THREAD on Trump ordering “the Pentagon to prepare options for drawing down American troops in South Korea.” Americans need to know just how extreme and irresponsible this is. nytimes.com/2018/05/03/wor…
2. In 2015-16, I directed the @CFR_org Task Force on North Korea, a group of 17 leading experts. In a 101 page report, these sentences, one part of recommendation 1, were by far the most controversial: 
3. At the end of the report, you’ll find a dissenting view on this point signed by five of those experts. The group was glad to have it. They warned that any discussion of troop withdrawal could “undermine U.S. and [ROK] interests.”
4. It is indicative of just how delicate this question is that the disagreement was over whether US diplomats could describe specific conditions in the future that the US-ROK alliance to reconsider force posture or whether slightly more general language was advisable.
5. In any case, all members agreed that the allies should jointly develop a position. “The United States,” the report read, “will not abrogate its alliance commitment in any event.” USFK will be necessary “for the foreseeable future.” cfr.org/report/sharper…
6. After Trump’s election, many in DC will tell you how we were deluged by Korean friends and colleagues worried about the new president. Would Trump really withdraw US forces if Seoul didn’t pay up? nytimes.com/2016/07/22/us/… My answer was: the Pentagon would never let that happen.
7. Trump has never understood the importance of any alliance, but has been outright insulting of Seoul. He has spent more time trying to extract fiscal benefits than he has presenting a strong front to Pyongyang. There is some strange mental block. foreignaffairs.com/articles/unite…
8. @NBCNews reported that Kelly had to talk Trump down from ordering withdrawal of US forces in February. That was the month of the Olympics, when there was only the faintest hints of a desire to talk. Trump knew he wanted US forces out before there was any hint of reciprocity.
9. Is this a joint position? Does South Korea approve? Two days ago, the Blue House said it wants the forces to stay, saying it's an alliance issue. “It has nothing to do with signing peace treaties.” reuters.com/article/us-usa…
10. Is it a cost issue? Currently, ROK pays $890 million, half the cost of US presence, and are engaged in negotiations about raising that percentage. USFK is consolidating at Camp Humphreys to save money. Withdrawal would cost more in the short term. stripes.com/news/us-south-…
11. It’s hard to overstate just how radical this view is. Before Trump, the best KJU could hope for is that the alliance would modify force structure after major nuclear & conventional disarmament. Now, Trump is pushing his chips across the table before the cards are even dealt.
12. It is a virtual certainty that the Pentagon slow rolls or resists this request. They know South Korea depends on US forces for reconnaissance, battlespace management, missile defense, long range strike, and a host of other issues. It won’t happen.
13. But the effect on US negotiating leverage is catastrophic. Trump’s actions virtually ensure DPRK will demand withdrawal of US forces (probably in exchange for weak denuclearization guarantees). They have every reason to believe Trump wants to say yes.
14. Because this interpretation is supported by consistent Trump statements, issuing a denial unfortunately changes none of this for Seoul or Pyongyang. Damage is done.
15. There’s no reason to sugarcoat this: Trump does not understand the issues at stake here. He has no idea what he’s doing. A ICBM-for-USFK deal would abandon US allies to a nuclear DPRK and a more assertive China. Gerry explains:
16. Continuing. Trump doesn't directly refute story, which reported request for "reduced troop levels," not necessarily withdrawal. Officials said they, "are not intended to be a bargaining chip in Mr. Trump’s talks with Mr. Kim about his weapons program."
17. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the Pentagon providing options. There's something wrong with this president doing it now, given past statements & persistent false beliefs about alliances. And if it had been a Clinton or Obama request, Republicans would be apoplectic.
18. Bolton denies. This is one of those time where your administration's (and personal) credibility matters a great deal. And this White House's track record of disputing @nytimes stories is not good.
19. It should also be noted there's an additional layer of complexity here. There are persistent rumors swirling in Seoul and DC that Moon Jae-in wants USFK out. Proponents point to Moon Chung-in's continued employment, despite repeated public rebuke. koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20…
20. In my view, Moon Jae-in's actions suggest support for the alliance + some hedging due to politics and alliance issues. The hypothesized tilt toward China would be folly. In any case, Cheong Wa Dae needs to get its advisors under control. Obviously, it's a delicate issue.
