The United States has almost 24,000 military troops stationed in South Korea. The South Korean government was paying $1.0 billion a year, along with an indeterminate amount of subsidies to support those troops. President Trump recently decided, after no in depth analysis, to charge South Korea $5 billion a year, a 400% increase The South Koreans did not agree and the US left the negotiating table. Supposedly the United States is debating whether to pull 4,000 of those troops out and ship them back home presumably because the South Koreans did not like the cost increase. The US is also trying to increase the bill to the Japanese for the 50,000 US troops that are stationed there. There are also 40,000 dependents and 5,500 American civilians. There is no talk of a specific bill for those troops, but would it be $10 billion. Or would we agree to a discount because of the families?
So there are currently roughly 200,000 US troops stationed abroad. If we use the same metrics, should we now charge $40 billion a year for those troops? The President’s cost formula apparently is charging for the full cost, plus 50% more. But according to sources, the Koreans are already paying for 50% of the troop cost at the current $1 billion, so even charging 50% more, that doesn’t come out to $5 billion, it comes out to $3 billion. If a country, say like Poland, was willing to spend more, would we then move the troops to the highest bidder? That would then just make US forces a mercenary force. Whatever happened to strategic positioning? And no, the Saudis did not pay for 100% of the cost of the US troops as the President has stated, the Saudis paid for housing as far as can be determined. They still owe $181 million for refueling costs in their war in Yemen.
What if no country were willing to foot the bill being demanded, would we bring them all home? That would be very costly and then what is the cost of transporting those troops to areas that then have problems and what would be the reaction time? What other purpose do the troops serve other than a glorified security force? They show that we support allies against aggressors. They also prepare and train with the local forces making both US and local troops better prepared to work together if the situation arises. Imagine the confusion or lack of coordination that would happen if we just suddenly place 10,000 troops into a hot zone that requires a joint task force? Ideally we would also like troops in foreign countries to show the bold and correct image of the United States. A public relations statement as it were. Sadly, it doesn’t always work out that way, as the incidents over the years in Okinawa Japan have shown. Not everybody welcomes US troops with open arms. If we just charge a yearly fee, that image will just get worse. It isn’t just about the money. Not everything is a business transaction.