Stop defending the indefensible
Despite dramatic changes in the world, US policymakers remain strangely reluctant to drop even one military alliance or security guarantee, no matter how antiquated. 'What has ever been must ever be', appears to be the basis of American foreign policy. America must always do more, never less.
The worst commitment today, in terms of lives lost, terrorists created, and dollars wasted, is Iraq. Unfortunately, it was a lot easier to get into than it will be to get out of. Not so with most of America's defence ties. The red hordes are unlikely to pour forth from Russia to conquer Europe, so who needs Nato?
Mainland China doesn't have the conventional capability to invade Taiwan, let alone Japan. Why base a marine expeditionary force in Okinawa? Moreover, South Korea has 40 times the gross domestic product and twice the population of North Korea. Why is the US defending a country that can take care of itself? A country which doesn't even believe that it's in danger.
There is no need for Washington to deal with the ever-threatening, ever-unpredictable North Korea. In the normal course of events, leader Kim Jong-il and his bankrupt, impoverished and starving nation wouldn't be America's problem. South Korea, China, and Russia are next door. Just a little bit of water separates Japan from North Korea. If Pyongyang threatens anyone, it is its neighbours, not the globe's most powerful nation. Mr Kim is a nasty character, but the United States could easily ignore him.
American policymakers should react to the latest North Korean manoeuvres with a yawn. Dealing with Seoul is almost as painful as confronting the North. Although the polls vary over time, many South Koreans have soured on the US: majorities prefer China to America; view Washington as a greater threat to peace than North Korea; and don't believe the North poses any military threat.
Yet South Korea's elite prefers to whine about US behaviour rather than take responsibility for the South's future. They think America should defend them against non-existent threats involving the North - but not entangle them in real, potential conflicts involving China. They think South Korea should enjoy the economic benefits of 33,000 troops spending away - but not have to suffer the social consequences of hosting so many young men.
It seems the US should guarantee the South's independence from Japan and China, but not expect any help in return. Today, the greatest tension between Seoul and Washington comes over policy towards North Korea. South Korea, a short artillery shell or Scud missile away from the Demilitarised Zone, prefers to conciliate than confront. America, a big ocean away, is more willing to threaten war. The way to resolve this and other policy conflicts is simple: declare that the North is South Korea's problem and bring home its troops from the South.
Washington should patiently explain to Pyongyang that America's only interest is that North Korea never consider using a nuclear weapon against the US - that's why America maintains several thousand nuclear warheads. In short, it's time for an amicable divorce between Washington and Seoul. Bring the troops home. Drop the defence commitment. Void the security treaty. Enjoy the full panoply of cultural and economic ties, but set aside promises to go to war.
Korea should only be a start. Japan has the second-biggest economy on Earth. As for Europe, the Soviet empire has collapsed. US security guarantees aren't needed in these cases.
Finally, there's Iraq. Leaving isn't easy. But if American policymakers aren't able to dump the least important security commitments, how will they deal with the tough cases? It's time to start somewhere: Korea.
Doug Bandow is a member of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy
