U.S. presence in South Korea necessary or costly?

South Korean Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry met on Jan. 7 and announced that the United States would send an additional 800 troops to join the nearly 30,000 American service members already stationed in South Korea.  There are on going debates in Washington as to whether the stalemate between the North and the South still requires so much of our attention and troops. However, U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel discussed with Yun that a strong presence on the Korean peninsula was vital in order for the security forces against the North. The Korean War began at the end of the second World War, where the U.S. and the then Soviet Union divided the country in half. President Truman went in to try and defeat the north, (without Congressional approval), and nearly two million lives were lost before an agreement was signed making neither side the victor. Today, leaving the Cold War behind, there are several implications on maintaining such a heavy force in the region, China being one of the biggest.  "The U.S.’s continued military presence in South Korea endangers geopolitical calculations by regional powers like China to prop up the North Korean regime". China has strategic reasons for backing the present regime in North Korea and the U.S. continuing involvement worries China that the U.S. will topple this regime putting them into a precarious position. An another note if the stalemate breaks between the two countries and civil war ensues this could mean another long and arduous conflict for the U.S.

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/1/are-u-s-troops-insouthkoreastillnecessary.html

Katelyn Krumreich