployment to test the readiness of the U.S. forces here as well as those in the United States to react to any new hostilities in the region. The F-16 Fighting Falcons arrived in small groups after departing Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina. "The U.S. routinely evaluates its readiness and repositions forces under the Theater Security Package maintaining the capabilities necessary to meet military obligations in the Asia-Pacific region," said the statement. Nearly 300 20th Fighter Wing Airmen and about 20 F-16s from the 79th Fighter Squadron deployed Jan. 12 to the Pacific Air Forces theater of operations as part a four-month Air Expeditionary Force rotation to Kunsan AB. (SITE NOTE: Tongil News had a nice piece in hangul with photos of the SW tailcode aircraft arriving at Kunsan AB in the C-pad area. As expected, on 20 Jan the DPRK called the deployment of F-16 and F-117 aircraft to Korea "reckless".) 20 F-16s arrive at Kunsan for Aircraft Swap (Jan 2008) About 20 F-16s arrived as part of an aircraft swap with Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska. Under the Common Configuration Implementation Program, Kunsan is receiving upgraded Block 40 F-16s that will “increase our combat capability and readiness,” according to the release. “This aircraft swapout brings Kunsan’s fleet up to date with the latest F-16 upgrades and allows Eielson to quickly transition to their new aggressor mission,” according to the release. The 80th Fighter Squadron at Kunsan AB, South Korea, received the last batch of its Block 40 F-16s. The squadron received its first F-16s under the Common Configuration Implementation Program last fall, enabling the squadron to train about 80 percent of its pilots in the CCIP aircraft, which have avionics upgrades, a modular mission computer, and the joint helmet-mounted cueing system. Lt. Col. Shane Riza, director of operations for the 80th FS, noted, too, that the early arrival of some of the Block 40 F-16s provided time for maintainers to learn the differences from the unit's Block 30 F-16s, which are slated to go to Eielson AFB, Alaska for the Red Flag-Alaska aggressor force. Riza said of the Kunsan maintainers, "They've done a fantastic job keeping those [block 40] jets flying before the support structure and logistics system for block-specific parts caught up to us here at the tip of the spear." (Source: USAF News) (SITE NOTE: This change had been announced in 2007. Eielson is converting to the F-22 Raptors and is shipping its F-16s to Kunsan. One concern is that the "State of the USAF" message stated: "Majority of Block 25/30/32, block 40/42, and block 50/52 F-16s need structural modifications." Wonder if this had been done prior to shipping them here to Korea?) Committed to Korea: (Feb 2008) The South Korean military is making rapid increases in its effectiveness, and the overall US military presence on the Korean Peninsula is likely to draw down to roughly 25,000 personnel in the coming years (down from 37,000 in 2003) - but the US Air Force remains committed to the defense of South Korea. Speaking in Orlando on 21 Feb, PACAF commander Gen. Howie Chandler said USAF will continue to field a squadron of F-16s and a squadron of A-10s at Osan Air Base near Seoul, and two squadrons of F-16s at Kunsan Air Base further south on the peninsula. In fact, the F-16s at Kunsan were replaced earlier this year with more advanced Block 40 Vipers in a trade with Eielson AFB, Alaska. The trade gives the front-line Kunsan wing jets with significant avionics improvements, new data links, the ability to use the Joint Helmet Mounted Cuing System, and other combat enhancements. Supposedly, the 80th FS is bragging that it now has AIM-9X missiles that will enable it to increase its survivability in a dogfight. More bragging to come later. Interesting Facts of State of the USAF (Jan 2008) The following is from Michael Dunn, Lt Gen USAF (Ret), President of the AFA. "It's January ... so here are some revealing data on the "State of the Air Force." Fighter Aircraft - average age: 20 years; average flight hours 5400+ Bomber Aircraft - average age: 32 years; average flight hours 11,400+ Tanker aircraft - average age: 44 years; average flight hours 18,900+ C2 Fleet - average age: 22 years old; average flight hours 32,000 ISR Fleet (excluding UAV) - average age: 30 years old; average flight hours 18,000 Key Groundings/Restrictions F-15A-D - 163 of 441 are grounded for structural issues B-52 - 6 are grounded - past due PDM grounding date - authorized a one-time flight to the bone-yard. EC-130 - 2 of 14 are grounded due to center wing box cracks C-130E - 3 are grounded and 13 are restricted due to Service life and wing cracks KC-135Es - 26 of 86 are grounded due to engine strut corrosion. AC-130U - 4 of 17 are restricted due to lack of 30MM weapons B-2 - entire fleet is restricted due to windshield bolt hole cracks C-5s - 39 of 108 are restricted due to crown skin restrictions (weight limiting) Additionally: 219 of 223 F-15Es have training restrictions due to vertical stab structural issues Majority of Block 25/30/32, block 40/42, and block 50/52 F-16s need structural modifications All 356 A-10s will need new wings and new aircraft skin - many have landing gear issues ... and all need new engines. C-130Hs have Center Wing Box issues C-32As have bulkhead structural issues. Looking across the FYDP - between 2008-2013 - the Air Force will divest itself of 749 aircraft and procure only 698 aircraft (260 of which are UAVs). To give you the idea of the scale of all of this: When the AF grounded its 600+ F-15 fleet, it grounded more aircraft than the entire F/A Navy. The F-15s it presently has grounded equate to a bit more than 3 aircraft carriers of aircraft. The 356 A-10s that need renovations equates to more aircraft than the fixed wing USMC The Air Force has about 5800 aircraft ... and presently about one-third are either grounded or restricted in one way or another The central important part of this data is that this is not a third-world Air Force ... And the question we should ask ourselves, why don't we fund it to ensure our children and grandchildren are safe and secure? (SITE NOTE: With this info, one can see that the 25th TFS A-10s and 35th TFS, 80th TFS and 36th TFS F-16s may be in for major headaches in the future. Unmentioned is that the U-2s are now being looked at for deactivation by being supplanted by higher flying UAVs.) The Real Requirement: (Mar 2008) The Air Force really needs about 558 F-22-like aircraft, but has only asked for 381 (and is approved for only 183) "purely because of affordability," Air Combat Command chief Gen. John Corley told defense reporters March 27 in Washington, D.C. USAF long ago assessed that 381 "is the floor" of F-22s needed, and that number already counts the "acceptance of risk" by filling out the rest of the requirement with 177 old F-15s, called "Golden Eagles" (a nomenclature with a double entendre: They are "golden" in that they are in the relative best shape of the F-15Cs now flying and because they'll be serving as frontline fighters well into their "golden" years). If he wasn't constrained by funding, Corley said "of course" he'd get rid of his old iron and meet the strategic requirements placed on the Air Force by buying F-22s for the full requirement. However, 381 is the minimum "strategy-responsive force structure" of F-22s, he said. Gen Bell: Korea is NOT a War Zone!!! (Jan 2008) Gen. B.B. Bell said on 17 Jan that a policy requiring most U.S. troops in South Korea to serve one-year tours without their families is an “outdated relic of the Cold War” that should have been changed years ago. Instead, troops should serve in South Korea for three years with their families, he said. “This is not a combat zone over here. This is a modern, first-world country,” Bell said at the end of a daylong visit to Camp Walker and Camp Henry. “It is unacceptable in the U.S. military today to have this kind of policy in place and in any way condone it.” Approximately 27,600 U.S. servicemembers are stationed in South Korea. The U.S. military is reducing the number of troops stationed on the peninsula, but USFK previously allowed roughly 2,900 of 28,000 servicemembers to bring their families to South Korea. USFK is doubling the number of accompanied billets, while aiming toward an end strength of about 25,000 troops. (SITE NOTE: This is the first time the USFK commander has ever said that the ROK was NOT a combat zone -- especially when faced with an enemy that keeps promising to turn Seoul into a "sea of fire.") Bell said he has formally recommended that the Department of Defense extend tour lengths in South Korea, but he has gotten mixed reactions from the DOD and members of Congress, with some saying it’s time to extend tour lengths and some saying the idea is “dumb.” Bell said the U.S. Secretary of Defense and the South Korean government would have to approve the extended tour lengths. Bell said he has spoken with “senior future members” of the South Korean government about changing the policy, but declined to say if South Korean president-elect Lee Myung-bak was among them. Bell met with Lee in a closed-door meeting on 14 Jan at Yongsan Garrison. (SITE NOTE: The impact to Korea is that Korea will have to pay for the increased housing and support of the dependents. Korea has refused to uphold its share for over fifty years claiming its poverty. However, after the "Miracle of the Han" it still continued to refuse to support increased dependent housing. In Europe and Japan, there is greater dependent housing, but in Korea it remained at only 10 percent of the force, with the remainder -- an estimated 2000 families -- as unaccompanied.) (Source: Stars and Stripes.) Bell to Lengthen Tour Stay (Feb 2008) Korea Times on 1 Feb reported that Gen. B. B. Bell said that he plans to extend the length of tours of U.S. servicemen here from one year to three and create more slots for their families to join them. Bell said the basis for making the decision for unaccompanied tours has changed tremendously, mainly because Korea has experienced significant economic growth in the past 30 years. He further said that 30 years ago, American families would have faced real hardships if they were assigned to the ROK but that is no longer the case. Extended Assignment for U.S. Forces Korea Sought by ROK (Feb 2008) The Defense Ministry and the Foreign Affairs and Trade Ministry will reportedly lobby the United States to extend the assignment period of U.S. soldiers in Korea from one to two years. Defense sources confirmed on 13 Feb that the two ministries recently told the presidential transition committee that they will ask the U.S. Defense Department and Congress for the extension by offering more military and diplomatic support. A senior Defense Ministry official said on the condition of anonymity, “We believe a stable and extended environment for U.S. forces is vital to restoring the bilateral alliance and securing the joint readiness of the two countries. We reported our position and follow-up measures to the committee.” “When American soldiers stay here longer, they will improve their skills and combat readiness. Furthermore, they will understand Korea much better. They will contribute to the trans-Pacific alliance. We will deliver our position and wish to the U.S. government and Congress through various military and diplomatic channels.” About 27,000 American troops are stationed in Korea, according to the U.S. military. Ninety percent of them stay for one year and live apart from their families. The U.S. Defense Department allows 70 percent of its troops stationed in Europe to live with their families during their assignment. But soldiers in Korea are discouraged from doing so due to lack of budget and potentially negative effects on military readiness. Earlier this month, U.S. Forces Korea Commander Burwell Bell reportedly requested in a meeting of top brass at the Pentagon that more American soldiers be allowed to stay with their families in Korea. Another military source said, “Once allowed, the longer deployment period of American soldiers in Korea will contribute to stable management of the security situation on the Korean Peninsula, including handling of the North Korean nuclear issue. In addition, the incoming Lee Myung-bak administration will start initiatives to reinforce the strained alliance between the two countries.” (Source: Donga Ilbo.) (SITE NOTE: BUT the next question comes whether the ROK will be willing to contribute to the construction and maintenance of buildings for these dependents. THAT IS THE QUESTION!!! In the past, the ROK has refused -- and the US has buckled under. Under the Build-to-Lease (BTL) programs (such as at K-16), some of the problems have been eliminated over the ROK managed housing (such as Mustang Village). But such an increase will have to considered from the standpoint of whether the ROK REALLY is willing to foot their share of the bills.) Air Forces Korea Born (Jan 2008) Pacific Air Forces boss Gen. Howie Chandler led the redesignation ceremony, transforming 7th Air Force into 7th Air Force, Air Forces Korea, part of the Air Force initiative to establish warfighting components to support specific combatant commanders. Lt. Gen. Stephen Wood, former 7th AF commander, remains in charge and said the new restructured organization would provide "better critical component capabilities" to US Forces Korea. Some 2,000 US and South Korea military personnel and South Korea civilians attended the Jan. 30 ceremony at Osan Air Base. (Source: 7th AF.) February 2008New Administration Pursues Revival of Oplan 5029 on N.Korea (Feb 2008) The Defense Ministry is planning to create a joint plan with the United States to cope with possible internal unrest in North Korea after the Lee Myung-bak administration comes into office. According to military sources, the ministry reported last month a US-Korea joint plan to the transition committee in preparation for possible contingencies in North Korea from March to the end of this year.SITE NOTE: OPLAN 5027 was for fighting the war. OPLAN 5029 is for setting up for the implosion…and OPLAN 5030 was to set up the circumstances — just this side of open warfare — to assist in the implosion.Though the details of the plan have not been unveiled yet, military experts see that the “OPLAN 5029,” a war plan that the current administration had tried to carry out but failed, is likely to be resumed. Since 2004, the US-ROK military forces have been discussing OPLAN 5029, which contains military strategies in case of contingencies in North Korea such as a political turmoil and the massive escape of North Koreans, natural disasters including floods and earthquakes and the regime’s loss of control over weapons of mass destruction including nuclear and biochemical weapons. (SITE NOTE: The US has moved the unit responsible for going into North Korea to secure its nuclear weapons, etc. out of the country. This action is in response to China's announcement that it would "work with the UN" while sending its troops into North Korea to provide security and humanitarian aid in case the North collapsed.)In January 2005, the National Security Council stopped the discussion on the plan, citing possible sovereignty violations. In December 2006, the US-ROK forces agreed to complement and develop CONPLAN 5029, which do not include detailed military operation plans, before implementing OPLAN 5029. (SITE NOTE: The ROK refused to accept the premise that if the North collapsed, the US would invade the North and establish the ROK as the government. As such the Oplan 5029 was changed to a "Concept" meaning a general idea -- without specifics. In essence, there is no contingency plan -- at least for the ROK though we can be fairly certain that it still is on the shelf of the USFK. However, with the ROK assuming command of wartime control in 2012, the problem now lies fully in the lap of the ROK as the US will SUPPORT the ROK. The ethical question comes down to whether an invasion of refugees is the same as an invasion of North Korean army troops. The questions raised is whether the ROK will be willing to fire on refugees to keep them out of South Korea.)Some speculate that apart from OPLAN 5029, the forces will map out new contingency plans headed by South Korea and supported by the United States. Experts have pointed out that given the transfer of wartime operational command to South Korea by 2012, Seoul needs its own military plan to take the lead in transporting North Koreans to safe areas in case of a massive escape and to offer humanitarian aid supplies in case of natural disasters. (SITE NOTE: The ROK is unprepared to handle the mass exodus of people attempting to flee South over the DMZ or via the sea routes. They do not have sufficient housing nor the social welfare capability to handle the massive influx. It was this reason that the ROK had to face up to the fact that their "we are one nation" bull was not realistic. It was then that they came out with their policy of one Korea with two separate government that would meld after a ten year grace period when they got around to reunifying. Even this was horse-puckey, but at least the South realized that it would face collapse if the North Korean refugees were allowed into the South unchecked. Incidentally, it is for this reason that the South whose Constitution says that North Koreans are automatically South Korean citizens have turned a blind-eye to the plight of the refugees in China. In this matter, the South has been a major hypocrite on an international scale. It is also for this reason that the ROK has zipped its lip on human rights issues in the North because if it did attack it, it would have to accept the mass of refugees who would claim oppression from the North. The South can't have this mass influx.)Amid mounting concern that North Korea will become more unstable politically, economically, and socially, not to mention due to nuclear issues, experts argue that over the next five years under the new administration, the US-Korea joint system should be strengthened. Korea University Professor Kim Seong-han, who is behind the diplomatic and security policies of President-elect Lee Myung-bak, argued in an academic gathering hosted by the University of North Korean Studies on Feb. 1, “In case that North Korea fails to adapt to ongoing changes, South Korea and the U.S. should upgrade COPLAN 5029, designed to intervene in case of internal instability or the regime collapse in North Korea, into OPLAN 5029.” “The current administration was too conscious of North Korea to review contingency plans thoroughly. With the new administration taking office, efforts to strengthen the US-ROK cooperation will be intensified in an attempt to recover the alliance between the two countries,” said a military source. (Source: Donga Ilbo.) In Jan 2008, China promises to ”cooperate” with the West, but admits that it might move into North Korea to “restore order.” Claiming it would be strictly humanitarian reasons, of course, brought out sneers from blogs who were reminded of how China has sent refugees back to their deaths in DPRK and put down its own internal conflicts. (Source: Chosun Ilbo.) Gen. Bell Supposedly Resisting Further Troop Cuts in Korea??? (Feb 2008) Gen Bell has informed Washington and Seoul that he wants no more troop reductions here, well-informed military sources familiar with recent defense policy talks told the JoongAng Ilbo yesterday. General Burwell B. Bell III, commander of United States Forces Korea, expressed his wish to keep the statusquo at a meeting last month, the sources said. South Korea and U.S. officials met for talks in Washington on Jan. 23. A source told The Korea Times that the decision on the troop cut freeze was made after a ``deliberate'' and ``liberal'' assessment of the changing security situation on the Korean Peninsula and the two nations' military transformation plans. The source said the move to pause in U.S. troop reductions is also related to the inauguration of the conservative Lee Myung-bak government putting priority on enhancing the defense readiness of the combined forces of South Korea and United States. (SITE NOTE: Adm. Timothy Keating, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command in Hawaii, told a security meeting in Washington D.C. that the troop strength of USFK, at one time as high as 37,000, will remain steady at between 25,000 and 28,000 even after the OPCON transfer in 2012. Supposedly it was the first time he mentioned 28,000 as the higher number. According to the Korea Herald, “The U.S. delegates asked the Korean government to cooperate in maintaining its number of troops at the current 28,500 during the Security Policy Initiative talks,” a source said on condition of anonymity.)Under its military transformation plan called Global Posture Review (GPR), the United States has made efforts to realign its overseas troops and make the forces more agile for rapid deployment to other conflict regions. The transformation plan has undergone some changes and the USFK believes some more troops than the agreed 25,000 are needed to better maintain security on the peninsula and support South Korea's Defense 2020 military reform plan that requires some 190,000 in troop cuts by 2020, according to the source. In addition, one has to look at the ROK draw down of its forces simply because there are problems maintaining the current level of 680,000 ROK troops with the declining birthrates of the country. (SITE NOTE: The logic escapes us here in that the ROK will reduce it military forces but suddenly the US who is moving into a SUPPORT role will have a larger amount of USFK personnel. In other words, the US increases its commitment so that Korea can reduce its commitment.)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. In 2006, the initial reduction was set at 2,000, but only 1,000 were cut. Another 3,500 are scheduled to leave before the end of this year. According to USFK sources, Bell is worried that the joint forces’ combat abilities may be harmed by removing more soldiers. To meet the reduction schedule, soldiers on administrative and procurement duty have been cut first; it is now time to withdraw combat units, including those with Apache helicopters, to meet the quota, sources said. “In order to stop further reductions, Bell has asked the U.S. Congress, the Pentagon and the U.S. Army to back his proposal,” a senior South Korean military official said. If the number of U.S. troops is not reduced further, South Korea will have to cover the additional cost. (Source: Joongang Ilbo and Korea Times.) (SITE NOTE: This makes a circle back to the cost-sharing face-off between the US and ROK that must be resolved before the Oct 2008 SCM. Kookmin Ilbo on 5 Feb said in an editorial that the US decision to halt troop reductions is welcome news considering that it not only corresponds to public opinion that a certain number of US troops in the ROK are necessary until the Korean Peninsula reunites but also can enforce the security in Korean Peninsula. However, the ROK should not unconditionally accept the proposal by the US because it includes requiring the ROK to provide money and land for an extra 3500 people. The Ministry of National Defense hesitates to give a clear answer to the US for the same reason. Although we welcome the plan, the US and ROK governments must carefully deliberate on the basis of cost-benefit principles. However, the key word from Gen Bell is "suspend" the reduction -- not stop the reduction.)U.S. Denies Change of Plan to Reduce Troops in Korea -- Confirm Reduction to 25,000 by end of 2008 (Feb 2008) The U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) on 5 Feb confirmed a plan to reduce its troop level to 25,000 by the end of this year under a global scheme to reposition U.S. troops overseas. The confirmation of the previously announced plan came in response to recent news reports claiming the U.S. had decided to freeze its troop level at the current 28,500. The news reports referred to recent remarks by U.S. Pacific Commander Adm. Timothy Keating and Gen. B. B. Bell, commander of U.S. Forces Korea. 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. Washington has maintained a military presence here as a deterrent against threats from communist North Korea since the end of the 1950-53 Korean War. 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. "I invite the media and other interested parties to avoid speculating and publicly negotiating serious issues that affect the present and future of the ROK-U.S. alliance," he was quoted as saying. (Source: Hankyoreh.) (SITE NOTE: This is the second time in a month that the ROK media has been called a "liar" -- and this whole affair leaves a bad taste in one's mouth that someone is playing games with the ROK press. However, it may be the USFK using its "sources" to leak misleading information. The reduction in forces by the USFK is more or less set, but the cost-sharing formula is still not worked out -- and the USFK may be using the ROK media to stir up public hysteria -- especially since Lee Myeong-bak is so eager to "renegotiate" the wartime control issue. The reduction of 3,500 troops is a fairly large unit -- and the USFK may be stalling as the Army tries to fit the world-wide puzzle together to make things work. Again the attributed statements had Gen Bell "suspending" reductions -- not stopping them.Repairing U.S.-ROK Relations and Drawdown after 2012 (Feb 2008) Richard Halloran, a free lance writer in Honolulu, was a military correspondent for The New York Times for ten years. (oranhall@hawaii.rr.com). In 2005, he wrote an article that the USFK called speculation and denied its contents. (See A Pacific forces reshuffle.) His reports seem to have a high credibility when compared to the USFK denials of events that eventually come true. Camp Zama and the relocation of I Corps to take over the Korean contingencies is now coming to fruition. The combat elements associated with I Corps will remain stateside, but the controlling element will be prepositioned in Japan. This in turn will allow the UNC function to be transferred to the I Corps in Japan as the bases there are already designated for UNC support of Korea. Once the UNC is transferred, the need for a four-star in Korea will disappear and a three-star may be head of the new Korean combat organizations that are being set up in 2008. The 3rd MEU planned move to Guam is still in the planning stages as the infrastructure needs to be completed with estimates in 2012 or 2014. The formation of an Army war command at Fort Shafter, Hawaii is done awaiting other moves. Yokota AB, Japan has started to share its airspace with the Japanese Air Defense Force. Basically the organization that Halloran talked about is now coming together. The US and Japan are working to restructure the USFJ and meld its operations with the Japanese SDF. The expanding Japanese MDS is an example that is gradually drawing the demarcation line between Japan and Korea -- since the ROK refused to join the MDS with Japan. Japan passed a law on 22 May 2007 to fund the reorganization of U.S. forces in Japan and help move thousands of American marines from the country's south to the U.S. territory of Guam. Tokyo and Washington agreed in 2006 on a plan to streamline American troops in Japan and to give Japan greater responsibility for security in Asia. The deal also envisioned lightening the burden on local communities by downsizing some U.S. bases and consolidating troops at other ones throughout the region. Japan has agreed to pay $6 billion for the transfer of troops from Okinawa to Guam, about 2,400 kilometers, or 1,500 miles, south of Tokyo in the Pacific. Washington has said it would contribute $4 billion. However, hiccups in the passage of revamping Article 9 of the Japan Peace Constitution has stalled -- as well as the construction of the Guam site. The hopes of a new nationalism faltered by the collapse of the coalition over political scandals and the stepping down of the Prime Minister. Though the general plan seems to be coming together, it may need more work in the international political arena to find fruition. Halloran sees the forces drop to 25,000 and then to below 20,000. He foresees the Eighth Army moving to Hawaii by 2012 -- as part of the Army's war command. However, the 1st Signal Brigade, 501st Military Intelligence Brigade and 19th Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) as the logistics arms of the EUSA will remain after 2012. He sees the 2d ID with its one ground brigade leaving Korea for a destination yet undecided. The key point is that once the 2d ID ground elements leave, it will rely on the new US strategy to provide AIR SUPPORT (USAF and Navy) in case of an invasion and the ROK will have to battle the North on land alone -- until US reinforcements arrive at Camp Carroll to pickup their prepositined weaponry to aid the ROK. What this will air support role mean with the aging F-16 and A-10 fleets is anyone's guess. However, once Camp Humphreys turns into basically an intel and communications support base, there comes all sorts of problems. What does Camp Humphreys need with a large training area if it has no combat brigade? Perhaps planners are now looking at Camp Humphreys as a possible deployment base -- like the logistics base at Camp Carrol -- where units could be flown in in a contingency. All of this is pure speculation, but more and more details are coming to light as the end of 2008 approaches because some major ROK-US decisions are going to be made at the Oct 2008 SCM. Richard Halloran's article is as follows: The president-elect of South Korea, Lee Myung-bak, has started a campaign to repair the serious damage done to his nation's alliance with the United States by Seoul's incumbent, President Roh Moo-hyun. Even so, American military officers are pushing ahead with plans to reduce the number of US forces in Korea, to shift command responsibilities to the Koreans, and to bring home the headquarters of the Eighth Army and that of the Second Infantry Division, the remaining US combat unit on the peninsula. President-elect Lee, who is scheduled to be inaugurated on February 25, told foreign correspondents in Seoul in mid-January: "For the security goals of Korea and regional stability, the alliance between South Korea and the United States will be reconstructed in a creative manner."He said his government would exercise "pragmatic economic diplomacy" and "we will ratify the FTA [free trade agreement] with the United States at the earliest possible time." President George Bush echoed that in a request to Congress in his state of the union address this week. There is considerable opposition to the FTA, however, from vested interests both in Washington and Seoul. Lee sent a special envoy, Chung Moon-joon, to Washington in late January to see President Bush and other senior officials. Chung sought to elicit an invitation to Lee to visit Washington and urged all he met to reverse or at least slow down a planned reduction in US forces in Korea. Chung was evidently successful on his first mission as President Lee plans to fly to Washington in April. But the special envoy got nowhere with his second task. American officials said months ago that by the end of last year, they would complete plans to lessen the US presence in Korea. (SITE NOTE: Though Lee still wants to renegotiate the war-time control issue based upon North Korean denuclearization moves, the Ministry of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff are firmly for the wartime control being firmed up. In fact, the Ministry of Defense set up a transition team in 2007.) President Roh ran for election in 2003 on a platform that was anti-American. Throughout his term he has disparaged the alliance and sought to restrict US operations in Korea itself and from Korea to other areas. His policy toward North Korea has appeared to some Americans to border on appeasement. As a consequence, officials in the Roh and Bush governments distrust each other. At a meeting of Korean and US scholars, diplomats, and other specialists in New York in November, they agreed: "There is a need to rebuild mutual trust and confidence, develop a clear and more popularly accepted rationale for the relationship, and prepare the relationship to deal with future challenges." A critical issue has been the Roh government's demand that operational control of South Korean forces in wartime be handed from American commanders to South Korean officers. The US has approved this change and both governments have agreed that it will take place in April 2012. That date appears to have become something of a deadline for other changes. The Combined Forces Command in Seoul now led by an American four-star general with a South Korea deputy will disappear as both peacetime and wartime command will be in the hands of the Koreans. President-elect Lee, with the backing of some Korean military officers, had sought to delay that change, arguing that Koreans are not yet ready to handle that responsibility. General Burwell B. Bell, the US commander in Seoul, said in New York this week that the 2012 date is firm. Moreover, US officers said the headquarters of the Eighth Army, the overall US Army command unit in Seoul, would move to Hawaii by 2012. In addition, the headquarters of the Second Infantry Division, which has only one ground combat brigade instead of the usual three or four, will leave Korea even though its destination has not yet been decided. (SITE NOTE: The 2nd Combat Brigade, 2d ID was sent to Iraq in 2003 -- becaise tje ROK under Roh slow-leaked the deployment of ROK forces to Iraq -- and the 2nd Brigade never returned. The 3rd Brigade (Stryker) CBT was the first operational Stryker unit, but instead of being sent to the ROK because of local protests over the USFK being a regional defense force, it was sent to Iraq -- and later returned to Fort Lewis, WA.) About 27,000 US troops are currently posted in Korea. That number will soon decline to 25,000 and keep on dropping gradually, probably to fewer than 20,000. Those troops are needed elsewhere in an Army that is stretched thin by deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, US officers contend that South Korean forces should take charge of defending their own country from their potential enemy in North Korea. Some assert that the Koreans have long shirked that duty and thus have not prepared themselves to take over the communications, intelligence, and logistics essential to large-scale operations. For that reason, US officers said, units like the 1st Signal Brigade, which provides strategic and tactical communications; the 501st Military Intelligence Brigade, which gets information for commanders; and the 19th Sustainment Command (Expeditionary), which is the logistic arm of Eighth Army, will remain in Korea after 2012. (Source: Real Clear Politics: Richard Halloran.) WRSA: Seoul asks additional testing of reserve U.S. ammunition (Feb 2008) (SITE NOTE: SEE WRSA-K stockpiles to be Dumped??? Also SEEROK Military Events: WRSA-K Stock Authorized for Sale to ROK -- but... (Jan-Sep 2006) for background information of WRSA-K and the REAL situation of the ROK's lack of munitions to fight a war. SEE WRSA Negotiations Start (May - Jun 2007) for details on the WRSA in 2007) South Korea plans to ask for additional testing of ammunition from a stockpile of reserve U.S. munitions here it is considering purchasing, the Defense Ministry said on 9 Feb, noting previous tests and data provided by the U.S. have been less than adequate. Seoul will make the call for additional test-firing of the aged ammunition at talks to be held in Hawaii from 11 Feb through 15 Feb, the ministry said in a statement. The talks, the fourth of their kind, are also aimed at ending the United States' War Reserves Stockpile for Allies (WRSA) program in South Korea. "At the upcoming talks, we plan to demand additional tests and data on the condition of the ammunition that can raise our confidence in the performance of the ammunition," the statement said. "The sides will also discuss the direction of future negotiations on the volume of ammunition our side may purchase." (SITE NOTE: Korea was to decide in February 2008 how much of the old U.S. war stockpiles of munitions on the peninsula it would purchase, after conducting a series of tests in July 2007. The deal would be signed off on by the Oct 2008 SCM. The ministry was trying to minimize the purchase -- meaning that it still wants to selectively pick and choose which munitions it wants. The remaining items excluded from the purchase list will be taken out of the peninsula.Initiated in 1974 in South Korea, the program has allowed Washington to retain stockpiles of munitions and other equipment here to ensure swift support for the combined forces of the two allies in time of war. The U.S. enacted a law at the end of 2005 to terminate the program by either shipping the munitions back to the United States or selling them to South Korea. The U.S. law expires at the end of this year, which means the negotiators from the two allies have only until June to reach a deal to be submitted to their respective legislatures for approval, according to Col. Lee Ki-soo, director of the ammunition team at the South Korean Defense Ministry and a lead delegate to the WRSA negotiations. "The plan is to conclude negotiations before June, so once the U.S. Congress and the South Korean National Assembly approve the deal, it can be presented before the countries' defense ministers at the Security Consultative Meeting in October to be sealed," Lee said in a telephone interview with Yonhap News Agency. The U.S. currently has some 600,000 tons of munitions, worth some 3 trillion won (US$3.18 billion), here under the WRSA program, according to Lee. Seoul seeks to purchase only ammunition. A feasibility study conducted by the U.S. Department of State last year showed it would cost some US$64 million to ship the items back to the United States or about $65 million to dispose of them here. "The negotiations are mutually beneficial to both South Korea and the United States," Lee said. (Source: Yonhap News.) (SITE NOTE: What the ROK is NOT telling its populace is that it has consciously decided to face its shortage of ammunition in case a war broke out with the North. At present the ROK has 10 days of ammunition in reserve without the WRSA. It figures that as long as the WRSA is still in the ROK, it will remain the backup ammunition in case of a REAL war. However, the three year grace period for the ROK buying the WRSA assets is up in 2008. AGAIN THE WRSA MUST BE CONCLUDED BEFORE JUNE. The ROK needs to stop quibbling over the cost and trying to get a "good deal." The prices were set by Congress -- not the military. If it doesn't want the ammo, fine. The US can ship it out. As to where they would be shipped -- they are not going to the states, but to Diego Garcia to replenish stocks depleted by the on-going Gulf War in Iraq and Afghanistan. The ROK really has a weak hand. The latest ploy to retest the ammunition is simply a stall that even a simpleton like me can see through.) South Korea says materiel talks progressing (Feb 2008) South Korea’s Ministry of National Defense announced on 21 Feb that it had made progress in negotiations with the United States over the transfer of wartime stocks of ammunition and other equipment. Negotiations, which took place in Hawaii earlier this month, resulted in an agreement for the United States to provide sample ammunition for testing prior to purchase by South Korea, the ministry said. Among the items that may be sold are artillery rounds, bombs and helicopter parts. Further negotiations regarding the specifics of how much South Korea will buy are scheduled to take place in Seoul in late April. (Source: Stars and Stripes.) (SITE NOTE: Previously the ROK said ONLY munitions, but now it needs helicopter parts. Perhaps its because their Blackhawk and Huey helicopters are reaching the end of their life cycles and their vaulted one-fits-all Eurochopper design to replace them is still years away from getting off the drawing boards.) Lt Gen Sharp to Take Over USFK (Feb 2008) Lieutenant General Walter L. Sharp, director of the U.S. Chiefs of Joint Staff, will be named chief commander of U.S. troops here, replacing the retiring General Burwell B. Bell III, according to sources in Washington. “There’s been no official announcement made. Until an official announcement is made, it’s not prudent for us to speculate on who that might be,” USFK spokesman Col. Franklin Childress said. The Pentagon on 12 Feb also would not confirm the report according to the Stars and Stripes. Sharp served in Korea for two years. From June 1996 to March 1997, he was the executive officer to the commander in chief of the United Nations Command, Combined Forces Command and U.S. Forces Korea. From March 1997 to October 1998, he served as the assistant division commander of the U.S. Army Second Infantry Division of the Eighth United States Army, according to the Web site of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. (SITE NOTE: The claims that he has a lot of experience gained from his past service in Korea are perhaps off-center. The situation in 1995 is VERY different from the one seen in 2008. If it's true that Bell was sent to Korea as the "hatchet man" for the USFK, then what will Sharp's role be?) A Congressional hearing in Washington is expected next month, the sources said. If approved, Sharp is expected to arrive in Seoul in July. According to the sources, the U.S. State Department yesterday designated Sharp as Bell’s successor, with an official announcement expected later this week. Kim Yong-kyu, spokesman for the USFK, refused to comment until the official announcement is made. Gen. Burwell Bell, the current USFK chief, indicated in a recent interview with U.S. military press that he plans to retire in the summer. He has been in Seoul since February 2006. “When former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld decided in early 2006 to transfer Korea’s wartime operational control to Koreas’ military, he chose Bell as the chief officer to implement the plan,” said the source. “So, Bell must have figured this is the right time to leave, with Rumsfeld gone and negotiations for the wartime operational control transfer wrapped up.” Sharp graduated from the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, New York. He earned a master’s degree in operations analysis and engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. The outgoing Bell took the position in February 2006. His stint as the chief commander of the USFK will be shorter than most of his predecessors, who served for three years. Bell’s predecessor, Leon J. LaPorte, served the longest. He was here three years and nine months. (Source: Joongang Ilbo.) (SITE NOTE: WHERE IS HIS FOURTH STAR??? Most likely the four-star confirmation will follow, but we find it interesting that the ROK media did NOT pick up on the four star issue. As his appointment is still not official, we will have to await OFFICIAL word on this. This is a major issue with the USFK and ROK -- and the US promised when Gen Laporte left that it would remain a four star position. The major fear of the ROK is that the commander position will be downgraded to a three star position -- or even a two star one. This would mean the four star would move to Fort Shafter, Hawaii to the Army Pacific Combat Command. The 2d ID consists of only one combat brigade and the Eighth Army is now only a figurehead -- and the USAF has only four squadrons permanently stationed here.) Sobering Satellite Assessment (Feb 2008) China has the anti-satellite capabilities today to wreak havoc with US on-orbit assets in a manner of only a few days, a senior intelligence official told the House Armed Services Committee on Feb. 13. "Having demonstrated the capability ... given our dependence on that overhead architecture, it would not be that difficult to inflict significant serious damage to our capabilities over the couple of day period," Thomas Fingar, deputy director of national intelligence analysis for the Director of National Intelligence, said in response to a question by ranking member Duncan Hunter (R-Calif). Hunter asked, if the Chinese, who successfully demonstrated a direct-ascent ASAT missile in January 2007, could disrupt US space capabilities "fairly easily within a day or two." Hunter appeared before the panel along with other senior intelligence officials to discuss global threats to the United States. (Source: AFA Update) (SEE Flexing Muscle, China Destroys Satellite in Test (Jan 2007). There is a lot of heartburn over the Chinese test as the amount of space debris that was created is now a "space hazard" of floating space junk. However, the potential of the Chinese blinding the US intelligence in the initial days of an all-out conflict are real and pose a real threat to the 4CSI capabilities of the allies.) UPDATE: Navy Hits Satellite, Probably Fuel Tank (Feb 2008) The Pentagon believes the Navy Standard Missile-3 fired from the USS Lake Erie at a decaying satellite likely struck the loaded, and toxic, fuel tank as intended. After an early delay because of rough seas, the Erie fired the SM-3 on the night of 20 Feb about 10:26 p.m. EST at the non-functioning intelligence satellite as it traveled in space about 133 nautical miles above the Pacific Ocean, according to a DOD statement. President Bush elected to attempt a shootdown because the satellite still had a full load of fuel. The Joint Space Operations Center at Vandenberg AFB, Calif., confirmed that the SM-3 had intercepted the satellite, which broke into pieces. Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on 21 Feb told reporters that the Pentagon has "a high degree of confidence that we got the tank." The objective was to rupture the fuel tank to dissipate the approximately 1,000 pounds (453 kg) of hydrazine, a hazardous fuel which could pose a danger to people on earth, before it entered into earth's atmosphere. A definite answer won't come for another day or two as analysts review the data, but Cartwright did say initial views of the debris field show nothing larger than a football. The missile intercepted the satellite about 153 miles above the Earth, just before it began to enter the atmosphere, Cartwright said. Joint Space Operations Center technicians at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif, confirmed the satalitte’s breakup about 24 minutes later. The National Reconnaissance Office-managed satellite malfunctioned soon after it was launched in 2006, making it unresponsive to ground control. The satellite, orbiting Earth every 90 minutes or so, was expected to fall to Earth in February or March with its tank of hydrazine intact, possibly endangering human populations. AF Space Command stated, "Maintenance of the catalog [of on-orbit objects], doing collision avoidance and then the analytical capability that we could bring from various parts of Air Force Space Command were all used here in a substantial way," he said. "Air Force ground- and space-based sensors presented to US Strategic Command were part of the sensor network and played a big role, both in tracking the target ahead of time, giving precise target location ahead of time, and then in monitoring both the launch and the impact and then the post-[shot] debris assessment." It added most of the debris will burn up during re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere. "Due to the relatively low altitude of the satellite at the time of the engagement, debris will begin to re-enter the earth's atmosphere immediately," the Pentagon said. "Nearly all of the debris will burn up on re-entry within 24-48 hours and the remaining debris should re-enter within 40 days." (American Forces Press Service report by Gerry Gilmore) (SITE NOTE: The main message is that the US can do the same as the Chinese -- with the message to the Chinese as well. You can shoot mine, I can shoot yours. Adding to the message to China that "we know where every one of your satellites are precisely. In response, the Associated Press on 21 Feb reported that the PRC asked the US to release data on the shootdown of an ailing spy satellite, while the Communist Party's newspaper blasted what it called Washington's callous attitude toward the weaponization of space. "China is continuously following closely the possible harm caused by the US action to outer space security and relevant countries," spokesman Liu Jianchao said. "China requests the U.S. ... provide to the international community necessary information and relevant data in a timely and prompt way," Liu said. It looks like it got the Chinese attention in a hurry.) Who's the Hypocrite?: (Feb 2008) China criticized the US on 21 Feb as a hypocrite, saying the US condemned China's anti-satellite test last year, but then conducted its own in Wednesday's shootdown of a potentially hazardous derelict spy satellite. US STRATCOM commander Air Force Gen. Kevin Chilton said China's charges were ludicrous. "There's no comparison" of the two events, he said. China's act was a "test shot to complete an ASAT development" program, which left debris in orbit that will pose a hazard to manned spacecraft and satellites for decades. It was done with "no warning." The US shot, though, was conducted in "full transparency," with notifications made around the world. It was made "as low as we thought prudent" and all the debris will have fallen to Earth within a year. The slightly increased risk to satellites will have passed within 48 hours, he said. And, he added, in the remote chance that anyone was hurt by the falling debris, C-17s were on alert at McGuire AFB, N.J. to bring aid to anyone who needed it. (Source: AFA Daily Update, 25 Feb 2008) Combined forces of S. Korea, U.S. to hold annual drill: KR/FE-08 (Feb 2008) The combined forces of South Korea and the United States will hold their first joint exercise in March to test Seoul's war-waging capabilities after it retakes the wartime operational control of South Korean troops from the United States in 2012, officials at the Combined Forces Command (CFC) said on 1 Feb. The new drill, Key Resolve, replaces the annual joint exercise, Reception, Staging, Onward Movement and Integration (RSOI), and will be held March 2 through March 7, the CFC said in a released statement. The new exercise will involve similar maneuvers, but ROK forces will take on more leadership in preparation for the command transfer, said U.S. Military spokesman Kim Yong-kyu. (Source: Yonhap News.) It's a joint and combined command-post exercise — meaning various branches of both the U.S. and South Korean militaries will participate, according to a CFC release. Training involves practice in bringing troops onto the peninsula in case of war and practicing rear-area security and sustainment. A joint field training exercise dubbed Foal Eagle will be linked to Key Resolve, as it was linked to RSOI. Both exercises are designed to improve command ability to defend South Korea against external aggression, the release said. North Korea has been advised "that this is a defensive military readiness exercise, and that it is not meant to be provocative in any way," the release said. (Source: Stars and Stripes.)   Anti-US groups Still Here!!! (12 Feb 2008)  Protestors to Key Resolve (22 Feb 2008) (Tongil News) US Stryker Brigade to Arrive (Feb 2008) Korea Times on 14 Feb reported that a US Stryker Platoon from Alaska will be deployed to the ROK Feb. 15, the ROK-US Combined Forces Command said. The deployment of the Stryker vehicles is part of the upcoming Key Resolve command post exercise of ROK and U.S. troops from March 2 to 7, it said in a news release. The Stryker is a family of eight-wheel-drive armored combat vehicles used by the U.S. Army. Based on the Canadian LAVIII light-armored vehicle, which in turn is based on the Swiss Mowag Piranha, the Stryker is the U.S. Army's first new armored vehicle since the M2 Bradley in the 1980s. (SITE NOTE: The Styker's have taken part in RSOI/FE exercises since 2005.)  Arrival at Taegu via C-17 (17 Feb 2008) (Tongil News)  Stryker at Rodriquez Range (23 Feb 2008) (Tongil News) Key Resolve Key Resolve is a joint/combined command-post exercise designed to provide training for the ROK-US Combined Forces Command in the various aspects of Reception, Staging, Onward Movement, and Integration of forces from bases outside of the country. Until 2007, it had been called RSOI (Reception, Staging, Onward movement, and Integration). South Korean and U.S. forces practice rapid deployment of U.S. troop reinforcements to Korea in the event of war on the Korean peninsula. The other major annual joint military exercise between the two countries is the Ulchi-Freedom Guardian (UFG), which is the integration of military exercise and the government’s response to any contingency. Until last year, it was also called Ulchi Focus Lens. The joint military exercises, both of which started in 1994, have been renamed for the first time in 14 years. Foal Eagle Foal Eagle counter-infiltration exercise is a combined annual field training exercise for Korean and U.S. forces. It is the Combined Forces’ Command’s primary FTX. The joint and combined field-training exercise is to be linked with Key Resolve as it has been linked with RSOI for the past several years. The Key Resolve and Foal Eagle joint exercises for 2008 are called “KR/FE 08.” KR/FE 08 KR/FE 08 is to be conducted across the country from March 2 through 7. The annual joint military exercise is a defense-oriented exercise which focuses on 1) exercise of air-borne reinforcements between Korea and the United States in preparation for war on the Korean peninsula, 2) practice exercise with Korean Air Force control officer aboard, and 3) the potential need to revise the Mutual Air Services Agreement (MASA) between the two countries, among other things. According to the Combined Forces Command, KR/FE 08 includes a full range of conventional equipment, capabilities, and personnel. Foal Eagle is the command’s theater-wide joint and combined field training exercise and includes select training events. These defensive field exercises are designed to help teach, coach and mentor younger Service members while exercising senior leaders’ decision-making capabilities to protect the ROK against external aggression. North Korea’s Protest North Korea has strongly denounced the joint military exercise as a “war game aimed at a northward invasion.” An unidentified spokesman for North Korea’s truce village of Panmunjeom warned in a statement, “Should the hostile forces of South Korea and the United States try to collapse us militarily, the Chosun People’s Army will retaliate using all measures that we have costly prepared for a long time.” The CFC, however, stresses the annual military exercise is a defensive oriented exercise and designed to improve the command’s ability to defend South Korea against external aggression. In fact, the CFC has informed North Korea of the joint exercise. It has already unveiled or plans to unveil the U.S. forces and actual exercise process to North Korea. The 93,000-ton USS Nimitz and the USS Ohio, a nuclear-powered submarine with Tomahawk guided cruise missile, are opened to the media. Shooting, bridge-installation, emergency aid and relief exercises have also been or will be unveiled. By speaking to the media, the CFC intends to stress the annual exercise is defense-oriented, while at the same time giving a warning to North Korea. (Source: KBS News.) USS Ohio in Busan for Key Resolve -- BUT FOR WHAT? (Feb 2008) U.S. Forces Korea officials announced on 20 Feb the guided missile submarine USS Ohio ported at Busan. The Ohio, homeported at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Wash., is visiting the port in conjunction with the upcoming Key Resolve/Foal Eagle exercise. The Ohio was commissioned in 1981, during the tensions of the Cold War, as an SSBN -- a nuclear-powered vessel carrying 24 Trident submarine-launched nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles (SLBM) -- to counter the military threat of the Soviet Union. The former Trident-class vessel recently underwent a US$400 million conversion to become a nuclear-powered, guided-missile, or SSGN-class sub, carrying conventional cruise missiles instead of nukes. The conversion was made to suit the changing security environment and new U.S. strategies with the end of the Cold War, the U.S.-Soviet Strategic Arms Reduction Talks, and the U.S. war on terror.  Converted System for SOFs (Reuters) The Ohio is a nuclear-powered Trident-class submarine that has completed 61 patrols, according to the submarine’s Web site. The USS Ohio, and three of her sister ships in the class, have been converted to SSGNs (a cruise missile platform). They’re no longer capable of carrying Trident SLBMs, but rather are now configured to carry up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles. Each submarine has the capacity to host up to 66 SOF personnel at a time. Additional berthing was installed in the missile compartment to accommodate the added personnel and other measures have been taken to extend the amount of time that the SOF forces can spend deployed aboard the SSGNs. Two lock-out chambers (permanently fixed in the first two missile tubes) allow clandestine insertion and retrieval of SOF personnel. Both the Dry Deck Shelter and the Advanced SEAL Delivery System can mount atop the lockout chambers, greatly enhancing the SSGNs’ SOF capabilities.  USS Ohio at Pusan (21 Feb 2008) (Yonhap News)   However, pundits say the new United States "spy sub" is apparently planning a clandestine tour down the Chinese coast, to see how well prepared the Chinese are to deal with the kind of snooping this new type of American sub is capable of. This "show the flag" is in response to a Chinese spy ring that was broken up, after nearly two decades of stealing classified data on the American Space Shuttle program. This appears to account for the many similarities between the U.S. and Chinese reusable space vehicle programs. In addition, Taiwan averted a military catastrophe recently when it discovered that a new military communications system had been compromised by a Chinese spy, who had bought secret codes from an employee of the American supplier. Now the codes could be changed, but if the Chinese theft had not been discovered, China could have disrupted Taiwanese air-defense communications during an attack. Speculation has it that China can expect to see more spy activities on them simply as a taste of things to come. Airborne spying has been curtailed significantly after the Chinese "hijacked" -- according to the US -- its spy plane over international waters in 2001 and refused to return it until they had stripped and examined every piece of spy gear on it. In April 2001, a collision between a U.S. surveillance plane and a Chinese fighter jet over China's EEZ in the South China Sea chilled relations between the two powers. The surveillance flights are based in Okinawa and include the east coast of China; they are ongoing. The U.S. Navy survey vessel Bowditch - backed by an Aegis destroyer - continues to gather data from the Chinese EEZ in the Yellow and East China Seas despite threats from and confrontations with Chinese frigates and aircraft. The USS Ohio might be also on a mission to also send a message to the Chinese that it will not be intimidated by their submarine force. On 11 November 2006, a Chinese submarine surfaced in the middle of a U.S. Navy exercise in the East China Sea surprising and embarrassing the U.S. ships. A Chinese Song-class submarine popped up near the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk off Okinawa during a training exercise, greatly embarrassing the Navy. The Song-class submarine came within five miles of the Kitty Hawk before being detected. From that distance, it could have sunk the Kitty Hawk with its cruise missiles and wake-homing torpedoes. The Kitty Hawk carries 85 aircraft and 4,500 sailors, and ships of that size are supposed to be protected by a phalanx of cruisers, destroyers, and submarines. If enemy subs can sneak up on our aircraft carriers, then none of our ships are safe. The Americans had no idea China’s fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat. US Pacific Command’s Adm William Fallon said the group wasn’t conducting anti-sub operations, but the fact remains that the submarine did slip past the group’s security screen undetected and popped up within firing range of the Kitty Hawk. (SITE NOTE: In Nov 2007, the same story resurfaced but appears to have been the 2006 story recycled. However, at the same time, photographs taken with Google Earth appeared of the new Jin-class nuclear missile submarine providing further concern of China's submarine program.) Satellite surveillance has already intensified -- especially after the Chinese demonstrated its "shoot down" capability of satellites in Jan 2007. In 2008, Congressional testimony indicated that the Chinese could cripple US and ally spy satellites within the first two days of a conflict. However, in Feb 2008, the US shot down one of its own satellites with a SM-3 missile showing its capabiltiy to do the same to Chinese satellites -- though the US said it was to destroy a satellite with potentially dangerous hydrazine fuel. The message wasn't lost on the Chinese who "demanded" a full disclosure of information on the event. USS Nimitz Arrives in Pusan (Feb 2008) The USS Nimitz, a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier, is also due in Busan with 5,000-crew members aboard later this month to take part in the joint exercise that will last for six days until March 7, according to USFK officials. The San Diego-based USS Nimitz, a 93,000-ton U.S. aircraft carrier that can accommodate over 6,000 crew members and more than 100 aircraft, is part of the drill. The USS Nimitz, the world's largest of its kind, is accompanied by five other ships, comprising a carrier strike group. The nuclear-powered U.S. submarine USS Ohio, two U.S. Aegis destroyers, the 8,300-ton USS John S. McCain and the 9,200-ton USS Chaffee are also participating. Unlike previous exercises, this KR/FE-08 invited the ROK media to witness the launches of 61 aircraft during the exercise to give them the idea how busy a carrier is during flying exercises.(SITE NOTE: According to the media, this is the first time the U.S. nuclear-fueled aircraft carrier has participated in the South Korea-U.S. joint military exercise. We beg to differ with this news. Check previous Foal Eagles and nuclear-powered aircraft carriers have been filling in for the USS Kitty Hawk for a number of years. The USS Kitty Hawk is supposedly undergoing routine maintenance at Yokosuka. But the main point in all the media show-and-tells that is being made is that the US Navy is STILL in charge of its naval role -- NOT the ROK. By the same token, the Koreans are going to be asked, how prepared in the ROK Navy in assuming its role for wartime control. The US naval air bombardment support in the new wartime role is an integral part of the Mutual Defense Treaty promise of support in case of war -- but the ground troops will be all ROK. Expect air shows as F-18 aircraft hit targets for Marines -- but at this time being US Marines alone. Maybe next year it will be a combined ROK-US Marine show. This is why the ROK may assume the role of leading the Combined Marine Forces in case of war. However, still major questions arise as the US Marines have NEVER relinquished control of its forces to others in its long history -- and it is doubtful that it would in time of war...regardless of what the ROK wants. Like last year, do not the Marines to come streaming ashore at Pohang -- it is still too political.)    Korean, US Fighters Intercept Russian Aircraft (Mar 2008) A Russian reconnaissance aircraft approached a U.S. aircraft carrier on the eastern waters off the Korean Peninsula Wednesday, entering South Korea's air defense safety zone, a military source said on 6 Mar. Two U.S. F/A-18 fighters from the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier participating in annual drills by South Korean and American troops successfully intercepted the Russian aircraft, a Tupolev TU-142 BEAR-F and escorted it out of the area, the source said, asking not to be named. Four F-16 fighters of the South Korean Air Force also conducted maneuvers to support the U.S. fighters, he added. (SITE NOTE: In other words, the ROKAF was scrambled, but didn't get to play tag with the Russian Bear.) ``The U.S. military first detected the Russian aircraft and carried out counter-measures against it,'' said the source. ``Our fighters subsequently flew patrol maneuvers.'' The Russian plane came within three to five nautical miles and flew at 2,000 feet above the 97,000-ton nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, according to the source. The Russian aircraft entered the Korea Air Defense Identification Zone (KADIZ), designated by the commander of the U.S. Pacific Air Force Command in 1951 to prevent clashes in the air between countries surrounding the Korean Peninsula, he said. The Korean military has a 24-hour early warning system in place against aircraft entering the zone. Russian bombers over the past year have increased their flights near U.S. territory and naval assets, demonstrating their long-range strike capability. Last month, two Russian bombers approached the Nimitz near Japan and one flew over the carrier, escorted by a U.S. fighter jet, the first Russian over-flight of a U.S. carrier since 2004. (Source: Korea Times.) (SITE NOTE: These runs are “morale builders” — and they won’t be going away soon. The image projected is that Russia still has teeth as a world-class power…albeit no longer a super-power. Its people, after the breakup of the Soviet Union, desperately need the nationalistic boot — and power-hungry leaders like Putkin need it to stay in power. Like Japan, the younger generation are starting to shape a new self-image of themselves from the ashes of the once-been power structures of the past. This is what the US needs to be concerned with — not the bomber overflights. The overflights to measure defense reaction times have been happening off Alaska, Europe, and the Orient all within the past year are all part of a new power projection for Russia. Also don’t downplay those “antiquated planes” which, like the 60-year old B-52, are perfectly designed for the Cold War job they do. Also IMHO the Russians make some of the most fearsome state-of-the-art fighter aircraft in the world — in many ways far superior to any Euro and US aircraft.) Key Resolve/Foal Eagle-08 Starts (Mar 2008) South Korea and the United States Sunday began a six-day joint military exercise to deter potential military threats from North Korea amid Pyongyang's accusations that they are staging a "massive war game" in preparation to invade the North. The "Key Resolve" exercise to be held across South Korea until Friday involves a great portion of the 650,000 South Korean troops, as well as about 12,000 U.S. forces stationed in South Korea and 6,000 U.S. troop reinforcements from the U.S. mainland and Pacific bases, a South Korean military source said. The annual joint exercise formerly called "Reception, Staging, Onward Movement and Integration of Forces" (RSOI) aims to coordinate combat capabilities of the South Korean and 28,000-strong U.S. troops here, as well as reinforcements from the U.S. mainland in case of war, officials said. U.S. destroyer saves 11 S. Koreans from burning boat (Mar 2008) SEOUL, March 10 (Yonhap) -- A U.S. Navy ship taking part in a joint exercise with South Korean troops on 10 Mar saved 11 South Korean fishermen who were forced to abandon their ship as it caught fire, the Navy said. The 8,000-ton destroyer, the USS John S. McCain, was sailing in waters off the south of Jeju Island early on 10 Mar when it spotted the fishing boat on fire and 11 men overboard, the Navy Public Affairs Office said in a press release. (Yonhap News) Just before sunrise early Monday morning, a bridge watch team on the USS John S. McCain spotted a ship burning on the horizon off the southern coast of the South Korean peninsula. The Navy crew went into action. It turned out a commercial South Korean fishing vessel, the Sebong II, was on fire, and its 11-man crew was floating nearby in a life raft. The McCain — an Arleigh Burke-class guided- missile destroyer — immediately launched a rigid-hull inflatable boat and recovered the fishermen, according to an e-mail from Cmdr. Jensin W. Sommer, spokeswoman for Commander Task Force 70. None of the fishermen was injured, and McCain sailors provided food and blankets. The fishermen were later transferred to a South Korean navy vessel. (Source: Stars and Stripes.) (SITE NOTE: The USS McCain had completed its Foal Eagle mission and was in training with other destroyers.) USFK Show of Military Might Questioned (Feb 2008) Public attention has been drawn to why the Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command and the U.S. Forces Korea are showing off U.S. battle vessels, including a nuclear-powered submarine and a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and parts of a joint military exercise to the media. The vessels are in Korea for Key Resolve/Foal Eagle, an annual combined/joint military exercise to be conducted from Sunday to March 7. About nine different parts of the military exercise will be open to the media this year. During the Roh Moo-hyun administration, only three to five parts were revealed to the public each year. On Thursday the CFC invited the media to have a look at the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Nimitz, currently at anchor at the pier of the Korean Naval Operations Command in Busan. With its crew of 5,600, the 97,000-ton, 332m-long supercarrier, which was commissioned in 1971, is sometimes called a "floating city." It carries a total of 85 aircraft, including FA-18 fighter jets. The CFC will also unveil to the media some operational parts of the annual joint military exercise, such as a live fire drill, a field maneuver drill, an emergency rescue drill, and a pontoon bridge-laying drill, which will be conducted in Seoul, and Munsan and Pocheon, Gyeonggi Province next week. Last weekend the CFC invited journalists to a live fire drill by Stryker Brigade Combat teams, which had rushed to Korea from Alaska. On Tuesday afternoon, the 18,750-ton USS Ohio, a U.S. Navy nuclear-propelled submarine which carries Tomahawk cruise missiles, was shown to local journalists for the first time. Earlier that morning, a 46,000-ton maritime prepositioning ship of the U.S. Marines was unveiled to the media at Jinhae Port in South Gyeongsang Province. A source said, "The Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun administrations prevented the USFK from unveiling past combined/joint military exercises to the public for fear that it would irritate North Korea. With a conservative government being inaugurated in Seoul, the USFK is now unveiling more military exercises and equipment to the public." Some observers suspect that the U.S. is making a show of force to North Korea. (Source: Chosun Ilbo.) (SITE NOTE: This is a silly article as the show of force is ALWAYS to impress the North as it has from the original Team Spirit days. But the USFK opening other areas is a direct ploy for the media to reconsider how important the USFK is -- and how it is drawing back to allow the ROK to take over. In other words, it is to support the Ministry of Defense in getting more money to increase its procurement programs. The Stryker is for show -- but it is also the cornerstone of regional defense and is something the ROK has to resolve -- unlike under Roh Moo-hyun. The USS Nimitz is no different from other carriers sent to the ROK -- but this time it is to reinforce to the ROK media how crucial the US Navy is to the new structure -- as it will provide naval air bombardment in SUPPORT of the ROK. The MAJOR POINT on all the military hardware is that the US expects -- if not demands -- changes in the ROK military. The Pentagon expects changes in U.S. forces in South Korea as it works with the new government in Seoul, the head of the American Joint Chiefs of Staff said on 28 Feb. Adm. Michael Mullen, JCS chairman, said the United States is "very engaged" with the government of Lee Myung-bak, sworn in on 25 Feb. "We are changing how we are looking at things militarily out there from a standpoint of our forces," he said at a Pentagon town hall meeting. "And my expectation is there will be changes that occur because this new government stands up in terms of our relationship," he said, adding that Gen. Burwell Bell, head of U.S. Forces Korea, "has spent an awful lot of time engaged there." Mullen did not elaborate what the changes would be -- but the focus on the word ENGAGED. This means there are on-going discussions of how the US will move into its SUPPORT role. The word ENGAGED means also that the US is NOT going to change its time line for the turn over of wartime control to the ROK. Basically, the ROK going to have to maintain its defense until the US can come to its aid. In the initial conflict, the support will be in the form of US naval bombardment and USAF air-to-air superiority along with air-to-ground and close air support (CAS). The naval role is what is being practiced with all this naval hardware. Why else would a sub with 150 cruise missiles and the most modern nuclear carriers be used in Korea RSOI/FE (2005-2007)-- KR/FE (2008) -- NOT the USS Kitty Hawk out of Japan.) Marines showcase combat skills in South Korea exercise (Mar 2008) The Marines have landed in South Korea and are raring to showcase their skills. “This is an organization that is designed to apply violence and at the end of the day put metal into meat,” Col. Brian McCoy, commander of the 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division — home-based at Twentynine Palms, Calif., and deployed to the Western Pacific — told a gathering of about 50 media members on 1 Mar. And in a demonstration of those skills, the Marines cleared buildings with hand grenades and directed aerial bombs to their targets as part of the annual Foal Eagle exercise, which runs concurrently with Key Resolve. McCoy said their first mission was to match up their manpower — which arrived via plane at Incheon Airport — with their prepositioned, ship-based equipment at Chinhae port. Now that they’re on the range, he said, the regiment will work with South Korean marines to develop tactics, techniques and procedures for combined operations. McCoy said the overarching goal is to show “the United States — and the United States Marine Corps — is resolved to defend the Republic of Korea from aggression.” He said his regiment, which took part in key battles during the Korean War, was visiting the peninsula for the first time since 1953. After his briefing, the media watched the Okinawa-based 5th Air Naval Gunfire Liaison Company use a ground laser target designator to mark targets for U.S. Navy F-18 Hornets. The combat jets dropped training bombs onto the targets. Members of the media also observed the 1st Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion practice using hand grenades to enter buildings with South Korean marines of the 2nd ROK Marine Division. (Source: Stars and Stripes.) (SITE NOTE: Notice how equipment is in Chinhae, they arrive in Inchon, and exercises are in Rodriquez Range -- away from protestors...because they want this a low-key exercise...but the stakes are high. These are the "follow-ons" and they are seeing how the Marines would mesh under the new SUPPORT role they will play in the future. Do NOT expect any Marines from the 3rd MEU splashing ashore in Pohang this year, though they will probably drive their vehicles onto the shore as in the past. They want this low-key.) Korea, US to Boost Roles of Combined Marine Forces (Feb 2008) The South Korean and U.S. Marine Corps will enhance their combined operational capability in case of war on the Korean Peninsula, military sources said on 22 Feb. To that end, the two sides agreed to upgrade the current Combined Marine Forces Command (CMFC) to the Combined Marine Forces Component Command (CMCC), a source said. Gen. Kim Kwan-jin, chairman of South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and Gen. B. B. Bell, commander of the U.S. Forces Korea, signed a related memorandum of agreement in Seoul earlier this week, JCS officials said. (SITE NOTE: Do you really believe that the US will allow the US Marines to be led by a ROK General? An MOA is not a done deal -- but the questions we have is the actual contents. It would more likely be that the USMC would SUPPORT the plans of the ROKMC in a CMCC.) The commander of South Korea's Marine Corps will lead the combined component command during peacetime, while a three-star U.S. Marine commander is expected to take charge of combined operations in case of an emergency, they said. The move to boost the roles and missions of the combined Marine forces is in line with Seoul's execution of independent wartime operational control of its military beginning April 17, 2012, when the Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command (CFC) is also to be dismantled, Marine officials said. (SITE NOTE: In peacetime, there are very few Marines in the ROK.) Even after the inactivation of the CFC, the two Marine Corpss will be able to conduct more powerful and effective amphibious assaults against North Korea in the event of a war, they said. ``The change of the name and structure means the two Marine forces will be able to lead combat operations independently and more effectively,'' a Marine official said, asking not to be named. (SITE NOTE: The bottomline is that the ROK Marines can NOT mount an assault on North Korea without the aid of US Navy transport ships. The last major farce was in 2007 when they gathered as many of their vessels together in a mock amphibious assault. All it proved was that they needed the US if they wanted to launch an assault on North Korea.) The current roles of the combined Marine Corpses under the CMFC mechanism are to support combat operations of other forces, he said. In case of a war, the U.S. 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force based in Okinawa, Japan, is to dispatch troops to the peninsula to participate in combined operations with the Korean Marine Corps forces. (SITE: After 2014 when the 3rd MEU moves to Guam, how will this be impacted? There will be a lot of shifts -- though the staging area for the 3rd MEU in Ulsan will be integral in the US Marine support in case of an invasion.) (Source: Korea Times.) Relocation of U.S. frontline troops to be delayed (Feb 2008) A proposed southward relocation of U.S. frontline troops in South Korea will be delayed for about one to two years, a government source said on 24 Feb. The envisioned relocation of the 2nd Infantry Division of the U.S. forces in Korea (USFK) slated to be completed by 2013 will be put off because of financing problems, the government source said. In December 2004, South Korea and the U.S. agreed to move the garrisons of the USFK dotted around the country to Pyeongtaek, 70 kilometers south of Seoul. Under the agreement, the 2nd Infantry Division is slated to move to Pyeongtaek from Euijeongbu, 23 kilometers north of Seoul, and Dongducheon, 40 kilometers north of Seoul by 2013. The U.S. military wants to partly use Seoul's budget for maintaining the USFK to conduct the relocation, but Seoul is reluctant to accept the U.S. proposal, the source said. The U.S. military says Seoul's opposition to its proposal forces the relocation to be delayed, it added. The South Korean government is sticking to its position that it will pay for the cost of moving the U.S. garrison in Yongsan out of Seoul, while the U.S. government should pay for the cost of relocating the 2nd Infantry Division. "Another reason behind delaying the realignment of the 2nd Infantry Division seems to be that Seoul and Washington placed their priority on the relocation of the Yongsan base," the source said. (Source: Yonhap News.) (SITE NOTE: Under the current Special Measures Agreement (SMA) system, the lump sum expenditure by Korea is spent at the discretion of the U.S. military. Once the total expenses that form the basis of the SMA fund are agreed to, Korea contributes the agreed sum to the U.S. military. The U.S. forces then spend the SMA funds in accordance with their own needs. The funds are meant to be limited to fees for Korean workers serving in the U.S. bases, logistics expenses, installation construction costs, and other expenditure relating to combined defense. However, in January 2007, U.S. Forces Korea announced that it will spend 50 percent of Koreas SMA contributions on the relocation of the U.S. 2nd Infantry Division, which is currently located north of Seoul, to Pyeongtaek. In a 2004 deal, Seoul and Washington agreed to split the relocation costs equally. Under the agreement, Seoul is responsible for the relocation of the Yongsan Garrison to Pyeongtaek, while Washington is supposed to pay for the consolidation of the 2nd Infantry Division to Pyeongtaek. We are not certain if this is the last gasps from the Roh administration to get in its final digs before the inauguration on 25 Feb OR a reflection of the Lee Myeong-bak determination to "renegotiate" the relocation of the forces off the DMZ. This however, is the same rhetoric that was stated in Nov 2007. The US has remained steadfast that it can use the SMA funds anyway they want once the ROK pays the lump sum. Some blogs believe it was LMB's message -- but we are holding off judgment since this is NOT the type of message the LMB would logically send to the US on his inauguration day.) Gen Bell Worried About 'Conventional Threat' from N.Korea (Feb 2008) In an interview with the Wall Street Journal on Saturday, Gen. Burwell B. Bell, commander of the U.S. Forces Korea, said, "First and foremost, I'm worried... about the conventional threat that the North Korean military poses to South Korea." Bell said, "What worries me is that North Korea is a 'military first' country where all their resources and their focus goes into the maintenance of the military apparatus." He continued, "This is a very large military, over a million men under arms in a very small country of only 22 million people. That means... [at] any time 5% of the whole country, regardless of age, [is] serving on active duty." (SITE NOTE: To emphasize the point, the North just held exercises that exceeded the previous amount of sorties generated for air force units and held mass artilery and infantry exercises in Feb.As for the North Korean nuclear threat, Bell hinted that it is difficult to determine precisely how far the North's nuclear capabilities have advanced so far. "We don't know what we don't know," he told the newspaper. On the six-party nuclear disarmament talks, Bell said North Korea has been cycling between cooperating and stalling. "Six-party negotiators take note: (North Korean leader) Kim Jong-il is not in the habit of keeping promises," the newspaper said. (Source: Chosun Ilbo.) Lee willing to reschedule troop-control (Feb 2008) Defense Minister-designate Lee Sang-hee said on 27 Feb that the Lee Myung-bak government will reconsider the timing of implementing the Korea-U.S. agreement concerning the transfer of wartime operational control. If necessary, we will have to readjust the schedule, Lee said during a parliamentary confirmation hearing held in Seoul. Under the agreement, the United States is supposed to hand over to Seoul its wartime control of the Korean armed forces in 2012. The defense minister-nominee stressed that the allies will assess the security situation every year until then. While moving forward to a solid joint-defense system, Korea and the United States will also have to scrutinize the security condition on the peninsula, he said, hinting that there could be change in the plan. The U.S. military is opposed to a rescheduling of the planned transfer. Gen. Burwell Bell, commander of U.S. Forces Korea, said last month that he sees no military rationale for a renegotiation of the timeline. (SITE NOTE: The ROK seems to be wiggling saying that the US agreed to assess the situation -- and the ROK thinks it is not up to speed. Unfortunately, the USFK Commander says that they are and things are on-track -- so the date should not be moved.) During the hearing, Lee Sang-hee also said the new government will possibly make some adjustments to the current defense reform plans in line with changing security conditions. There is a need for adjustment to the plan based on North Korean threats, pace of our military buildup and budget, he said. (SITE NOTE: The key word is budget. The ROK did not upgrade their military program for years and now it is almost too late. To invest in upgrades at one foul swoop would cost $65 billion -- which the ROK can't afford. In addition, as the USFK draws down, the ROK must pick up the slack and it just isn't happening. Anyone see a used PAC-2 Patriot system that was supposed to be in operation LAST YEAR?) The long-term plan, initiated in 2005, aims to reduce the number of troops from 680,000 to 500,000 by 2020 and equip the armed forces with state-of-the-art weapons. In opening remarks, Lee discussed the eight key principles of his leadership in defense affairs, including maintaining a comprehensive defense posture, enhancing the specialized forces, and improving the living conditions and human rights protection of soldiers. The former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff also said he will strive to upgrade the Korea-U.S. military alliance and ensure that the military prepares for a permanent peace regime on the peninsula. (Source: Korea Herald.) Korea to Bear Lion's Share of USFK Move: Bell (Mar 2008) The commander of U.S. Forces Korea has said South Korea will pay the bulk of the costs for relocating USFK headquarters from Yongsan, Seoul to Pyeongtaek in Gyeonggi Province, south of the capital. General Burwell Bell said Seoul agreed to pay US$7-8 billion out of the entire $10 billion for the relocation. "And already, in that physical process, South Korea has spent about $2 billion in an effort that's going to cost them around $10 billion. It's of the magnitude of the Guam move,” Bell told the U.S. House Appropriation Committee on March 12. However, the costs projected by Bell are controversial, differing hugely from estimates by the Korean Defense Ministry. The ministry has said that the relocation will cost a total of W5.59 trillion (US$1=W997) including W1.01 trillion for the purchase of the land. In March last year, the ministry in a Pyeongtaek base master plan said the move of all the bases north of the Han river including the Yongsan headquarters will cost W10 trillion, of which South Korea will pay W5.5 trillion for the relocation of U.S. forces in the Yongsan base, while the U.S. will pay W4.5 trillion for moving its Second Division to Pyeongtaek. Therefore, if Gen. Bell's calculation is right it could fuel suspicions that the previous government reached an under-the-table deal on the relocation with the U.S. But a ministry official denied such speculation, saying Bell apparently included the costs for moving both the Yongsan base and the Second Division. “There was no secret deal,” he said. Bell told the committee, "South Korea agreed to shoulder the majority of the infrastructure expenses associated with moving our forces out of Yongsan Garrison farther south in their country." He said that Korea had demanded the relocation. Turning to the relocation of the U.S. Second Division, Bell said Korea will share the financial burden for moving the division with the U.S. 50:50. It was the first time that has been made public. Public opposition is expected to spending more Korean taxpayers’ money on relocating the U.S. forces. (Source: Chosun Ilbo.) Osan Air Base set for twin runways by 2010 (Mar 2008) The U.S. Air Force will build a second runway here, enabling its fighter base nearest North Korea to launch more aircraft. "We will be able to launch and receive twice as many aircraft than we can now, in the same time," said Capt. John Ross, chief spokesman for Osan's 51st Fighter Wing. "The main reason we are proposing to build a new runway is because the current runway we have is 55 years old and showing signs of deterioration," he said. Construction of the $95 million concrete runway is projected to start in January 2009 and be completed by December 2010. It will be 9,000 feet long and usable by the same aircraft types that the existing runway can support. Those include heavy cargo planes such as the C-17 Globemaster III and the mammoth C-5 Galaxy. Osan's existing runway also is 9,000 feet. "Deploying personnel who are coming to the peninsula land here; cargo shipments for USFK and for us, land here. Visiting dignitaries — recently, the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Air Force; we've also had presidents — land here," Ross said. He said the runway design is about 30 percent complete. "And then we need to contract the design to a builder," Ross said. It will be for aircraft making nonprecision instrument approaches only. The existing runway can support precision instrument approaches, Ross said. Operating the new runway is not expected to call for additional staffing, Ross said. Like the existing runway, the new one will lie east-west. It will be just north of the older runway and just south of the Jinwi River at the base's northern perimeter, Ross said. "The original runway was built in 1953 in a six-month period of time, immediately following the war," Ross said, referring to the Korean War of 1950–53. "It was built quickly and during the rainy season," he said. "So the concrete used to build that runway is now deteriorating. (SITE NOTE: Not true. See 1952: Osan AB and Songtan Area.) "A new runway will allow us to continue operations while we repair the old runway or perhaps even demolish and reconstruct it." While U.S. and South Korean officials have discussed the eventual enlargement of Osan Air Base, any such action would not be because of the new runway, Ross said. "It's under discussion, but there's no firm plan," he said of any possible expansion. (Source: Stars and Stripes.) USFK Chief Calls for Upgrade of Alliance (Mar 2008) U.S. Forces Korea Commander Gen. Burwell Bell on 11 Mar said it was “time for Washington to reexamine its Defense Treaty with Seoul.” The U.S. should “look beyond the narrow scope of the DMZ threat (from North Korea) and solidify the alliance as a pillar of stability and cooperation that will be an example for all the nations of Northeast Asia and the world." Bell made the remarks in a hearing at the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee. "As an example, after the fall of the former Soviet Union many believed that (NATO) would become obsolete due to the perception that it existed only to deter Soviet aggression during the Cold War,” he said. But instead of disbanding after the fall of communism, “NATO has evolved into a multi-dimensional alliance whose members share the fundamental values of democratic principles, individual freedom, and free market enterprise." It is unprecedented for the USFK commander to urge Congress to reexamine the Korea-U.S. Defense Treaty. His statement is being interpreted as a reaction to the inauguration of a new, U.S.-friendly administration under President Lee Myung-bak in South Korea. According to a source in Washington, it was an expression of plans “to cooperate on a global scale." Another source said, "It seems that Gen. Bell accurately conveyed the Defense Department's intention at the Senate hearing before he retires in summer." However, the security threat from North Korea remains real, Bell said. "North Korea remains the primary threat to security in Northeast Asia,” he said. “In view of U.S. economic and security interests in (South Korea) and the region, it is my most considered judgment that the U.S. should set a cooperative policy based on shared interests and values with (Seoul) to maintain a meaningful American troop presence on the Korean Peninsula throughout the 21st century and beyond, even subsequent to a peace treaty with North Korea, should that come about." Meanwhile, in a press conference after the Senate hearing alongside Bell, Adm. Timothy Keating, the commander of U.S. Pacific Command, said he expected trilateral military talks between South Korea, the U.S. and Japan would produce tangible results in a short period of time. During the initial stage of talks, the three countries will agree small-scale cooperation, and will stage various kinds of drills that can lead to larger-scale exercises in the future, Keating added. (Source: Chosun Ilbo.) (SITE NOTE: Perhaps there’s another way of thinking of the “upgrade.” It might actually be a request for a “downgrade.” Remember that the Mutual Defense Treaty was only signed to ascede to Syngman Rhee (Yi Syng-man)in order to keep him from blocking the Armistice. When the UN pulled out in 1973 after the ROK said it could go it alone (with the help from its friend the USA), the Mutual Defense Pact became the backbone of the ROK-US alliance. It is however NOT an automatic pact like NATO. The US must have Congressional approval — leftover from the days of distrust with Syngman Rhee. Also it stipulates that if the ROK initiates actions with its neighbors leading to war, it is on its own. This is why the US has a hands-off policy on Tokdo-Liancourt Rocks-Takeshima and the MDL episodes. The question now is what does Gen Bell envision as being included in the new Pact to strictly define and limit the US participation in future conflicts? How will it impact on the potential US involvement in a conflict with not only the DPRK, but also Japan and China and even Russia?) USFK commander Bell says South Korea may want to halt reduction of U.S. troops (Mar 2008) U.S. Forces Korea commander Gen. B.B. Bell said he expects South Korea’s new president to ask for a pause in the reduction of U.S. troops stationed here while the countries study the future of the drawdown. During congressional testimony March 12 in Washington, Bell said President Lee Myung-bak could make the request as early as April, when Lee is scheduled to meet with President Bush at Camp David. “If he does ask for that pause, I think it would be prudent for the United States to agree to sit down and discuss the issue and then potentially execute a pause based on those discussions,” he said. About 28,500 U.S. troops are stationed in South Korea, down from 37,000 about four years ago. About 25,000 will remain when the drawdown is completed. A spokesman for South Korea’s Ministry of National Defense declined to comment on 18 Mar, and Lee’s spokesperson did not return calls for comment. (SITE NOTE: Korea Herald reported that an alliance of veterans and conservative civic groups on 17 Mar called on the new government to renegotiate the timing of Seoul's takeover of wartime operational control of its armed forces from Washington. The group, consisting of 227 military veterans and rightist organizations, yesterday delivered the message to Defense Minister Lee Sang-hee, ministry officials said. "The South Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command should remain intact for a considerable time until North Korea is denuclearized and our military is modernized with information technology," the group said in a statement.) Bell spoke to several congressional committees last week during a trip to the capital. Transcripts of his testimony were made available over the weekend. Bell told the House Armed Services Committee that Lee and his staff are “absolutely committed” to taking wartime control of forces stationed in South Korea by the April 17, 2012, deadline set by the two countries. “So, then, the review is not over whether or not to do the transfer, it is just to have some auditing that the timelines are getting met to move to the transfer?" asked Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Wash. “That’s correct, congressman,” Bell said. In another hearing, before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 11, Bell said he was concerned about USFK’s lack of up-armored vehicles and has asked the U.S. Army to provide them soon. The up-armored vehicles, including the MRAP or Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle, could arrive in about a year, he said. “Given the experience that we’ve had in Afghanistan and Iraq and knowing the special operating force capability in North Korea, I want all of my wheel vehicles to be up-armored on the peninsula, and that has not taken place yet,” he said. Bell told the committee that about 2 percent of USFK’s vehicles are up-armored, which is “not really satisfactory,” but units going to Iraq are rightfully getting them first. “I’m not complaining at all, because I’m not facing imminent combat,” he said. He spoke about up-armored vehicles three times during a lengthy question-and-answer session with the committee, which asked about everything from troops’ housing in South Korea to the mental health of troops serving there after tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. When asked by Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., to rate the preparedness of U.S. forces in Korea, Bell said air and ground forces are ready but not as protected as he would like. “If you walked amongst the 2nd Infantry Division right now, you’d see a very ready division without up-armored vehicles,” he said. “So that piece, given what we’ve seen in Iraq and that vulnerability, does concern me.” USFK’s public affairs office did not provide answers on 17 Mar to Stripes’ questions about how many up-armored vehicles will come to South Korea, their costs and when they will arrive. (Source: Stars and Stripes.) Seoul Denies Bell's Comment on Pause in Troop Cuts (Mar 2008) The Ministry of National Defense (MND) on 20 Mar dismissed remarks by the top U.S. commander here that South Korea will ask for a pause in the reduction of American forces in South Korea. The remarks by Gen. B. B. Bell, commander of the U.S. Forces Korea (USFK), were construed as a bargaining tactic to help get more host nation funds to maintain its troops, according to security experts and government sources. Bell was quoted by Stars & Stripes as saying that President Lee Myung-bak could make the request during the planned summit with President George W. Bush at Camp David next month. ``If he does ask for that pause, I think it would be prudent for the United States to agree to sit down and discuss the issue and then potentially execute a pause based on those discussions,'' the general said during congressional testimony March 12. Kim Hyung-ki, the ministry's spokesman, quickly |
