U.S. think tank proposes 'cutting all ground combat units' from Korea, says Seoul should 'defend itself'

A new U.S. think tank report called for slashing the number of U.S. troops in South Korea from around 28,500 to about 10,000, arguing that Seoul should take primary responsibility for its own defense

The RC-12X Guardrail reconnaissance aircraft takes off from Camp Humphreys in Pyeongtaek, Gyeonggi, on May 23.[NEWS1]

A new U.S. think tank report called for slashing the number of U.S. troops in South Korea from around 28,500 to about 10,000, arguing that Seoul should take primary responsibility for its own defense as Washington repositions forces to counter China more effectively across the Indo-Pacific region.

Dan Caldwell, former senior adviser to U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, called for the reduction of U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) to 10,000 in a new report from think tank Defense Priorities.

This proposal aligns with growing discussions in Washington about expanding the strategic flexibility of USFK following a May report by the Wall Street Journal suggesting that the United States is considering relocating 4,500 troops from Korea to other areas in the Indo-Pacific region.

Observers expect the upcoming U.S. National Defense Strategy (NDS) report, to be released next month, may include plans to reduce and reconfigure the USFK's role.

In a report titled “Aligning global military posture with U.S. interests” released Wednesday, Caldwell and Jennifer Kavanagh, a senior fellow at Defense Priorities, argued that “the U.S. military posture in East Asia should be realigned to focus on balancing Chinese power and protecting U.S. interests.”

Caldwell and Kavanagh recommend shifting U.S. military forces away from South Korea to other regional locations, increasing reliance on allies and partners for defense and relocating the center of U.S. preparedness from the “First Island Chain” including Japan's Okinawa, Taiwan, the Philippines and northern Borneo to the more rearward “Second Island Chain,” consisting of Guam, Saipan and Palau.

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, right, looks at U.S. President Donald Trump as he speaks during a bilateral dinner with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House in Washington on July 7. [REUTERS/YONHAP]

‘Withdraw 2nd Infantry Division, two fighter squadrons’

Caldwell and Kavanagh stated that this adjustment would return primary self-defense responsibility to South Korea.

They cited a comment by then-Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby in May of last year, saying, “The fundamental fact is that North Korea is not a primary threat to the U.S.” and added that “South Korea has a significant conventional military advantage over its neighbor to the north and so should be able to effectively defend itself, even without U.S. support, if not immediately, then in the near term.”

Colby, a key brain of the U.S. Department of Defense, is leading the establishment of the NDS.

Specifically, Caldwell and Kavanagh proposed “Cutting all ground combat units not tied to base security from South Korea, along with Army signal, intelligence and headquarters units and some of their associated support and sustainment units.”

U.S. military vehicles are parked at the U.S. military base in Dongducheon, Gyeonggi, on July 10. [YONHAP]

“This would remove most of the 2nd Infantry Division from the peninsula, including the rotational BCT [battalion combat team] and Army combat aviation units,” they wrote.

“In addition, the United States should cut airpower based in South Korea, moving two fighter squadrons from U.S. bases in South Korea back to the United States,” Caldwell and Kavanagh wrote. “Along with the fighter aircraft, about a third of air maintenance and other support units and personnel can also be returned stateside. In total, this would reduce the total U.S. military presence in South Korea by more than 50 percent, leaving about 10,000 personnel along with two fighter squadrons.”

The remaining forces would focus primarily on support, logistics and maintenance, leaving wartime combat operations to the South Korean military.

Elbridge Colby, under secretary of defense for policy, prepares for his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington on March 4. [AFP/YONHAP]

‘Allies still freeriding on U.S. security’

The writers also criticized what they described as ongoing “security freeriding” by allies and partners, writing that “Although South Korea has spent more heavily on defense than many U.S. allies, it continues to depend on the United States for some key combat support capabilities.”

On Wednesday, U.S. President Donald Trump singled out South Korea at a cabinet meeting, claiming that Seoul “makes a lot of money” and “has paid very little for its military defense,” adding that the United States has been providing support “for free.”

Caldwell and Kavanagh justified USFK downsizing partly by noting that “Seoul has not offered the United States unrestricted contingency access to use its bases for operations elsewhere in the theater during a conflict,” adding, “Forces left in South Korea might be sidelined in the event of a regional war.”

If conflict were to erupt elsewhere in the region — such as in the Taiwan Strait — U.S. forces stationed in Korea may not be usable due to Seoul’s reluctance.

The report argues that U.S. global military posture, including the 200,000 troops stationed across Asia, Europe and the Middle East, needs comprehensive rebalancing based on four priorities: homeland defense, preventing regional hegemony, shifting burdens to allies and protecting U.S. economic security.

Caldwell and Kavanagh criticized the current posture in Asia as overly offensive and vulnerable to conflict due to its proximity to China.

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks alongside Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick during a cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington on July 8. [AFP/YONHAP]

Likely inclusion in NDS led by Colby

The report is gaining attention amid the Lee Jae Myung administration’s efforts to pursue a broad “package deal” with the United States on trade, investment, procurement and security.

It aligns closely with the views of Colby, who is leading the drafting of the upcoming NDS. Colby has repeatedly argued that South Korea should lead the defense against North Korea, while USFK should focus on deterring China.

In an April 2024 interview with the JoongAng Ilbo, Colby said that South Korea should directly defend the peninsula, adding that all options, including nuclear armament, should be on the table.

Elbridge Colby, U.S. under secretary of defense for policy, speaks during an interview with the JoongAng Ilbo at his office in Washington on April 23, 2024. [JOONGANG ILBO]

Some have speculated that he is behind the U.S. Department of Defense’s recent pause in air defense and precision ammunition shipments to Ukraine and a potential review of the AUKUS agreement to supply Australia with nuclear-powered submarines — moves that reflect his strategic outlook.

For these reasons, observers expect the new NDS to include a blueprint for downsizing and reconfiguring USFK.

Meanwhile, at a seminar the same day, Center for Strategic and International Studies Korea Chair Victor Cha commented, “One key question is whether President Lee will meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping before meeting Trump.”

Whom Lee meets first is will be a major indicator of his administration’s foreign policy direction.

Translated from the JoongAng Ilbo using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff. BY KIM HYOUNG-GU [lim.jeongwon@joongang.co.kr]