In response to a foreign report that the US Department of Defense has proposed a reduction option for the USFK to the White House, voices of opposition to the reduction have been heard in the United States.

The US Congress has even legislated the administration to keep the USFK free, but there is concern that President Donald Trump will not be able to stop it if it pushes it.

Opposition to USFK reductions also emerges from Trump's relative, the Republican Party.

Republican Senator Ben Sas pointed out that this type of strategic inability is vulnerable to Jimmy Carter (former President) on a Wall Street Journal report on the 17th (local time) that the Pentagon has proposed a reduction option to the White House.

Republican Congressman Mark Green also said on Twitter, "I have rarely agreed to the president, but we should appreciate Korea's partnership in facing China." "We need it, and they need us."

Military Chairman Adam Smith of the opposition Democratic Party also said on the 17th, "We are there because the United States is investing heavily in world peace and stability. It is necessary for the USFK to deter North Korea's war." I emphasized.

The response from the opposition lawmakers appears to be the result of a bipartisan consensus that the current level of USFK maintenance is necessary for the US interest in preventing China from expanding its military power and provoking North Korea's provocation.

Congress last year handled the 2020 Defense Agency Act (NDAA), which included provisions to prevent the administration from using the budget necessary to reduce the USFK to less than the current 28,500, and even signed President Trump's signature. .

In the previous year's '2019 NDAA', Congress set the size of the USFK to 22,000 and raised it back to 28,500, which prevented President Trump from arbitrarily reducing the USFK. It was interpreted as having been placed.

Congress is currently discussing legislation dealing with the same in the '2021 NDAA'.

In particular, in the draft prepared by the House of Representatives, more demanding requirements were added by proving that the reduction of the North Korean threat and the deterrence of South Korea's deterrence by the administration were reduced.

Voices of concern also come from experts on the Korean Peninsula.

"It's wrong to treat Korea like this. They pay a fair share of it," said Harry Kazianis, director of Korean affairs at the National Institute of American Studies.

Richard Johnson, former non-proliferation chief of the White House National Security Council (NSC) during the administration of the Barack Obama, pointed to Twitter's need to advance North Korea's denuclearization before considering cuts.

According to a survey conducted by the team of Professor Timothy Rich of the University of Western Kentucky's International Opinion Research Institute (IPOL) on a Web survey of 1,24 Americans on the 7th, 42.9% of respondents objected to the withdrawal of US troops from Korea and 26.8% agreed It appeared to be one.

However, there is an observation that despite the device called the NDAA and the voice of congressional checks, it is not easy to force President Trump to stop the USFK reduction if he pushes for it.

This is because the NDAA does not prohibit the reduction itself, but provides an exception for the administration to pursue if certain requirements are met.

The current NDAA has two conditions: the reduction will meet US national security interests and will not seriously violate the security of the US alliance in the region. If proved, reduction was possible.

Frank Um, senior researcher at the United States Institute for Peace (USIP), an agency founded by the US Congress, said on Twitter, "I hope the defense minister can gather as much national security grounds as possible to meet the NDAA." It will be written.

(yunhap news)