More Troop Families Move to SKorea

While a state of war officially remains between North and South Korea – a cease-fire that sometimes seems iffy given the north’s nuclear ambitions and missile tests – that’s not stopping the U.S. from moving a growing number of military spouses and children to what could become ground zero for World War III.

Regardless of risk, there are distinct benefits to the new policy, experts say, including cost savings and improved professional and cultural connections between Americans and Koreans. And besides, says the commander of U.S. forces in Korea, the two countries have developed a working plan to evacuate civilians from the peninsular if the shooting starts. 

More than a year since Defense Secretary Robert Gates approved plans to turn historically one-year, unaccompanied Army and Air Force tours to South Korea into three years and permit families to go along, the number of troops serving in these assignments has risen from about 1,700 to 3,700. And that number should be up to about 4,900 a year from now, says Army Gen. Walter L. "Skip" Sharp, commander of United States Forces Korea.

Eventually, says Sharp, as schools and hospitals for dependants expand, he expects the number to grow to 14,000. The longer, accompanied tours are open to Soldiers and Airmen.

Sharp sees no problem with thousands of military spouses and kids living in what would be a combat theater in the event shooting started between the Koreas or if Korea seriously threatened Japan or any other American ally.

“We work very, very hard to make sure that we watch what North Korea is doing every minute,” Sharp told Military.com Tuesday during a discussion with military bloggers from the Pentagon. “We have some great indicators and warnings that we track very, very closely, and as we see things adjust in North Korea we react to that, and we prepare for those.”

Sharp, as commander of U.S. Forces Korea, would be in charge of all U.S. and allied troops -- including South Korea’s -- in the event of war.

And if it came to war, he said, the U.S. and Koreans have plans in place for the noncombatant evacuation operations, or NEOs.

“We have collection centers, we know who would be the Korean forces helping to protect those [noncombatants], which trains and different busses we would use to get folks to airports and to ports to ferry out,” he said. “We have really worked hard to make sure we have executable plans and detailed plans to NEO out.”

In an interview with Military.com, however, Korea expert and RAND Corp. senior defense analyst Bruce Bennett cautioned that any existing agreements might easily be subject to sudden renogotation in the event of a real crisis.

“If all of a sudden you have to evacuate 20,000 U.S. dependents on trains or buses or whatever … Whatever the agreement the [government] has made, maybe the Koreans will force the Korean government to overturn that agreement,” he said.

“There are a lot of Koreans who are very wealthy and prpareed for their families’ sake to pay whatever it takes to get what they’re looking for,” he said. “So all the rules of the game could change in a wartime situation. If we owned the railroads [there] or had enough C-130s to move people … that might be a different matter.”

That said, both men agree there are important benefits to changed tour policy.

Sharp said the longer tours and the presence of American families will help servicemembers grow professionally, making for a stronger force in South Korea. U.S. families’ presence there will even serve to let the North Koreans know how fully committed America is to the Republic of Korea, he said.

Bennett also sees advantages.

“Korea is really a very different culture than a lot of places where American military personnel go,” he said. “There is a lot of return for having Soldiers there for three years rather than one.” They get to know the culture and their Korean counterparts better, he said.

“Often people said decisions made in Korea were decisions made one year at a time – for 60 years. That’s not a good way to do it,” he said. The one-year tours contribute to a lack of institutional memory and hinder the continuity you want in a relationship with an ally, he said.

The one significant downside he sees to the longer tours is the impact on troops’ combat skills because of lack of training facilities. The Army and Air Force have seen skills dulled even by a yearlong tour, according to Bennett, so having Soldiers and Airmen assigned to a place for three years poses a serious challenge.

He said farmers have encroached on training areas at times, and the Korean government is reluctant to expel farmers even from lands designated for military use. Under the circumstances, he believes that the U.S. will have to make arrangements to periodically send its troops out of country for training, perhaps to Australia.

He also thought there is merit to deploying troops from Korea to Afghanistan and Iraq – and in that way ensure they get training, in addition to combat experience.

Sharp, however, said in the interview that there are no plans to rotate troops from Korea to the Central Command theaters.

The Pentagon announced the changes to Korea tours last December. Until then, all but a few thousand tours were for one year, unaccompanied. Of those that were accompanied, they were typically for two years, according to the December 2008 announcement.

Under the new policy, three-year, accompanied tours are allowed for Pyeongtaek, Osan, Daegu, Chinhae and Seoul. Also, two-year accompanied tours are being allowed in Uijongbu and Dongducheon, where previously only unaccompanied tours were permitted, according to the announcement.