What they're saying: The price tag of ending Korean "war games"

Axios 8 mins ago

President Trump tweeted Wednesday morning to argue that suspending military exercises between the United States and South Korea — announced yesterday as a part of his summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un — would save the U.S. "a fortune."



What they're saying: Experts view Trump's argument as geopolitically short-sighted, acknowledging that — while it might technically reduce costs in the short-term — it could stand to reduce the country's military readiness and force projection in Asia, which could create massive long-term consequences and costs.

Link to tweet

Sen. Lindsey Graham blasted Trump's cost argument as "ridiculous" because American forces in the region "[bring] stability" during an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, though he did agree with the president's decision to end the war games as part of a good faith process with North Korea.

William Cohen, Secretary of Defense under Bill Clinton, told CNBC: "Yes, it's very expensive to be in shape, to be ready to defend our country and our allies in the region. To point out how expensive it is misses the point of what strategic deterrence is and how it protects U.S. interests as well as those of South Korea."

Tom Spoehr, the director of the Heritage Foundation’s Center for National Defense and a retired three-star Army general, told The Washington Post: "If it just means the big and joint exercises, we could do without those for several months. Longer than that, you start to suffer some issues. You’ve got to train, otherwise you start to get rusty. We can’t go too terribly long without doing these exercises without having some impact."