• Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Europe logoCarnegie lettermark logo
EUNATO
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Jon Wolfsthal"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "U.S. Nuclear Policy",
    "Korean Peninsula"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "NPP",
  "programs": [
    "Nuclear Policy"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "United States",
    "Iraq",
    "South Korea"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Policy",
    "Nuclear Policy",
    "Nuclear Energy"
  ]
}
REQUIRED IMAGE

REQUIRED IMAGE

In The Media

US Troop Reductions Risk War in Korea

Link Copied
By Jon Wolfsthal
Published on Jun 8, 2004

Source: Carnegie

Originally published June 8, 2004 in the Munhwa Ilbo


Jon B. Wolfsthal


The security situation in Iraq is bad and continues to worsen. While the recent appointment of interim leaders in Iraq is a positive political step,it is increasingly clear that the United States has mismanaged its occupation of Iraq and that the prolonged post-war chaos shows no signs of improving any time soon. The need for additional US troops in Iraq has become so acute that the United States has announced the reduction and transfer of US troops from South Korea to Iraq.

While the realignment of US forces in South Korea has been a joint goal for the US and the Republic of Korea for several years, the timing and decision to redeploy those troop directly to Iraq sends the wrong signal to US allies and enemies in the region and raises questions about the willingness of the US to stand by its friends in East Asia. In fact, the US should be looking to increase its military capabilities in the region, not reduce them.

The decision to move 3,600 support troops out of South Korea does not directly affect the ability of the United States to help defend South Korea from any attack by the North. Moreover, it is not clear that the troops add any significant capability to US forces in Iraq. By some estimates, many tens of thousands of additional troops are needed in Iraq to secure cities and borders with neighboring countries. But the symbolism is clear around the world - the US is in trouble in Iraq and appears to be scavenging troops from anywhere and everywhere to bolster its position in the Middle East. If troops had to be removed from South Korea, they should have been rotated back to the United States or better yet on temporary assignment to Japan.

The events in Iraq, however, are not the only reason the timing of this move was a mistake. The continued progress of North Korea' nuclear program that may now include up to 9 nuclear weapons has influenced the way the troop realignment may be seen on Pyongyang and elsewhere. While it is always difficult to understand North Korean perceptions, it is possible that Pyongyang will interpret the US troop move as a sign of weakness and further embolden Kim Jong Il to advance his nuclear program as a way of encouraging further US military reductions.

The current US administration has approach on North Korea's nuclear program has failed. Pyongyang's capabilities have increased in the 3 plus years this administration has been in office with no real progress in site. It is time to face the increasingly realistic possibility that North Korea may never give up its nuclear program -or may never be offered a deal attractive enough to tempt it to do so. The United States, South Korea, Japan and China must quickly begin to make adjustments in its political and military positions to ensure that North Korea is deterred from taking any provocative military action and that the alliances between the ROK, Japan and the United States are reinforced.

To ensure the future credibility of US security commitments to both South Korea and Japan, the United States should consider increasing, not decreasing, the level of troops in the region as well as continuing to enhance regional military capabilities. This would send a clear signal to North Korea that its continued nuclear efforts are worsening its security situation, while reassuring US allies that Washington remains committed to their protection.

Lastly, it is time for the United States to communicate a new set of messages or red lines to North Korea, including what North Korean moves the US would consider so dangerous as to warrant military action. Among these are any attempt by North Korea to export any nuclear materials and any moves to conduct a nuclear weapons test. Most importantly, the US should make it clear to Pyongyang that any signs that North Korea is preparing to launch a long-range ballistic missile would be interpreted as possible preparation for a nuclear attack against the United States or one of its allies.

Former US Secretary of Defense William Perry warned last year that the current direction of US policy risked both sides "drifting into war" through miscalculation. Now that the US has lowered its military presence in South Korea and North Korea expanded its nuclear arsenal, his predictions are coming closer to reality.

Jon Wolfsthal is deputy director of the Non-Proliferation Project

-----------------------------------

Past Columns in the Munhwa Ilbo by Jon Wolfsthal:

  • "Building Trust with Pyongyang May Not Be Enough to End Nuclear Crisis," May 4, 2004
  • "US Elections and Global Security," Munhwa Ilbo Op-Ed by Jon Wolfsthal, March 30, 2004
  • "Great Distance but Great Impact: Pakistani and Libyan Development Affect North Korea Nuclear Issue," Munhwa Ilbo Op-Ed by Jon Wolfsthal, 25 February 2004

Click here to return to ProliferationNews.org

About the Author

Jon Wolfsthal

Former Nonresident Scholar, Nuclear Policy Program

Jon Wolfsthal was a nonresident scholar with the Nuclear Policy Program.

    Recent Work

  • Report
    Universal Compliance: A Strategy for Nuclear Security<br>With 2007 Report Card on Progress
      • +2

      George Perkovich, Jessica Tuchman Mathews, Joseph Cirincione, …

  • Article
    10 Plus 10 Doesn’t Add Up

      Jon Wolfsthal

Jon Wolfsthal
Former Nonresident Scholar, Nuclear Policy Program
Jon Wolfsthal
Foreign PolicyNuclear PolicyNuclear EnergyUnited StatesIraqSouth Korea

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Europe

  • Commentary
    Deciphering Europe’s Relationship with Turkey

    Debate is heating up on how Turkey could be integrated into a common European defense framework. Commercial and industrial deals offer a better chance at alignment than sweeping political efforts.

      Marc Pierini

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Is it Worth it for Europeans to Placate Trump?

    After spending much of 2025 trying to placate Donald Trump, some European leaders are starting to change posture. But is even a hostile Washington still so important to Europe that the U.S. president’s outbursts are worth putting up with?

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Europeans Are Quiet Quitting the United States

    European leaders have now not only lost faith in Donald Trump’s U.S. presidency, but also in America’s hegemony as a whole. But short-term challenges make an immediate divorce unwise.

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz

  • Article
    EU Integration Without Ratification?

    Countries face several hurdles in joining the EU, including the final stage of ratifying their accession treaties. Procedural reforms and substantive adjustments could help move the process forward.

      Stefan Lehne

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    The EU Equivocating on Turkey Is Bad Geopolitics

    Following Ursula von der Leyen’s gaffe equating Turkey to Russia and China, relations with Ankara risk deteriorating even further. Without better, more consistent diplomatic messaging, how can the EU pretend to be a geopolitical power?

      Sinan Ülgen

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
Carnegie Europe logo, white
Rue du Congrès, 151000 Brussels, Belgium
  • Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Gender Equality Plan
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.