Time to modernize the ROK/U.S. alliance by building on enduring strengths
Aug. 1 (UPI) -- For more than 70 years, the Republic of Korea-United States alliance has not only prevented a resumption of war on the peninsula, but has also deterred the use of nuclear weapons for two decades.
This is a historic achievement, but the case for U.S. troops in Korea is fundamentally about the future, not the past. To secure American interests in a rapidly changing Asia-Indo-Pacific, and to ensure continued stability, prosperity and influence, the United States. requires a strong, forward-stationed military presence on the Korean Peninsula.
Enduring deterrence and strategic purpose
The ROK/U.S. alliance has been the linchpin of peace in Northeast Asia, succeeding where most alliances do not. This partnership endures because it has adapted to strategic realities and consistently served both nations' interests.
Its forward presence is not simply about defending against a North Korean invasion, but also about shaping a regional security environment favorable to U.S. values and interests, promoting economic prosperity and deterring any form of aggression, be it from North Korea, China or elsewhere.
Mutual Defense Treaty: A vision beyond North Korea
The drafters of the Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States and the ROK displayed remarkable prescience. Article II commits both nations to "maintain and develop appropriate means to deter armed attack and take suitable measures in consultation and agreement to implement this Treaty and further its purposes."
Notably, the treaty never explicitly mentions North Korea. Article III identifies a broader purpose: countering threats "in the Pacific area," making clear that the alliance is not just a relic of the Korean War, but rather a platform for ensuring regional security against any emerging threats.
This language anchors the ROK/U.S. alliance in the enduring goal of collective defense against any attack in the Pacific, cementing the alliance's relevance for the future.
The alliance in a complex strategic environment
Today's Asia-Indo-Pacific region is marked by growing authoritarian revisionism, nuclear proliferation, gray-zone provocations and intensified economic competition. China's military expansion, the Russia-North Korea partnership and advances in North Korea's missile and nuclear capabilities compound these risks.
In this environment, there is no viable alternative to a credible, forward U.S. presence. Offshore balancing or periodic engagement cannot substitute for the trust, interoperability and regional deterrence built through continual partnership and presence.
The ROK/U.S. alliance amplifies U.S. power far beyond Korea. It enables stability and prosperity vital to global supply chains, supports U.S. influence in multilateral settings and strengthens the broader network of American alliances essential for balancing emerging powers. The alliance also upholds democratic values, reinforcing a liberal international order in the face of authoritarian challenges.
A model of democratic partnership
South Korea is no longer solely a beneficiary of U.S. protection. It is a global pivotal state, aligned with the United States in securing a free, open and prosperous Asia-Indo-Pacific. The alliance is global and comprehensive, allowing the two nations to respond together to new threats, support international norms and contribute to peacekeeping and humanitarian missions. South Korea is a major partner in the arsenal of democracies.
Sustaining success: Forward presence as future insurance
The U.S. military presence in Korea is not a relic of the past. It is an investment in a stable and prosperous future. The alternative, as history teaches, is to invite misunderstanding and aggression.
Weakness and retrenchment do not purchase peace; they embolden adversaries and undermine American interests. The credibility and commitment provided by U.S. forces on the peninsula deter not only conventional and nuclear threats from the North, but also coercive efforts by regional powers to rewrite the geopolitical order.
For American readers skeptical of overseas presence, the record is clear: the ROK/U.S. alliance delivers outsized returns for peace and prosperity at home, supporting regional stability that underpins global economic growth and safeguards U.S. security interests for the next generation.
Conclusion
We must not look backward, resting on laurels earned in decades past. The United States does not maintain troops in Korea out of nostalgia, but to build a future where American interests and values continue to shape the region. The pathway to peace and prosperity in the Asia-Indo-Pacific is through a robust, modernized alliance, anchored by a steadfast U.S. presence that protects not only the Korean Peninsula, but also the interests of America and the free world.
Let's build on success rather than set up for future failure.
Katchi Kapshida-We Go Together.
David Maxwell is a retired U.S. Army Special Forces colonel who has spent more than 30 years in the Asia Pacific region. He specializes in Northeast Asian security affairs and irregular, unconventional and political warfare. He is vice president of the Center for Asia Pacific Strategy and a senior fellow at the Global Peace Foundation. After he retired, he became associate director of the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University. He is on the board of directors of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea and the OSS Society and is the editor at large for the Small Wars Journal.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
23 minutes ago
- USA Today
Moscow urges everyone, including Trump, to be 'very, very cautious' with nuclear rhetoric
Moscow downplayed President Trump's announcement that he'd ordered two nuclear submarines to "the appropriate regions" after doomsday Russian rhetoric. Moscow broke its silence on President Donald Trump's comments ordering two nuclear submarines to "the appropriate regions" in response to "provocative" remarks by a former Russian president. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told Russian state media on Aug. 4 that the country was "very attentive" to the topic of nuclear non-proliferation and believed "everyone should be very, very cautious with nuclear rhetoric." Peskov also played down the significance of Trump's comments, saying it was clear to Russia that U.S. submarines were already on combat duty. He said Russia had no appetite for getting into a prolonged argument with Trump. Still, Trump's deployment of the nuclear submarines appears to be the first time social media rhetoric has led an American president to apparently reposition parts of the United States' nuclear arsenal. (Trump did not specify whether he was referring to nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed submarines.) Trump said the move was in response to statements from Dmitry Medvedev, who was the Russian president from 2008 to 2012 and prime minister from 2012 to 2020. He is now the deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council. Medvedev, who in recent years has taken to social media to post spiky, rabble-rousing comments aimed at the United States, said in a post on X, formerly Twitter, that Trump's recent threats to sanction Russia, including a tariffs ultimatum, were "a step towards war." Seeking a ceasefire Since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Putin himself has frequently resorted to nuclear threats. The Kremlin has repeatedly suggested that Moscow could use nuclear weapons under certain circumstances. The latest spat follows Trump's trip to Scotland, where he said he was reducing his 50-day deadline for Russia to make moves toward trying to end its war with Ukraine – down to a new deadline of 10 or 12 days. That deadline is Aug. 8. Trump warned of "very severe" sanctions on Russia if it does not commit to a ceasefire. Ahead of the deadline, Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff, a real estate mogul and cryptocurrency trader who has turned into Trump's de facto roaming emissary, is expected to visit Russia on Aug. 6. Peskov said Russia views Witkoff's visit as "important, substantial and helpful," and he raised the possibility that Witkoff might see President Vladimir Putin for talks. Witkoff has made multiple trips to Moscow at Trump's behest. After one of his trips, he returned with a portrait of Trump gifted by Putin. During another visit, Witkoff, who does not speak Russian, arrived without a translator and relied on one supplied by the Kremlin. His last trip was in April. Trump told reporters that if his Aug. 8 deadline arrives and Russia has not agreed to a Ukraine ceasefire, "there'll be sanctions. But they seem to be pretty good at avoiding sanctions," he added. "You know, they're wily characters. … So we'll see what happens."
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
The BOOTS Act is protectionism masquerading as patriotism
The Better Outfitting Our Troops or BOOTS Act has a noble-sounding name, but it is the exact opposite in practice. Introduced earlier this year, the proposed legislation would prohibit U.S. servicemembers in uniform from wearing any 'optional boot' — that is, boots not formally issued but still permitted — unless the footwear is manufactured entirely in the U.S. Supporters claim the measure promotes quality and readiness, but it's really just a protectionist giveaway to domestic bootmakers that will limit soldiers' choices, increase their costs, and put their well-being at risk. At the BOOTS Act's core is an age-old protectionist formula: It would restrict the market under the guise of patriotism and funnel profits to politically connected industries. In this case, the primary beneficiaries are U.S. boot manufacturers who, unsurprisingly, are lobbying hard for the bill's passage. They stand to gain handsomely by locking out foreign competitors and forcing tens of thousands of American troops to buy from a narrow set of approved vendors. Although protectionism as a general proposition is contemptible, this is far worse. You can't get much lower than trying to make a buck off servicemembers at the expense of their health and performance, which is exactly what restrictions on their footwear options will do. Claims by the bill's supporters that the measure ensures 'high-quality footwear' or that it's 'good for the troops' are laughable when confronted with basic facts. Reducing the range of available boots makes it less likely that soldiers will find the best fit for their unique needs — no small matter when spending long hours in rugged terrain or combat environments. Indeed, the Marine Corps' own combat support systems office recently disclosed that a review of U.S.-made boots yielded a startling 25 percent failure rate. That's not just embarrassing — it's a red flag. The bill's congressional sponsors surely wouldn't spend their own money on footwear of such questionable quality, so why would they force U.S. servicemembers to do so? And this bizarre insistence that fewer choices will ensure more reliable and durable footwear isn't even the most absurd claim they make. One lobbying group behind the BOOTS Act, the U.S. Footwear Manufacturers Association, even argues that eliminating foreign-made options will 'reduce confusion among servicemembers.' Apparently, American troops who operate advanced weapons systems and execute complex battlefield maneuvers are baffled by an excess of footwear choices. The notion is as insulting as it is ridiculous. The bill's backers do, however, raise one superficially plausible argument: A reliance on foreign-made boots 'erodes the supply chain' needed to meet wartime demands. But skepticism is warranted here, too. Marine Corps Colonel Paul Gillikin, the current program manager for Marine combat support systems, argues that having multiple supply sources is vital — particularly in a future conflict where contested environments could make traditional supply lines untenable. The veteran infantry and special operations officer says he wants to see 'all options' kept on the table. Consider a hypothetical conflict in East Asia. In such a scenario, boots manufactured in Southeast Asia might be easier to procure and deliver to frontline forces than those shipped from the continental U.S. A rigid U.S.-only policy could leave troops struggling with insufficient gear. Capacity constraints add to concerns about boot protectionism. In a 2023 wargame exploring vulnerabilities in the defense clothing supply chain, industry representatives revealed they could produce no more than 525,000 pairs of boots per year. Asked whether they could add another 456,000 pairs annually — hardly a far-fetched scenario in a major conflict — they admitted it would only be feasible with advance investment. That's a polite way of saying: 'We're not ready.' So what happens if we close off foreign sources and a surge in demand occurs unexpectedly? We either send troops into the field with inadequate footwear or scramble to rebuild a diversified supply chain we will have intentionally dismantled by passing this bill. Relying solely on domestic suppliers puts all our eggs in one basket — a risky and short-sighted move when it comes to national defense. After surveying the evidence, the more cynically minded might suspect the BOOTS Act is more about bolstering profits than readiness. Each of the six members of Congress who introduced the bill represents a district or state home to (or in close proximity of) members of the American Combat Boot Alliance, an industry coalition that supports the legislation and stands to reap the rewards. The appearance of self-interest is hard to ignore, and the incentives are clear: limit competition, boost profits and wrap it all in the flag. Import restrictions are a well-documented economic loser that force Americans to pay more and get less. But as the BOOTS Act shows, their harm can extend to national security as well. In this case, they endanger troop readiness, reduce operational flexibility, and weaken our ability to respond to future threats. Supporting American industry is a worthy goal, but doing so by shackling our servicemembers to potentially subpar products and higher costs — all while hollowing out our strategic options — is not the way to do it. Our troops deserve the best boots available — wherever they're made. The BOOTS Act ensures they won't get them.
Miami Herald
23 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Who do tariffs help? What Americans say in poll as Trump unveils new levies
A greater share of Americans would like to see President Donald Trump's tariffs scaled back than expanded, according to a new Economist/YouGov poll. And most Americans believe his tariffs will drive up prices and put a heavier burden on U.S. consumers. The survey comes after Trump signed an executive order on July 31 imposing sweeping new levies — between 10% and 41% — on imports from about 70 countries. These are set to go into effect on Aug. 7, providing a short window for negotiations. Trump, who previously issued a 10% baseline tariff on all imports in April, in addition to sector-specific levies, has said the unprecedented measures are necessary to counter unfair trade practices. 'Tariffs are making America GREAT & RICH Again,' the president said in a post on Truth Social. 'They were successfully used against the USA for decades. … Now the tide has completely turned, and America has successfully countered this onslaught of Tariffs used against it.' Many economists, meanwhile, are wary of widespread tariffs, arguing they will boost inflation, raise prices and result in job losses. The poll also comes after the Labor Department's latest jobs report, released on Aug. 1, found weaker-than-expected employment growth in July. As a result, Trump fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, claiming the report was 'rigged.' Here is a breakdown of the results from the poll. A much larger share of Americans want U.S. tariff rates to be decreased rather than increased, according to the poll, which sampled 1,777 U.S. adults July 25-28. A plurality, 41%, said rates should be lowered, while 18% said they should be raised. An additional 23% said they should be kept the same. The poll — which has a margin of error of about 3.5 percentage points — also asked respondents, 'who is is most helped and hurt by tariff increases?' A majority, 54%, said American consumers are hurt the most, while far fewer said foreign manufacturers (22%), foreign consumers (4%) and U.S. manufacturers (3%). Meanwhile, a plurality, 28%, said American manufacturers are helped the most by tariff increases. Smaller shares said U.S. consumers (11%), foreign manufacturers (6%) and foreign consumers (1%). Additionally, the vast majority of respondents, 71%, said they believe Trump's tariffs will lead to higher prices, with 43% saying prices will increase 'a lot' and 28% saying they will rise 'a little.' Just 9% said they expect tariffs will lead to lower prices. Most Democrats and Republicans — 87% and 55%, respectively — agreed that levies will result in higher prices.
