特朗普为什么想要从韩国撤军 [美国媒体]

Why Trump will withdraw from Korea

特朗普为什么想要从韩国撤军。



Trump has stated countless of times over the past 2 years that he wants to withdraw all US troops from Korean peninsula in the long term to save the costs.

在过去两年中，特朗普曾无数次表示，从长远来看，他希望从朝鲜半岛撤出所有美军，以节省开支。

source：Trump still holds Jimmy Carter’s view on withdrawing U.S. troops from South Korea

来源：特朗普仍然持有关于从韩国撤军的观点

For almost two years, President Trump has been talking about withdrawing large numbers of U.S. troops from South Korea, where there are currently around 28,000 stationed. The president’s advisers have repeatedly argued against a large-scale reduction, but he remains unpersuaded.

近两年来，特朗普总统一直在谈论从韩国撤出大量美国军队的问题，目前驻韩美军约2.8万人。总统的顾问曾多次反对大规模裁员，但特朗普仍未被说服。

Trump continues to say he doesn’t agree with the argument that U.S. troops in South Korea are strategically necessary, and he thinks the United States gets nothing back from paying to keep them there, according to administration officials and people who have spoken to Trump directly about the issue. He often asks his generals to explain the rationale for America’s deployments in Asia and expresses dissatisfaction with their answers

特朗普继续表示，他不同意驻韩美军具有战略必要性这一说法，根据政府官员和直接与特朗普就这一问题进行交谈的人士的说法，特朗普认为，美国花钱让美军留在韩国并不会得到任何回报。特朗普经常要求他的将军们解释美国在亚洲部署军队的理由，并对将军们的回答表示不满。

“The president has believed for 30 years that these alliance commitments are a drain on our finite national treasure,” one White House official told me. “He doesn’t care about the intangible, he just sees the bottom line number of what it costs.”

一位白宫官员告诉透露:“30年来，总统一直认为，这些对于盟国的承诺会耗尽我们有限的国家财富。”“特朗普不在乎无形的东西，他只看事情的成本底线。

It is said that John Kelly and Mattis strongly challenged Donald Trump when he ordered the complete withdrawal of US troops from South Korea.

据说，白宫办公厅主任、海军陆战队退役将军约翰·凯利和国防部长马蒂斯在唐纳德·特朗普想要从韩国完全撤出美军时，提出了强烈反对。

source：White House chief of staff and retired Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly talked President Trump out of ordering the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from the Korean Peninsula , according to a report Monday by NBC News.

据美国全国广播公司报道，白宫办公厅主任、海军陆战队退役将军约翰·凯利此前曾说服特朗普总统不要下令从朝鲜半岛撤出所有美国军队。

Kelly has made similar comments to legislators, and he has mocked what he views as Trump’s lack of policy and government knowledge, according to current and former officials, NBC reports.Kelly also has referred to Trump as “an idiot”multiple times.

据美国全国广播公司报道，凯利向议员们发表了类似的言论，他嘲笑特朗普缺乏政策和政府知识。凯利还多次称特朗普为“白痴

Unhindered due to the abrupt firing of Kelly and Mattis, Trump is now free to negotiate a Grand Bargain with North Korea, and we all know that North Korea's demand for "End of Hostility" is inclusive of US troop presence despite denials by US and SK. From NK's vantage point, it is hard to justify continued US forward deployed presence once hostility has ended and peace treaty is signed.

现在由于特朗普突然解雇了凯利和马蒂斯，特朗普可以自由地与朝鲜进行讨价还价，我们都知道，朝鲜对于“结束敌对”的条件之一就是美国撤离驻韩美军。
而一旦敌对行动结束，朝韩和平条约签署，美国就很难为其继续驻军找到合法正当的理由。

2019 Prediction: Trump gets mild-to-false concessions on North Korea denuclearization to secure a "Korean War Peace Treaty" and spins it as a huge foreign policy victory. Trump declares victory and starts phased gradual reduction of US troops and return of wartime OPCON back to SK military.

我对2019年的预测：朝鲜在无核化问题上做出温和虚假的让步，以确保达成一项“朝鲜战争和平条约”，特朗普将这项条约视为一次巨大的外交政策胜利。特朗普宣布胜利，并开始分阶段逐步减少驻韩美军人数，并将战时指挥权交还给韩国军队。

BullshitBlocker
I doubt it. It's not just Mattis and Kelly that support the US presence in South Korea. It includes the military establishment, a bipartisan near-consensus in congress, countless think tanks and analysts, and a majority of Americans support the alliance.
Procedurally, congress does seem to have some ability to prevent Trump from unilaterally making this decision. Ending a decades-old alliance is completely different from withdrawing a handful of troops from Syria.

我对你的看法表示怀疑。
不仅马蒂斯和凯利支持美国在韩国的存在。
美国的军事机构、国会两党几乎达成共识、无数智库和分析人士，以及大多数美国人支持美国与韩国的联盟。
从程序上讲，国会确实有能力阻止特朗普单方面做出撤军决定。
从叙利亚撤军完全不同，从韩国撤军将结束几十年美国与韩国的联盟关系

EDIT: Legally speaking, withdrawing from the alliance requires one year prior notice as well.
This Treaty shall remain in force indefinitely. Either Party may terminate it one year after notice has been given to the other Party.
So, in short, unless you predict Trump completely trampling over domestic law, international law, and overcoming immense political opposition to an extent that is unprecedented (even for Trump) to withdraw from Korea, this ain't happening in 2019.

编辑:从法律上讲，退出联盟也需要提前一年通知对方。
美韩安保条约无限期有效。任何一方在通知另一方一年后才可以终止合同。
所以，简而言之，除非你预测特朗普会完全无视国内法、国际法，克服巨大的政治阻力，打破此前惯例从韩国撤军，否则2019年不会发生这种情况。

174
No one is talking about withdrawing from our alliance with South Korea. That's a straw man you keep attacking.

撤军不代表退出与韩国的联盟，你在混淆概念。

Igennem
Does Congress really have that authority, though? The president is the commander in chief per the US Constitution, and a measure like this seems unlikely to pass the right leaning Supreme Court.

国会真的拥有这种权力吗?根据美国宪法，总统是最高统帅，国会干涉总统撤军的行为似乎不太可能在倾向右翼的最高法院中获得通过。

174
It doesn't matter what Congress thinks about it. Article II of the US Constitution says the president is Commander in Chief, not Congress. If the president orders the troops to return home Congress can't say "wait, no, get back to your posts you have to stay."
Same with every other "law" on this. There is no law, international or otherwise, that requires the President to station troops in South Korea. We are merely permitted to have troops there, not required to have them there

国会怎么想并不重要。美国宪法第二条规定总统是总司令，而不是国会。
如果总统命令军队返回家园，国会不能阻止。
没有任何国际法或其他法律要求美国总统在韩国驻军。我们只是被允许在韩国驻军，而不是被要求在韩国驻军

DaBIGmeow888
US withdrew US troops from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, etc... all without Congressional approval or Congressional funding. It was all done by Presidential executive order.

美国从叙利亚、阿富汗、伊拉克、越南等国撤军……所有这些都没有得到国会批准或国会拨款。这一切都是由总统签署行政命令完成的。

stewartm0205
Congress can always impeach and convict him if they are displeased.

如果国会不高兴，他们随时可以弹劾总统并定罪。

DaBIGmeow888
Nobody is going to remove Trump from office after he secures a Peace Treaty to end a 70 year old war.
In fact, the political favorability will likely skyrocket since it is arguably a huge foreign policy victory - he can justify pulling US troops home because "the Job is done" and "NK threat eliminated" in typical Trump fashion.
Nobody is going to impeach Trump or obstruct him because a "Korean War Peace Treaty" is a huge policy victory.

没有人会在特朗普签署结束70年朝韩战争的和平条约后，罢黜他的总统职位。
相反，特朗普的政治支持率可能会飙升，因为朝韩和平条约可以说是一场巨大的外交政治胜利。
特朗普有理由撤回美国的军队，因为按照特朗普的典型风格，“完成撤军承诺”和“消除朝鲜威胁”是他的政治资本。
没有人会弹劾或阻挠特朗普，因为“朝鲜战争和平条约”本身就是一个巨大的政治胜利。

174
We would still have defense agreements in place. The 7th Fleet would still be just across the pond in Japan. No one is talking about cancelling any of that. Not to mention we would still continue to supply the South Korean military with advanced weaponry. US troops mainly serve as a deterrent to a North Korean land invasion, which seems highly unlikely under any scenario given the relative state of North and South Korean militaries.

即便美国从韩国本土撤军，我们仍然和韩国签有防御协议。
第七舰队就在大洋对岸的日本。没有人说要取消美国在日本的驻军。更不用说我们还将继续为韩国军队提供先进的武器装备。
美国驻韩军队的作用主要是威慑朝鲜对韩国的地面入侵，但考虑到目前朝鲜和韩国的军队对比状况，朝鲜对韩国的入侵可能不太会发生。

In fact removing US troops makes it easier to threaten North Korea with air strikes, should we want to do that, since US troops would no longer be within range of their artillery. The only way they could hit us would be to lob SCUDSs at Japan, which would only ensure that the JMSDF (which has the most advanced destroyer fleet in the world) gets into the fight.

事实上，如果我们从韩国撤出美国军队，我们可以更容易地用空袭威胁朝鲜，因为届时美国军事基地将不再处于朝鲜的大炮的射程之内。
他们想要打到我们的唯一方法是向日本发射飞毛腿导弹，而朝鲜如果真的这样做了，日本自卫队(拥有世界上最先进的驱逐舰舰队)也将会加入战斗。

Skarsnik-n-Gobbla
While removing troops would make the situation more difficult to support the South Koreans in the event hostilities break out the difference is not as disastrous as made out to be. It’s more of an honorary force to keep China in check than a force actually capable of offering significant assistance.

尽管美国撤军可能会在朝韩敌对行为爆发时难以支持韩国，但局势并不会向人们想象的那样严重，与其说驻韩美军是向韩国提供重大援助的军事力量，倒不如说驻韩美军是一支遏制中国的象征性力量。

wic0101
The mutual defence treaty between ROK and US would still be in effect even after a USFK withdrawal. However, the treaty being in effect doesn't necessarily mean that the US will in fact honor it

韩美共同防御条约即使在美国撤出后仍然有效。
然而，生效的条约并不一定意味着美国实际上会遵守条约

A DPRK attack on ROK will invariably put lives of US military personnel at risk, as some form of hostile action by DPRK against major US military bases on the Korean Peninsula is highly likely, which in turn guarantees to trigger a military response from the US.
I do not have any firm opinion on whether a USFK withdrawal is likely, but this point is something that the US can exploit when they negotiate with the ROK on defence cost/responsibility sharing and etc.

朝鲜对韩国的攻击必然会危及美国军事人员的生命，朝鲜对美国驻韩主要军事基地采取某种形式的攻击是极有可能的，这也必然会引发美国的军事回应。
我不确定美国是否可能从韩国撤军，但美国可以利用这一点与韩国就防务成本/责任分担等问题进行谈判。

DaBIGmeow888
South Korea: 25,000 US troops
Japan: 56,000 US troop
Germany: 35,000 US troops.
Hawaii: 42,000 US troops
Same for Japan/Germany have far more US troops than SK, and none even face any immediate land border threats like SK does.

韩国:25000名美国士兵
日本:56000名美国士兵
德国:35000名美国士兵
夏威夷:42000名美国士兵
没有一个国家像韩国那样直接面临来自陆地的边界威胁，而美国在日本和德国驻军远比韩国多得多。

MoonJaeIn
US troops in Korea are there to hedge against China, not NK.
In the event of a US withdrawal from South Korea, Seoul will likely have no option but to join Chinese hegemony in Asia-Pacific. If US gives up on Korea, you can write off any and all US security networks in East/Southeast Asia. Japan is next in line.

驻韩美军是为了防范中国，而不是朝鲜。
如果美国从韩国撤军，韩国可能别无选择，只能加入中国的亚太霸权。
如果美国放弃韩国，美国在东亚/东南亚的所有安全网络将会被破坏，日本也将紧随其后。

DaBIGmeow888
Gotta have more than dinky 30,000 troops to counter 1,400,000,000 people. These troops cannot even handle the full might of an NK invasion without massive reinforcements from US troops in Japan, let alone handle China's huge forces.

如果没有驻日美军的大规模增援，驻扎在韩国的三万美军部队甚至无法应付朝鲜入侵的全部力量，更不用说应付中国庞大的军队了。

The notion that a mere 30,000 US troops can deter 1,400,000,000 billion people hegemony in East Asia is laughably absurd.
US needed 200,000 troops to even conquer a mid-size country like Iraq (similar size and population to North Korea), so US needs atleast 2X-3X that to even remotely challenge China's 2 million PLA force in East Asia.

仅仅用3万名美军去阻止14亿人在东亚的霸权，这种想法是可笑而荒谬的。
美国需要20万军队才能征服像伊拉克这样的中等国家(面积和人口与朝鲜相当)，所以美国至少需要2到3倍的军队才能挑战中国在东亚的200万军队。

China at best will have 2-3 carriers by 2022, nothing compared to the nuclear CATOBARs of Pacific Fleet.
Once again, useless fearmongering about Chinese hegemony.

到2022年，中国最多拥有2-3艘航母，与美国太平洋舰队的核航母相比，简直是小巫见大巫。
所以，你只是在散布关于中国霸权的无谓恐慌言论。

diddykong7
In my opinion a significant reduction of forces in Korea would be a good thing for the US, as would be a rethinking of basing in the Asia-Pacific as a whole. There are around 25,000 US personnel in Korea the bulk of which is the 17,000 from the Eight Army and the 8,000 from the Seventh Air Force. This of course pales in comparison to the 625,000 active and 3,100,000 reserve personnel of the ROK Armed Forces and even more so against the 950,000 active and 5,500,000 reserve of the DPRK.

在我看来，大幅削减驻韩美军人数对美国来说将是一件好事，对整个亚太地区驻军的重新考量也是一件好事。
在韩国有大约2.5万名美国人员，其中大部分是来自美国第8军的1.7万人和来自第7空军的8000人。
驻韩美军人数小于韩国62.5万名现役武装部队，以及310万名预备役人员，更远远小于与朝鲜95万名现役武装部队，以及550万名预备役人员。

US forces are clearly not the only thing keeping South Korea safe. The Army's rotating armoured brigade and MLRS do little to augment the ROK Army which has several thousand main battle tanks including hundreds of the very modern K2 Black Panther and a few hundred rocket launchers with the new K239 Chunmoo coming into service. The Eighth Army's troops are a token force that do not help the security of South Korea or of the United States. The majority of the soldiers are not combat troops and they have with them their family members who in the event of hostilities will quickly become a burden: tens of thousands of American civilians in a war zone being targeted by North Korean missiles.

美国军队显然不是唯一能保护韩国的安全力量。
韩国军队拥有数千辆主战坦克，其中包括数百辆非常现代化的K2黑豹型坦克和数百套新型K239 火箭发射器。
美国第八军驻韩部队只是象征性的力量，无助于韩国或美国的安全。大多数驻韩士兵甚至不是作战部队，他们的家人也在他们身边。
一旦发生敌对行动，他们的家人很快就会成为负担:数万名在战区的美国平民也将成为朝鲜导弹的目标。

Atreiyu
NK lives and dies by China’s mandate. There’s a reason even Kim Jong Un had to visit China on state diplomacy
The moment China no longer cares about upholding or defending the regime, the US will likely succeed in toppling it. In fact it was Chinese forces who pushed the US back to the current NK/SK border, or McArthur would have conquered the entire peninsula.

朝鲜的生死取决于中国的授权。就连金正恩也必须对中国进行国家外交访问。
一旦中国不再关心维护或捍卫朝鲜政权，美国就可能成功推翻朝鲜政权。
事实上，是中国军队把美国赶回了目前的朝鲜半岛边境，否则麦克阿瑟就会征服整个朝鲜半岛。

Gaijin_Monster
I don't know how much time you've spent in South Korea but South Korea is drifting apart from the US in significant increments. Because of prosperity the public isn't really interested (nor thankful tbh) for the US presence like they used to be. Frankly it makes me sick that these days the US gives so much to South Korea(and has done so since 1950) but South Korea turns around and rips off the US in trade/business and under the current presidency, does not stay in-line with the United States

我不知道你们在韩国呆了多长时间，但韩国正在与美国渐行渐远。由于经济繁荣，公众不再像过去那样对美国的存在感兴趣。
坦率地说，让我感到恶心的是，美国给了韩国这么多(自1950年以来一直如此)，但韩国在贸易/商业和现任总统任期内反而从美国手中夺走了很多东西，韩国并不是和美国站在一起的。

Tizzard
Since Trump has been President, South Korea has not only purchased a load of American military hardware, it has also just recently announced an increase in its spending on national defense.

自从特朗普当选总统以来，韩国不仅购买了大量美国军事装备，而且最近还宣布增加了国防开支。

DaBIGmeow888
South Korea has no control whether US stays or leaves. It is fully the POTUS choice since it's a US sovereign choice and since Trump places "America First", it really could careless what SK thinks.

韩国无法控制美国的去留。这完全是美国总统自己的选择，因为这是美国的主权选择，而且由于特朗普把“美国放在首位”，所以特朗普真的可能会忽视韩国的想法。

MoonJaeIn
This is also not considering the huge sums of money that South Korea spends on political lobbying within US, outstripping Japan and UAE.

不要忘了韩国在美国国内政治游说上花费了巨额资金，超过了日本和阿联酋。