Defense officials should be more consistent, transparent
Military leaders and lawmakers on the National Assembly Defense Committee have been quarreling for nearly a month over making public the new Korea-U.S. military operational plan.
The new military strategy, dubbed Operations Plan (OPLAN) 5015, calls for promptly hitting back after North Korean attacks through a preemptive strike on the North's core military facilities and weapons as well as its top leaders. It differs sharply with the old OPLAN 5027, which is based on retraction, realignment and striking back.
It is therefore natural for lawmakers to demand the details of the drastic changes in joint military maneuvers, which was signed in June by military leaders of the two countries. The Joint Chiefs of Staff also seemed willing to report part, if not all, of the plan to the Assembly committee.
After a meeting Monday, however, lawmakers from both the ruling and opposition parties expressed dissatisfaction ― even anger ― with the military's extremely superficial report citing the rule that exempts obligatory reporting of military information that is important for national security. If so, the military should not have roused false expectations among lawmakers in the first place.
Yet the legislators have the right to know on behalf of the voters who elected them and the taxpayers who will shoulder the financial burden.
The JCS and Defense Ministry may be concerned about possible leakage of its contents, based on past experience. The military should try to solve the problem by securing promises from the lawmakers to keep the information secret, and tell them at least the major points of OPLAN 5015. Part of the content has already been reported by local and foreign media outlets, including Japan's Asahi Shimbun, which said the new plan includes concepts of limited war, or guerilla warfare, rather than a full-scale conflict.
An anonymous top military officer even caused a stir in August by telling a local newspaper that the latest plan contains preemptive "decapitation" of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. Pyongyang wasted no time putting forth a spiteful response. The military should have kept its own officers from leaking the content, some of them intentionally to test public reaction, rather than avoiding mandatory reporting to lawmakers. One can't help but wonder when the military will rectify its bad habit of lacking in transparency and consistency.
The reported content of OPLAN 5015 is not without problems, either.
Although the new scheme reportedly focuses not on a full-blown war but on limited warfare, a preemptive strike can escalate ― unnecessarily and disastrously ― in what could go from being a small skirmish into a large-scale war. It is also hard to understand how the Korean troops would be able to play a leading role while everyone knows here that should a war start, Korea will not have military operational control. If that possibly means Korean soldiers will mostly engage in ground warfare while the U.S. military provides naval and aerial support as some experts allege, the plan needs to be reconsidered.
We hope all these allegations and speculations are wrong. This makes it all the more necessary for the military to make sincere reports to the representatives of the people.
Military leaders and lawmakers on the National Assembly Defense Committee have been quarreling for nearly a month over making public the new Korea-U.S. military operational plan.
The new military strategy, dubbed Operations Plan (OPLAN) 5015, calls for promptly hitting back after North Korean attacks through a preemptive strike on the North's core military facilities and weapons as well as its top leaders. It differs sharply with the old OPLAN 5027, which is based on retraction, realignment and striking back.
It is therefore natural for lawmakers to demand the details of the drastic changes in joint military maneuvers, which was signed in June by military leaders of the two countries. The Joint Chiefs of Staff also seemed willing to report part, if not all, of the plan to the Assembly committee.
After a meeting Monday, however, lawmakers from both the ruling and opposition parties expressed dissatisfaction ― even anger ― with the military's extremely superficial report citing the rule that exempts obligatory reporting of military information that is important for national security. If so, the military should not have roused false expectations among lawmakers in the first place.
Yet the legislators have the right to know on behalf of the voters who elected them and the taxpayers who will shoulder the financial burden.
The JCS and Defense Ministry may be concerned about possible leakage of its contents, based on past experience. The military should try to solve the problem by securing promises from the lawmakers to keep the information secret, and tell them at least the major points of OPLAN 5015. Part of the content has already been reported by local and foreign media outlets, including Japan's Asahi Shimbun, which said the new plan includes concepts of limited war, or guerilla warfare, rather than a full-scale conflict.
An anonymous top military officer even caused a stir in August by telling a local newspaper that the latest plan contains preemptive "decapitation" of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. Pyongyang wasted no time putting forth a spiteful response. The military should have kept its own officers from leaking the content, some of them intentionally to test public reaction, rather than avoiding mandatory reporting to lawmakers. One can't help but wonder when the military will rectify its bad habit of lacking in transparency and consistency.
The reported content of OPLAN 5015 is not without problems, either.
Although the new scheme reportedly focuses not on a full-blown war but on limited warfare, a preemptive strike can escalate ― unnecessarily and disastrously ― in what could go from being a small skirmish into a large-scale war. It is also hard to understand how the Korean troops would be able to play a leading role while everyone knows here that should a war start, Korea will not have military operational control. If that possibly means Korean soldiers will mostly engage in ground warfare while the U.S. military provides naval and aerial support as some experts allege, the plan needs to be reconsidered.
We hope all these allegations and speculations are wrong. This makes it all the more necessary for the military to make sincere reports to the representatives of the people.
