Trump orders Pentagon to consider reducing U.S. troops in South Korea - New York Times

[webfact]

Trump orders Pentagon to consider reducing U.S. troops in South Korea - New York Times

 

FILE PHOTO - U.S. President Donald Trump addresses a National Day of Prayer event in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, U.S., May 3, 2018. REUTERS/Leah Millis

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump has ordered the Pentagon to prepare options for reducing the number of U.S. troops in South Korea, the New York Times reported on Thursday, citing several people briefed on the deliberations.

 

Reduced U.S. troop levels are not intended to be a bargaining chip in Trump's planned summit in late May or early June with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un about Pyongyang's nuclear weapons programme, the Times said.

 

The officials said, however, that a peace treaty between the two Koreas could diminish the need for the 23,500 U.S. soldiers currently stationed on the peninsula, the newspaper said.

 

A full withdrawal of U.S. troops was unlikely, the officials said, according to the paper.

 

The White House and Pentagon did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

 

Trump has said the United States should consider reducing the number of troops in South Korea unless Seoul shoulders more of the cost.

 

Then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo, before taking office as U.S. secretary of state, met with Kim last month and reported the North Korean leader was not demanding the withdrawal of all U.S. forces as a precondition for a summit with Trump.

 

South Korea said on Wednesday the issue of U.S. troops stationed in the South was unrelated to any future peace treaty with North Korea and that American forces should stay even if such an agreement is signed.

 

(Reporting by Eric Beech and Phil Stewart; Editing by Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-05-04

[Srikcir]

11 hours ago, webfact said:

the issue of U.S. troops stationed in the South was unrelated to any future peace treaty with North Korea

Trump could have held such order secret and led North Korea to believe that troop numbers might be negotiable in exchange for ....? Instead Trump gives away a possible point of negotiation. Kim now knows he needn't trade anything for US troop reductions.

[Srikcir]

8 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Trump could have held such order secret and led North Korea to believe that troop numbers might be negotiable in exchange for ....? Instead Trump gives away a possible point of negotiation. Kim now knows he needn't trade anything for US troop reductions.

Now U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton said  U.S. President Donald Trump has not asked the Pentagon for options to reduce U.S. forces based in South Korea.

“The New York Times story is utter nonsense. The President has not asked the Pentagon to provide options for reducing American forces stationed in South Korea,”

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2018/05/04/us-not-seeking-to-reduce-forces-in-south-korea-us-national-security-adviser/23427090/

That's a clear sign that the reported story is accurate.

[jcsmith]

1 hour ago, Srikcir said:

Trump could have held such order secret and led North Korea to believe that troop numbers might be negotiable in exchange for ....? Instead Trump gives away a possible point of negotiation. Kim now knows he needn't trade anything for US troop reductions.

He doesn't think anything through. Doesn't research it. He watches TV and then goes with it.

[observer90210]

Should consider on the whole to reduce the figures of the US military in general, that has never ceased to rise, since the past decades from previous administrations.....the taxpayers and the financial situation of the country would say "thanks".

[Srikcir]

9 minutes ago, observer90210 said:

Should consider on the whole to reduce the figures of the US military in general, that has never ceased to rise, since the past decades from previous administrations.....the taxpayers and the financial situation of the country would say "thanks".

With Bolton as NSC Director and Pompeo as Secretary of State, Trump is more likely to shift any troop reductions in Asia to troop increases in the Middle East.

[IAMHERE]

Stationing troops overseas is so business in the US can safely make money overseas. Similar to providing a place for professional sports teams to perform ; a form of welfare for the rich and well off. Bring all the US military back to the States.  

[pedro01]

Turns out this is FAKE NEWS.

 

A number of news outlets, including Reuters themselves (the OP) have now admitted it's false.

[stevenl]

28 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

Turns out this is FAKE NEWS.

 

A number of news outlets, including Reuters themselves (the OP) have now admitted it's false.

No.

 

A number of news outlets have mentioned that Bolton is claiming it is not true. Far from the same as 'admitted it is false'.

Edited May 5, 2018 by stevenl

[thaibeachlovers]

When the current Sth Korean leader started making positive noises about the north, Trump should have said that any further moves to "friend" the north would lead to troop reductions. I see no benefit to the US paying to keep troops in Korea if the people voted for a north lover. Let them provide their own security at their own expense.

[freebyrd]

Jumping the gun/putting the cart before the horse - take your pick.

[MajarTheLion]

7 hours ago, pedro01 said:

Turns out this is FAKE NEWS.

 

A number of news outlets, including Reuters themselves (the OP) have now admitted it's false.

 

What? The media lied? That can't be! Oh and don't you DARE say "fake news"!

[MajarTheLion]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

When the current Sth Korean leader started making positive noises about the north, Trump should have said that any further moves to "friend" the north would lead to troop reductions. I see no benefit to the US paying to keep troops in Korea if the people voted for a north lover. Let them provide their own security at their own expense.

 

I agree. In fact, this is one of the things I liked about Trump for years. One of the other times he threatened to run for president, he brought up South Korea specifically. We provide tens of thousands of troops to help protect them from a paper tiger to their north- at our expense. On top of that, they get favorable trade deals. Time for them to pay up. My first preference is we just scale back most of our overseas deployments. After that, these people we protect need to start paying up one way or the other.

 

It will be fun once again seeing the white doves suddenly become hawks.

[MajarTheLion]

6 hours ago, stevenl said:

No.

 

A number of news outlets have mentioned that Bolton is claiming it is not true. Far from the same as 'admitted it is false'.

Apparently you don't understand mediaspeak.

[stevenl]

12 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

What? The media lied? That can't be! Oh and don't you DARE say "fake news"!

Why are you quoting an incorrect post?

[Slip]

15 minutes ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

I agree. In fact, this is one of the things I liked about Trump for years. One of the other times he threatened to run for president, he brought up South Korea specifically. We provide tens of thousands of troops to help protect them from a paper tiger to their north- at our expense. On top of that, they get favorable trade deals. Time for them to pay up. My first preference is we just scale back most of our overseas deployments. After that, these people we protect need to start paying up one way or the other.

 

It will be fun once again seeing the white doves suddenly become hawks.

Just for once you seem to be talking some sense.  It's about time the U.S. wound their collective necks in and stop interfering with the rest of the world.  There is plenty of crap in their own country to deal with.

[MajarTheLion]

8 minutes ago, Slip said:

Just for once you seem to be talking some sense.  It's about time the U.S. wound their collective necks in and stop interfering with the rest of the world.  There is plenty of crap in their own country to deal with.

OK, but let's keep this agreeing on stuff to a minimum. It's not much fun and we both have reputations to protect. 

[pedro01]

23 hours ago, stevenl said:

No.

 

A number of news outlets have mentioned that Bolton is claiming it is not true. Far from the same as 'admitted it is false'.

 

It's fake.

 

The original NYT article claims only

 

"according to several people briefed on the deliberations." - that means no evidence, just someone told someone that told us. A common factor in made up news stories.

 

Also in the NYT article it says

 

" spokesman for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Col. Patrick Ryder, said he had no information about troop options being prepared for the president"

 

So you have 2 officials saying it's nonsense.

 

Bottom line is that those in the grips of Trump Delusion Syndrome will believe anything if they think it can somehow assist them make an argument against Trump. Truth simply doesn't matter any more.

 

It's hilarious.

[stevenl]

2 hours ago, pedro01 said:

 

It's fake.

 

The original NYT article claims only

 

"according to several people briefed on the deliberations." - that means no evidence, just someone told someone that told us. A common factor in made up news stories.

 

Also in the NYT article it says

 

" spokesman for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Col. Patrick Ryder, said he had no information about troop options being prepared for the president"

 

So you have 2 officials saying it's nonsense.

 

Bottom line is that those in the grips of Trump Delusion Syndrome will believe anything if they think it can somehow assist them make an argument against Trump. Truth simply doesn't matter any more.

 

It's hilarious.

So you're admitting your claim was incorrect. The media have not retracted, but added 'Bolton said'. Sorry, but no cigar, far from fake news. And no worries, if it turns out to be incorrect the media will correct, unlike your hero.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎5‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 6:48 PM, MajarTheLion said:

 

I agree. In fact, this is one of the things I liked about Trump for years. One of the other times he threatened to run for president, he brought up South Korea specifically. We provide tens of thousands of troops to help protect them from a paper tiger to their north- at our expense. On top of that, they get favorable trade deals. Time for them to pay up. My first preference is we just scale back most of our overseas deployments. After that, these people we protect need to start paying up one way or the other.

 

It will be fun once again seeing the white doves suddenly become hawks.

Agree. I'd love to see Europe having to provide an actual military to protect themselves. Any country doesn't want to front up with the goodies should be told "you are on your own".