Posted Orignally on Aug 19, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

South Korea has responded to Trump’s decision to reduce joint military exercises by talking about becoming more militarily independent. President Lee Jae Myung wants South Korea to regain wartime operational control of its forces and accelerate its military capabilities. The establishment immediately presents this as though Trump has somehow endangered America by pushing an ally toward self-reliance.

The American taxpayer should never have been expected to finance the defense of wealthy countries indefinitely. South Korea is not some impoverished developing nation incapable of defending itself. It is one of the world’s largest economies, possesses a sophisticated industrial and technological base, and has built a formidable military. If Seoul believes it should have greater control over its own national defense, then by all means it should.

Trump has complained for years that America’s allies expect Washington to carry a disproportionate share of their defense burden. South Korea is no exception. The United States maintains approximately 28,500 troops on the Korean Peninsula, and the two countries have repeatedly fought over how much Seoul should contribute toward the cost. They reached another burden-sharing agreement extending through 2030, but Trump’s fundamental complaint has never changed: why should American taxpayers be expected to defend prosperous foreign nations forever? The same argument applies to NATO, and this is ultimately why NATO will face an existential crisis.

The Europeans have constructed their postwar governments around the assumption that America would provide the ultimate military guarantee. That allowed European politicians to spend enormous sums on welfare states and domestic political projects while neglecting their own military capabilities. Whenever anyone questioned the arrangement, Washington’s foreign-policy establishment insisted that America somehow needed NATO more than Europe needed America.

If NATO disappeared tomorrow, is Canada going to invade the United States? Is Belgium going to attack Washington? Is Poland going to send troops across the Atlantic? The United States possesses its own nuclear deterrent, enormous conventional forces, two vast oceans, tremendous natural resources, and one of the world’s largest economies. Europe requires American military power to balance Russia far more than America requires European military power to defend North America.

South Korea faces the same basic reality in Asia. North Korea threatens Seoul directly. It does not threaten Washington in remotely the same geographical sense. South Korea therefore has a far greater immediate interest in maintaining deterrence on the Korean Peninsula than the American taxpayer does.

This does not mean alliances are worthless. Alliances can serve strategic purposes, improve intelligence cooperation, deter conflict, and prevent adversaries from dominating important regions. But an alliance must benefit both sides. It cannot become a permanent arrangement where one nation provides the ultimate military guarantee while everyone else treats that guarantee as an entitlement.

South Korea refused Trump’s request to support America’s actions against Iran. Trump then publicly complained about that refusal while ordering the Pentagon to reduce joint exercises with Seoul. Trump also argued that the exercises cost “Hundreds of Millions of Dollars” and questioned why America should continue conducting them when Kim Jong Un had been “unthreatening and respectful” toward the United States during his presidency.

South Korea is perfectly entitled to say Iran is not its war. But America is equally entitled to ask why North Korea must therefore remain America’s financial responsibility. You cannot have sovereignty only when it is convenient.

If Seoul wants an independent foreign policy toward Iran, Ukraine, China, and every other geopolitical dispute, then that is precisely what a sovereign country should have. South Korea has been similarly cautious regarding Ukraine. It has condemned Russia, supported sanctions, provided humanitarian and economic assistance, yet resisted becoming directly involved in the war even as North Korea moved closer to Moscow.

President Lee wants wartime operational control transferred back to South Korea, and Seoul is discussing stronger indigenous military capabilities. That should not frighten Americans. American taxpayers should welcome wealthy allies becoming capable of defending themselves.

The foreign-policy establishment has constructed this bizarre doctrine whereby any reduction in American military responsibility is portrayed as American decline. They measure American power by how many countries depend upon Washington. That is not strength. That is liability.

Categories:War