I agree that this is a dangerously puerile argument, for the most part. Complete disengagement is not really an option for us. Were we to, as Hanson suggests, pull our troops out of South Korea, that would signal North Korea and China that we are conceding there, with potentially disastrous consequences. We stay not for the Koreans, but for us. It is not in our interests to give China/N. Korea a free hand in the region, anymore than it is in the interests of the parents of a teenager to let him/her to whatever they please because we are "tired" of fighting with them.

On the other hand, what would it hurt to let our critics in Europe know that THEY can exert leadership in places like Sudan, Kosovo, Zimbabwe--we'll gladly lend a hand should they ask, but there'll be no more browbeating from us. Countries of strategic interest to US will be dealt with directly, other, more voluntary crises "belong" to them.

Kelli, I would respectfully disagree. South Korea has a substantial well trained military now. Our presence there, I think, is actually allowing South Korea to keep from managing this situation themselves. I don't think our withdrawal will signal anything more than an affirmation that South Korea should be able to stand on its own to solve this problem.

I agree with Dr. Hanson in that we need to disengage, but only from current political realities, rather than from the world in an isolationist fashion. The UN is a perfect example of how to do this. Much ink and electrons have been spent on how to "reform" the UN. Here's an idea: let's not. Let's "disengage". We would still be a member, but perhaps some of the more reliable representaive republics, like the US, Britain, Canada, Australia, Israel, Indonesia perhaps, and Japan should start their own new club, where dictators need not apply. As support for this Parliament of Democracies increases, support for the corrupt UN will diminish, and we will have succeeded in disengaging, but without isolationism. Sometimes its less expensive to buy a new car rather than try to overhaul the engine of the old. But it doesn't mean that you can't keep the old one around for a while.

I think part of the problem is that we are trying to play the game by established rigid rules defined after WWII, and we keep getting the shaft because of it. I think if the US starts thinking outside the box a little bit, we will succeed in "disengaging" without alienation of the rest of the world.

Yes, let's "disengage"...

not by turning our backs and walking away, but by simply stepping back and letting Europe, Korea, and others step forward on their own. And like a wise guardian, let them fall, help them pick themselves up, and set them on their own way once again.

Much like parenting, too much protection is a bad thing. But to allow small failures (with lessons learned in the process) will result in growth for all.

So, Yes! let's begin disengagement and let those we have trained so well begin to engage the world very much on their own!

Just my $.02
DRK

What would be “unrealistic” about disengaging from South Korea. Although SK is subsidizing US troops at something like 676M a year, sometimes a commodity is scarce enough that it should not be exported.

A survey conducted by Pew Research Center, shows a stunning 44 percent of South Koreans were found to hold unfavorable views of the United States. That is roughly 10 percent worse than views held by Germans and even the French.

Why should America continue to prop up these countries defense and economies when we are in the midst of closing bases here at home? It seems that US basing policies have yet to wake up to post cold war strategies. VDH goes on to say that we should improve cooperation with nations that have common interests with the US, such as Japan, India, Australia, Britain, a very few Eastern and Western European countries, Taiwan, and Israel. I can’t see the flaw with this kind of thinking.

I don’t see any clear risks for the US to better direct their efforts towards fruitful relationships. What is the benefit of infusing American muscle where it is so deeply resented.

As far as energy independence is concerned, no single strategy is going to solve the problem. I am for “green” technologies and tax credits for the same but believe (as does GWB) that the only short term solution is nuclear energy.

In the case of S. Korea I can see no problem with bringing home (or deploying elsewhere) our troops on the DMZ. I don't think their presence represents America's willingness to defend S. Korea since obviously we don't have nearly the numbers required to do so. Rather I think it's more a case of us saying "To get to the south you've got to go through us. And though you could fairly easily go through us if you chose you know the ramifications of that act".

As to this: "He recommends disengaging with erstwhile allies, who are conflicted by their association with America, and bolstering ties with ones that are reliable."

This is an incredibly short sited idea. Are we bolstering ties with allies who are reliable now? Or were reliable next year? Or those we think will be reliable in the next five years??

The same for those he wants us to the erstwhile allies he mentions with the possible exception of France. And the Gulf War I shows that's not even a slam dunk.

What is a reliable ally? One that sees in our best interests it's own best interests? One that ignores the views of it's populace to support us at all times?

International diplomacy is based on a history of trust, respect, and yes, even occasional differences in times we simply agree to disagree.

If we want to drop all allies not willing to sign a loyalty pledge to whatever current leadership is in power we will quickly find ourselves on our own. Some short sighted folks like Hanson may have no problem with that. But the day is fast approaching when the United States is no longer the worlds sole superpower and should such a policy be enacted that day will be a serious wake up call for America.

Staged, planned, public, plans followed over a reasonable period of time, say a few years, would have a salutary effect on many regimes and world opinion, IMO. A kind of "reality check" on the ridiculous anti-American posturing that so many of the power-hungry have been getting away with.

Actually, this disengagement has a multitude of problems that are multifaceted including financial, defense, energy and agricultural.

For instance, how many people know that we buy minerals and ores from China which we use in our defense programs like tanks and shells?

Are we going to find those same things in quantities available in South America? or Mexico?

What about uranium/plutonium? Do we have the ore in sufficient quantities on this continent?

Agricultural...we've been slamming the family farms for so long, can we or do we grow enough for our population? And what happens if we stop sending that out to places like Africa or NOrth Korea? their populations starve. Not our problem? Well, what happens when they decide they need to strike out and grab some for themselves to survive? Don't they come into contact with us then?

I feel Mr. Hanson's commentary. I really do because a part of me would just like the world to go take a freaking hike and figure all this out on their own, but the sane part of me says, when you are behind your castle walls, instead of someone looking at you and saying its not worth their time and you don't pose a threat, they decide that you in your castle looks like easy pickings. Especially when your allies are weak and far away. Easy enough to keep them from breaking your siege.

And the siege wouldn't be with military weapons per se. all they'd have to do is cut off food and energy supplies and "bam", the castle gets starved out.

That always keeps me from slipping into "disengage" mode. Even the most self sufficient castle could be conquered through this method. Just ask the medieval knights. Or look around and figure out why we stopped building fortresses on the coast and went to "mobile" warfare.

I'm in agreement with VHD's general thrust, although I'd have to consider each individual case seperately. We should definitely cut our commitments to the ROK, they can defend themselves.

Most dangerous, imo, is the gradual internationalization of the American domestic left. I see this as the increasing alignment of the Democrats with foreign public opinion, and their progressive promoting of European social ideas and post-modernism.

The US doesn't has an empire but if it did have one than you could wonder how it can keep that empire without boots on the ground?

a -- the US is hated, because of it's culture, not some mythical empire.

Given that spending and the military has declined fully 40% from 1991; the post-Cold War "Peace Dividend," it's ridiculous to think of an Empire.

What foreigners hate about the US is that we have a culture that is tremendously attractive; from movies and TV and music to McDonalds. No one puts a gun to folks heads to make them eat at McDonalds. That people do enrages them.

What foreigners hate about the US is that we have a culture that is tremendously attractive; from movies and TV and music to McDonalds. No one puts a gun to folks heads to make them eat at McDonalds. That people do enrages them.

Funny, but the American gov't takes a dim view of countries that try and sell various narcotics, etc. in the United States. No one puts a gun to folks heads to make them take cocaine. That people do enrages them.

Pretty much everybody everywhere acknowledges that humans often crave things that are harmful to them, whether in the short or long run. (What those things are believed to be differs widely.) There are a substantial body of people that believe that American culture is harmful (for whatever their definition of harmful) for a people in the long run, pandering to self-indulgence, etc., just as we see that unlike countries where drug use is essentially ignored, we feel it to be too harmful to allow the population to decide on their own.

the US is hated, because of it's culture, not some mythical empire

First it is not hated, but the US interests are at this moment in time not inline with most others (probably not even with itself)
Second its culture, atleast if you see Hollywood as the representation of its culture, is universaly loved.You could argue that the non-Hollywood part is unloved but it is also largely unknown to people outside of the US

_Funny, but the American gov't takes a dim view of countries that try and sell various narcotics, etc. _

Except when it is tobacco.

Too many people here take VDH's words literally. That is the mark of concrete thinking, the lowest form of thought. Some can apparently think on deeper levels, like Brian H, #6.

Grand gestures, people. That is what leaders of other nations respond to. Think big, think symbolism. Concrete thinking will get you nowhere.

Problem with that is: What if they don't mind?

What if SK and Germany don't mind to see American troops leave? I don't see any enemy they need American help with especially in the case of Germany.

That would come under the category of a big "duhhhhh!!". Of course the Europeans have no real enemies now, they've been under the protective umbrella of the great Satan. Take away the umbrella and watch the cockroaches scurry for cover from the ugly realities they didn't realize were there.

Disengagement MAY make the world a less peaceful place, but, frankly, tough.

If (big if) we are keeping some sort of "peace" we're paying too much for it and others are paying too little.

The biggest benefit of disengagement is that the Euros will be forced to take responsibility for their own defense or the consequences of not doing so.

I don't see Hanson's piece as being "bitter" particularly. It seems to me that the problem is in using the word "disengage" and whatever bad vibrations of surrender that might conjur up.

To me, what Hanson is saying is that our foreign policy since about 1950 has not worked. It is not working. And it probably will never work in the future. So let's change it.

It's stupid to keep batting your head against the same wall just because that's the thing that's always been done. It hurts, the wall isn't affected, and nothing is changed ... so let's try something different.

I think we can switch things around -- move the pieces around on our international chessboard -- and see what happens. If that means we move a bishop from South Korea and leave that space open, there's absolutely nothing to say we can't move that bishop (or a rook or a knight) back into that slot a little bit later down the road, if it becomes necessary.

I would really like to see us vacate the various board-slots in Europe as well as South Korea, do something different about the whole Middle East and those dreadful Palestinians, and maybe start to belly-up to China to see if we can tweak their outward success a little bit -- see if they've got what it takes to play with the big boys. My guess is not. And I want to see the UN taken off the board entirely.

And I'm not too interested in trying to talk entities like Canada or Turkey into being active participants since it makes the US look like we're always pleading about something, and the effort is wayyyyyyy harder than anything we get back in return. If Canada or Russia doesn't volunteer to play, then the hell with them.

But I'm not the chessmaster so those aren't my decisions to make. The decision I can make is to vote in a chessmaster who will actually make some moves, and not just sit there staring at the board afraid to do anything because of what the peanut gallery on the sideline might say.

Europe has Russia, Turkey and the Middle East as neighbours. Israel can defeat the Middle East by itself and it is tiny so what do you think Europe can do? Turkey wants to join in so your only left with Russia and is that even a treat?

that our foreign policy since about 1950 has not worked.

So the USSR is still the big red menace?

and the effort is wayyyyyyy harder than anything we get back in return.

Turkey made sure that the USSR was locked out of the mediterranean and has one of the larger and better armies in the world and Canada is culturally USA II so maybe it isn't a good idea if it isn't for it

Kat (#7)

Here in Canada, we have lots of uranium. We largely stopped mining it because demand was sagging, but that's changing now.

Understand, too, how this works. Metals, like oil, are a global market. If China closed off to to everyone else, they'd just buy from Africa (which has lots), Canada, et. al. and the price would change for all - including China.

Agriculture... North America feeds not only itself, but large segments of the world (including China, now a net exporter of foodstuffs). The big constraint on global production (esp. in China)? Water (a growing problem in China). Think of agricultural exports as exported water, and you'll be close. We're in very good shape there.

RE: Korea... understand the 3-corner game going on.

China uses its proxy to threaten the South and tries to pry the USA loose from Korea, while propping it up to avoid a massive refugee influx should North Korea's hell-state collapse. Once the USA is pried loose, China becomes SK's security guarantor, keeps the Koreas divided, and "Finlandizes" Korea (wouldn't be surprised if the SK "Sunshine Policy" involves China-bought politicians, as a test run). Success neutralizes one of the potential "barrier states" to Chinese influences, and gives China a stalking horse to begin investment in Siberia as a long term resource play with potential control implications down the road.

Downside: Unreliable, slightly-mad proxy could result in Korea, Japan, Taiwan going nuclear. considered acceptable so far, given the prize.

The USA plays the role it does in Korea because keeping a reduced number of troops there (it has pulled some out, and will be relocating its forces southward from the DMZ in coming years and shifting them to a more regional tasking) is a cheap way to forestall China's strategy. It would be much more expensive later.

Having said that, Rumsfeld and others have delivered bracing reality checks to Korea over the last few years, and that needs to continue. The Koreans will also need to be pushed to make relocation of US troops a faster proposition, otherwise they'll stall forever.

So then, Mr. Katzman is saying that the South Koreans are so mushy that if we leave, they will allow China to swoop in and take over with nary a peep? Wouldn't that be analagous to the Iraqi's allowing Iran to swoop in and take over in Iraq when we leave?

It seems to me that the bottom line on the whole freedom thing is that once you've tasted it, you never want to go back to the other way again ... although Russia's little experiment with democracy doesn't seem to be thriving, but then the Russians may not fit the paradigm for a bunch of different reasons.

However, if we really believe in that freedom thing, don't we owe it to the peoples we've brought freedom to, to allow them to stand up on their own hindlegs sooner or later and fight for it themselves? It really seems to me that it's counterproductive to keep unwanted and unused troops in South Korea, just in case and just because. Any more than we'll be keeping unwanted troops in Iraq for ever and ever -- or so we're being assured by both the Iraqi's and by Mr. Bush.

And if (and when) North Korea collapses, it seems to me that that would be a splendid opportunity for a counter-capitalistic swoosh north -- lots of free land and buildings to be claimed and taken over and built up. A North Korean collapse will probably not be an all-bad thing unless there's also a nuclear bang involved.