Training soldiers: ideology, discipline and geopolitics
Chun In-bum
The Prussian Army, renowned for its strict discipline, laid the foundation for military training that evolved over centuries. From the 18th century to the end of World War I in 1918, the Royal Army of Prussia was a beacon of military discipline in Europe. This legacy of discipline set the stage for military training during the 20th century, particularly during the two World Wars and the Cold War era.
Unquestioning obedience, a hallmark of the Prussian military tradition, was crucial for maintaining large, conscript armies. However, in democratic societies, where individualistic thinking flourishes, simply commanding a soldier isn't enough. One must explain the reasons behind the orders to gain compliance. This nuance, while integral to the democratic spirit, poses challenges in training citizen-soldiers.
During World War II, the U.S. Army's “Troop Information” programs used films, radio, pamphlets and lectures to instill patriotism and shape perceptions of the enemy. This period marked a significant shift from strict discipline to ideological education, continuing until the end of conscription in 1973.
In contrast, communist regimes relied on a simple, yet powerful message of equality, freedom and fairness, often overshadowing individual identity. This approach, effective until its promises proved hollow, was a potent tool against young democracies struggling with everyday problems. The fall of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek in China to communist forces is a stark example of the power of ideological warfare. In response, Chiang established the Political Operations Bureau and School in Taiwan to uphold the Republic of China's ideals and protect its political system.
Similarly, the Republic of Korea's “Troop Information and Education" (TIE) service represents a modern iteration of ideological training. Comprising a separate branch with educated officers, the TIE ensures soldiers understand their purpose in serving. This understanding is vital for a country with a history of complex relations with neighbors like Japan and ongoing threats from the North.
The "Why We Fight" narrative is primarily the responsibility of unit commanders, supported by TIE officers. The Korean Ministry of National Defense provides materials to aid in this educational effort. However, sensitivities arise, as seen in the recent controversy where the Ministry’s publication omitted Dokdo, sparking public and presidential criticism. This incident underscores the delicate balance in ROK-Japan relations, marred by historical grievances yet necessitated by mutual security interests against North Korea's military threat and an aggressive Chinese.
President Yoon’s administration in South Korea, while taking considerable hits in approval ratings, exemplifies the tough decisions leaders must make in prioritizing long-term geopolitical stability over short-term popularity. The challenges faced by Korea and Japan won’t disappear, and mutual understanding is essential. Especially Japan must understand, from this incident, the level of challenge that the relationship faces.
This also extends to the realm of soldier training, where understanding "why we fight" is as crucial as knowing "how to fight." This intricate web of historical legacy, ideological indoctrination and geopolitical necessities shapes not just the soldier but also the society from which they come. The present-day South Korean military not only trains but also recruits soldiers, which requires a more nuanced approach to instilling commitment and understanding the larger geopolitical context. This necessitated a more comprehensive and appealing narrative that went beyond the simplistic dichotomy of us versus them.
In countries with ongoing conscription, like South Korea, the ideological component of military training remains critically important. The existential threat posed by North Korea requires a consistent reinforcement of the reasons for service, going beyond mere nationalism. It involves creating a deep understanding among the soldiers of the fragile geopolitical balance on the Korean Peninsula and the role they play in maintaining it. This is especially true of the importance of understanding the ROK-Japan relationship despite the difference in interpretation of history regarding comfort women and forced labor by segments of Japanese society, as well as territorial claims.
Furthermore, the role of technology in military training cannot be overstated. With advancements in virtual reality, simulation and artificial intelligence, soldiers are now trained in environments that closely mimic real-world scenarios, yet another dimension in understanding the "why" of their fight. This technological leap has also influenced the ideological aspects of training, as soldiers must now understand and engage with complex, often abstract threats in the digital realm.
In conclusion, the transformation in military training over the centuries reflects a broader shift in societal values, technological advancements and geopolitical challenges. The question of "why we fight" has evolved from a straightforward command to a complex narrative encompassing national identity, global security and moral responsibility. As the world continues to change, so too will the narratives that shape the minds and actions of those who defend it.
Chun In-bum (truechun@naver.com) served as a lieutenant general of the ROK Army and commander of Special Forces Korea.