The Pentagon has reportedly given the White House options to reduce the presence of US troops in South Korea after President Trump
Donald John TrumpAmash confirms he will not seek re-election of Chicago’s mayor to the White House press secretary: ‘Hello, Karen. Look at Your Mouth ‘Pentagon Reflection Plan to Ban Confederate Flag Without Mentioning It by Name: MORE ReportIt demands that Seoul pay significantly more to keep US forces there.
A US military official told The Wall Street Journal that the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs of Staff has reviewed forces in South Korea, which currently has 28,500 troops, as part of a broader look at possible repositioning and downsizing. of deployments worldwide.
The Defense Department referred questions to the White House, which did not respond to requests for comment.
The potential move caused an immediate pullback from congressional lawmakers, including the senator. Ben sasse
Benjamin (Ben) Eric SasseUS praises Britain’s Huawei ban on China after the Meadows lobbying campaign attempted to remove suspected White House leakers by providing them information: the group backed by Axios Koch urges the Senate to oppose the ” State bailouts in new listings MORE (R-Neb.), Who described this decision as “strategic incompetence”.
“We do not have missile systems in South Korea as a social assistance program; We have troops and ammunition there to protect the Americans, “Sasse said in a statement.” Our goal is to give the Chinese communist leadership and the nuclear lunatic by tyrannizing their North Korean subjects something to think about before they mess with us. “
The Trump administration has frequently preoccupied allies with threats to pull US troops out of strategic locations. More recently, Trump announced last month that he plans to withdraw thousands of US troops from Germany. The president framed the reduction as a response to Berlin due billions to NATO, although members’ contributions to the alliance are measured in spending on their own armies.
That cutback plan also sparked a bipartisan backlash from lawmakers who say it would undermine America’s alliances and benefit Russia.
The reduction of US troops on the peninsula would also be considered a victory for North Korea, which has long lobbied for US forces to leave Seoul and would not have to make major commitments for withdrawal.
The administration since 2018 has already canceled several large-scale military exercises between the United States and South Korea in an effort to advance nuclear disarmament talks with Pyongyang.
However, North Korea, which sees US troops and war games as an open threat, has largely backtracked on alleged promises to shut down rocket launch sites and dismantle its nuclear program.
The possible decision to withdraw troops from South Korea comes when Washington and Seoul have yet to reach a solid cost-sharing agreement after the latter expired on December 31. The deal, known as the Special Measures Agreement, expired amid demands by the Trump administration for South Korea to pay significantly more to settle US troops there.
The two countries reached a temporary deal in June that lasts until the end of the year, but Trump has insisted that South Korea contribute about $ 5 billion a year, or about 400 percent more than what he paid in the agreement now expired. Both sides say the administration’s demands have been softened since then, but a new deal has yet to be reached.
The United States has had South Korean-based service members since the Korean War, and the two countries in 1991 signed the first of several subsequent agreements for Seoul to provide money and support to offset the costs of the United States.
South Korea’s latest offer increases its payment by 13 percent from the previous deal for the first year, with annual increases after that of around 7 percent.
Trump rejected the plan.
Meanwhile, lawmakers have already moved to prevent the Trump administration from taking on downsizing troops in South Korea. Last year’s annual defense policy bill, enacted in December, banned funding used to reduce the number of troops in the country unless the Pentagon certified that it was in the national interest and that consultations had been held with South Korea. South and Japan.
This year’s version of the House Armed Services Committee bill seeks to take the obstacles one step further, adding requirements to certify that a troop reduction is proportional to a reduction in the threat from North Korea and that South Korea’s South would still be able to dissuade a conflict in the peninsula
—Updated at 4:40 pm
.
