Korea-US alliance on the brink: Readiness should come first

By Kim Jong-wook

• Published Oct 21, 2026 11:10 AM KST
• Updated Oct 21, 2026 4:08 PM KST

My recent visit to Washington, D.C., where I attended the Korea Defense Veterans Association (KDVA) Conference and the annual meeting of the Association of the United States Army (AUSA), reaffirmed both the enduring strength of the Korea-U.S. alliance and the challenges it faces.

During these meetings, I spoke with senior U.S. military officials who have served in Korea. Gen. Xavier Brunson, the commander of U.S. Forces Korea, United Nations Command, and Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command, is one of them. Their concerns about growing differences between Seoul and Washington were unmistakable. Yet these concerns stem not from a diminishing commitment, but from their determination to preserve an alliance they have spent much of their careers defending.

Over the years, I have developed close relationships with many current and former U.S. military leaders. These friendships have convinced me that the alliance rests not only on treaties and military cooperation, but also on mutual trust, shared belief and commitments.

Friendship alone cannot resolve the differences. Both countries must admit disagreements, confront them and work together toward practical solutions.

One of the most pressing issues is the transfer of wartime operational control (OPCON) from Washington to Seoul.

At the KDVA conference, Gen. Robert Abrams, the former commander of the Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command, made an important distinction between two ways of accelerating OPCON transition. One is to meet the agreed military conditions more quickly. The other is to proceed before those conditions are satisfied, thereby accepting greater military risks.

These approaches must never be confused.

The two countries agreed on a conditions-based transition framework in 2014 and formalized the plan in 2015. Under this framework, Korea must acquire and deploy 26 critical military capabilities.

According to Abrams, significant capability gaps remain, and some requirements have shown little progress. He also questioned a previous Korean government's claim in 2020 that 92 percent of the transition conditions had already been met.

His message deserves serious consideration: Political ambitions must be supported by actual military capabilities.

I fully support Korea's efforts to assume greater responsibility for its own defense. However, OPCON transition must be based on demonstrated military readiness, credible assessments and confidence in the effectiveness of the future combined command structure.

Korean leadership should never be mistaken for Korea defending itself alone. The ultimate purpose of OPCON transition is to strengthen combined defense under Korean leadership while preserving America's security commitments.

Brunson reinforced this message during AUSA 2026.

While expressing support for OPCON transition as part of modernizing the alliance, he emphasized that the agreed conditions must be respected.

Speaking in Washington on Oct. 14 (local time), Brunson pointed to North Korea's evolving military capabilities and the need to adapt operational plans accordingly.

One statement was particularly striking: "Time, in and of itself, is a condition."

His remarks underscore an essential principle: Military readiness must take precedence over politically determined deadlines.

At the same time, evolving security threats should not become an excuse for making transition requirements unclear or endlessly changing the standards.

If operational requirements need modification, both governments should discuss them through established consultation channels and agree on transparent, achievable standards.

Accelerating OPCON transition should mean closing capability gaps sooner, not lowering military requirements.

Brunson also emphasized more realistic combined training, including dispersing military units and command headquarters across wider areas. Such measures reflect lessons from the war in Ukraine and the growing sophistication of North Korea's military capabilities.

Equally important was his description of the United States and Korea as the alliance's two homelands, both of which he considers himself responsible for protecting.

This captures the fundamental purpose of the alliance: protecting the people of both nations. The alliance must also evolve beyond its traditional framework.

Korea's increasingly sophisticated defense industry can make greater contributions to regional logistics, maintenance and sustained military operations. Korea is no longer simply a recipient of U.S. protection. It has become a capable security partner whose contributions strengthen the alliance and regional stability.

Both governments should regularly assess progress toward OPCON transition, identify remaining capability gaps and communicate their findings publicly whenever security considerations permit.

The Korean National Assembly and the U.S. Congress should also strengthen their exchanges and support the resources needed to sustain effective combined defense, regardless of political changes.

My conversations in Washington left me concerned about disagreements between our countries, but encouraged by the determination of U.S. military leaders to preserve the alliance.

The Korea-U.S. alliance has weathered numerous challenges over seven decades. Its future depends on whether both countries can maintain mutual confidence, fulfill their commitments and put military readiness ahead of political expediency.

The alliance must remain strong enough to deter aggression, flexible enough to address emerging threats and resilient enough to withstand political differences.

Above all, we must remember that OPCON transition is not an end in itself. The ultimate objective is a stronger combined defense capable of protecting both nations.

"Katchi kapshida." We go together.

Kim Jong-wook is a board member of the Korea-U.S. Alliance Foundation in Seoul.