Strategic pivot, not pullback, if US troops relocate from Korea, says Harris

Korea Herald

2 days ago

No US resistance to wartime OPCON transfer to S. Korea; handover depends on meeting conditions -- time, effort, money
SEOGWIPO, Jeju Island — Repositioning of US forces on the Korean Peninsula, even if it occurs, would not signify a diminution of America's defense commitment to South Korea, but rather reflect a strategic and holistic recalibration to meet regional challenges across the Indo-Pacific region, former US Ambassador to South Korea Harry Harris said.
Harris repudiated 'stovepiped' approaches, underscoring the improbability of conceiving of a contingency on the Korean Peninsula as discrete from a Taiwan crisis or other potential regional flashpoints, in an interview with The Korea Herald on the sidelines of the Jeju Forum at the International Convention Center Jeju.
Anxiety over a possible reduction in the roughly 28,500 US troops in South Korea has flared anew, following a Wall Street Journal report in May that the Pentagon is weighing an option to pull out approximately 4,500 troops and move them to other locations in the Indo-Pacific region. Pentagon chief spokesperson Sean Parnell publicly stated that the report of a US Forces Korea drawdown is 'not true,' but his denial has done little to assuage Seoul's concerns.
'There's always the possibility that we're going to restructure forces in the Pacific, but it's not a scaling back,' said Harris, a former four-star admiral in the US Navy and former commander of US Pacific Command, when asked about the prospect and feasibility of a USFK reduction.
'That term has a negative connotation. It implies that we're somehow going to reduce our commitment to Korea. I don't think that will ever happen.'
Harris pointed to the Pentagon's classified internal 'Interim National Defense Guidance' — which he has not seen but was reported by the Washington Post in late March — as signaling a shift in US military focus to the Indo-Pacific region, with China identified as the central focus.
'That's not a negative reduction of forces. That's so that we are better postured to defend Korea and meet our obligations to our other treaty allies and deal with the possibility of having to confront China over Taiwan,' Harris said.
Harris underscored the need for the US military to break down stovepipes to better cope with regional threats, admitting, 'We have been stovepiped in our approach to operational planning, and I was guilty of that when I was the PACOM commander.'
'We have the Taiwan problem, we have the North Korea problem, and we have the China problem, and we tend to look at these as if they're independent problem sets without any spillover of effects. And that's wrong. We have to look at it holistically,' Harris said.
'If we move forces from Korea to somewhere else, it's so that we can better integrate all of the challenges that we face in the Indo-Pacific. It's not a reduction in commitment; it's a refocusing of our ability to meet all of the challenges that confront us.'
Asked whether the number of US troops in South Korea, by itself, is what matters most in terms of deterrence and the strength of the alliance, Harris said, 'No, it is not.'
'It is the commitment to defend Korea to the best of our ability in order to meet our treaty obligations,' Harris explained. 'If — this is a big if, this is hypothetical again — if North Korea invaded South Korea again, then it would require far more than the 28,000 troops that are here in South Korea to help South Korea defend itself.'
Harris further highlighted that the US has air force wings and marine units stationed in Japan, and that the US 7th Fleet is based in Yokosuka, stating, 'There are forces that will come from all over the region.'
In response to Seoul's growing apprehensions regarding the strategic flexibility of US Forces Korea, Harris emphasized that the issue ought to be viewed within the broader framework of addressing regional challenges through a holistic approach.
Strategic flexibility means the ability to be rapidly redeployed for expeditionary operations and used for broader regional missions beyond the Korean Peninsula, including a potential Taiwan contingency.
'It would be hard to imagine a North Korean scenario independent of a Taiwan scenario, or some other scenario, if they were to happen. I see the hidden hand of China in a lot of this. And so, we cannot look at these things as independent actions,' Harris said.
'We have to consider them in a holistic way. And so that's why strategic flexibility is important — not only for the United States, but it's important for South Korea as well.'
OPCON transfer when conditions are met
With regard to the South Korean military's regaining of wartime operational control, or OPCON, Harris said the transfer will take place once the conditions agreed upon by both allies are met.
'There's no resistance from the United States on the idea of OPCON transition,' Harris said. 'I think it's simply a matter of meeting the conditions that were determined, and that's just a matter of time, effort and money.'
When asked what ought to be the foremost priority for the South Korean military to further bolster its capabilities, should the US request that it assume a greater share of responsibility in countering North Korean threats, Harris identified command and control as one of the foremost priorities.
'One is command and control, which is not a thing, but a capability, in order to effectively command and control forces — including US forces,' Harris said.
'So, in order to effectively command and control forces — including US forces — if we achieve OPCON transition, the transition of operational control of Korean forces during wartime, then Korea will have to have the ability to command and control American forces as well as, obviously, Korean forces, for which you already have that capability.'
Harris denied that any shift had taken place, responding to a question about whether the nature of the Korea-US alliance has changed under President Donald Trump's 'America First' doctrine.
'No, I don't think so. I think it's about focusing on the threats and how we are going to meet our treaty obligations.'
At the same time, Harris noted that while burden-sharing negotiations are expected to continue, Washington's strategic focus is now shifting toward China and the broader Indo-Pacific region.
As for Seoul, a debate exists over whether it should seek greater autonomy in its alliance amid Washington's more inward-looking 'America First' foreign policy. In response to such calls, Harris was unequivocal: 'Today, the alliance is needed more than ever. But that's my opinion.'
'If the South Korean people, as manifested by the people they elect into office, feel that the alliance has served its course, or if they feel — that's a hard point — that the alliance should somehow change so that Korea can embark on a more independent course, that's up to Korea,' Harris said.
'It's not up to the United States, nor is it up to anyone else. It's an independent decision that has to be made by both countries. We can't want it more than South Korea wants it.'
[e-mail]