Command transfer
Hasty change will trigger public backlash
Open debate started on the possibility of rescheduling the transfer of the U.S. wartime command control to South Korea beyond 2012. President Lee Myung-bak and U.S. President Barack Obama may discuss the issue in Toronto Sunday on the sideline of the G-20 summit. Public opinion is divided.
Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister Yoo Myung-hwan and Kim Sung-han, senior national security secretary to President Lee, confirmed a working-level discussion has been under way on putting off the planned transfer of wartime operational control (OPCON) and the disbandment of the South Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command (CFC). The talks started when North Korea conducted its second nuclear test in May last year.
The White House has yet to clarify its position. The U.S. Congress mandated the Obama administration to report the rescheduling issue by Dec. 1. The conservative U.S. Council on Foreign Relations also said that the transition should not be hastily made.
In 2007, the two countries agreed on the transition in April, 2012, apparently at the prodding of the then President Roh Moo-hyun.
The current CFC structure has proven effective since its inception. After 2012, the combined operations and planning today would be coordinated by Korean and American military units. Unity of command will disappear. This might complicate a fighting process.
The South Korean military has yet to prove it has the capabilities for the C4I (command, control, communications, computers and intelligence), counter-battery artillery, counter-special operations, air interdiction and close air-support and air transport.
The Marine Corps and Navy have yet to demonstrate the capabilities for large-scale amphibious operations against an enemy attack.
Conservatives said that a divided command may lead to Kim Jong-il's misinterpretation that it is a lessening of the U.S. defense commitment to South Korea. The concern grew serious after the North torpedoed a South Korean warship in March.
Liberals might turn it into mass candlelight vigils. It must be recalled that a hasty decision to resume imports of American beef in 2008 angered the South Koreans.
Sharing the cost is also a tricky issue. Washington may ask Seoul to share the additional defense burden. If the request is unconvincing, the opposition will gather force. An ideological clash over the issue may polarize the country again and sour the Korea-U.S. alliance.
Liberals are logical when they say the world's 14th largest economy should be in the driver's seat in national defense. National security is not an issue of pride or moral judgment. Now is the time to ponder what type of a Korean-U.S. military structure is the best to prevent war.
The presence of U.S. troops here is vital not only for war deterrence but also for a balancing role even after unification. It should be noted that in the first summit in 2000, Kim Dae-jung and Kim Jong-il agreed that the U.S. troops should stay in Korea even after unification as a stabilizer and balancer on the peninsula.