Interesting news

The BBC reports today that the US is proposing to South Korea that up to one-third of the 37,000 US troops there be withdrawn, a dramatic reduction. This follows the announcement last month that some 3,600 soldiers would be moved from South Korea to Iraq, the first cut in US troop strength on the peninsula since the end of the Cold War.

The Pentagon says the proposed cut is part of a major realignment of US forces in East Asia that won't affect the security of South Korea, but with North Korea still part of the "axis of evil" and the occasional target of a burst of bellicose rhetoric, it still seems an odd move, especially coming so close on the heels of the earlier announcement about a redeployment to Iraq. That suggests to me that something else may be behind it, something like putting North Korea on the back burner to shore up forces elsewhere. It will be interesting to try to keep track of the 8,000+ soldiers withdrawn who are not part of the contingent already committed to Iraq to see if they follow on a little later. (And there's always Afghanistan, the site of those increasing attacks.)

Adding to my suspicion that there's something other than a strategic realignment at work here, South Korea's President Roh Moo-hyun right at the same time has proposed sending 3,000 ROK troops to Iraq despite growing opposition at home.

I'm hesitant to make firm declarations based on just what's here, but it still seems to me that this indicates two things: One, the threat from North Korea isn't as serious as it's been made out to be. Two, the US is even more desperate for boots on the ground in Iraq than we thought.

Footnote: In reading the transcript of Donald Rumsfeld's speech in Singapore and the Q&A that followed (see above post), I noticed Rumsfeld saying this about North Korea:

North Korea has, by its own statements, indicated, in its behavior, that it is engaged in a variety of things that are considered illegal and antisocial by the civilized countries in the world. They engage in counterfeiting, they engage in terrorist acts, they have been proliferating various WMD technologies and delivery mechanisms. It is a country that operates well outside the norms of normal behavior.

That seems to raise even greater questions about the real reason behind the decision to redeploy troops from South Korea. Rumsfeld stayed with the official line that it won't affect security, but it's hard to imagine a military person looking at a country described as Rumsfeld described North Korea (especially since he also said "assuming their behavior is to continue, their programs, the longer it takes the more dangerous their capabilities presumably would become") talking about removing fully one-third of your forces from the immediate vicinity if there wasn't some other pressing need somewhere else.

I could be wrong, of course, but I'd like to wait and see.