North Korea, one of the world's poorest countries, is in desperate need of outside aid, particularly since the help that flowed in unconditionally from neighboring South Korea for a decade has dried up since Lee took office in Seoul in 2008. Pyongyang routinely uses its nuclear weapons program as its trump card, promising to abandon its atomic ambitions in exchange for aid and then exercising the nuclear threat when it doesn't get its way. They are like a 2-year old crying out for attention.
Why do we still have troops in South Korea? South Korea is a prosperous country with the means to defend itself against the North Koreans. If they lack the will, it is even more insane for us to be there. I would ask the same question about NATO. It is a huge bureaucracy in search of a reason to exist. It was formed 60 years ago to defend western europe against the very real threat of a soviet invasion. That threat is gone, and the europeans continually exhibit their characteristic ingratitude for the sacrifices America has made for them. I see little benefit from our continued support of NATO. The europeans will not hold up their end. They have let us pay the cost of their defense for decades. Most couldn't field even a moderately impressive defensive force, which was on abundant display during the Bosnian crisis. The post WW II is finally over. We need to recognize that fact and reorganize our overseas commitments accordingly. We can no longer afford to pay for the defense of rich countries that take advantage of our markets, rig trade rules against us and undermine us at every turn. Enough is enough.
Do yourself a favor and take a look at Gates' re-shaping of our military budget for 2010. It will give you an idea as to what is being made a priority, and what is not. It was announced today. Plenty of news wire articles on it.