A failure in national security by those in power inevitably results in our children and descendants shedding blood in times of war.

In U.S. political circles, it has been openly whispered that after Iran and Russia, North Korea is next.

Yet, the current administration seems oblivious to who holds the reins of global governance or where that blade is now pointed. They fail to realize that the transfer of wartime operational control (OPCON) will not be a complete "handover" but rather a "half-measure" that entails the dismantling of the ROK-U.S. Combined Forces Command, all while indulging in delusions of "peace and autonomy."

With no independent strength to defend itself and a lack of awareness regarding its own position, the Republic of Korea government, which has aligned itself with pro-China factions, now stands in the midst of a massive, turbulent storm.

If the U.S., the global hegemon, grows weary of the pro-China regime's excessive provocations and decides to take a hardline stance, the loyalty of the alliance, as well as our core strengths in shipbuilding and defense technology, may no longer act as a fortress protecting us. Instead, they could become shackles that push our young people into a battlefield consumed by the fires of war.

Since the current administration took office, the deep-seated security anxiety among the public is not merely groundless fear. The lament that "if politics fails to secure the gates of national security, the price will be paid entirely by active-duty soldiers, mobilized reservists, and the young people who will be sent to the front lines in the heat of their youth" is shifting from speculation into a chilling reality.

1. If the definition of an alliance changes, how will it change?

The ROK-U.S. alliance is moving beyond the classic framework of "defending the Korean Peninsula" and is being reconstituted as a pawn on the massive chessboard of the "Indo-Pacific Strategy." U.S. security strategists have their eyes fixed on the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea, and the trend is to incorporate the Korean Peninsula as a part of that vast front line.

If war clouds gather over Taiwan and the Chinese Communist Party incites North Korean provocations, as it did during the Korean War, the moment U.S. Forces Korea power is diverted to Taiwan and the Peninsula, the security burden our youth will have to shoulder to fill that void will far exceed anything we have ever imagined.

2. Security tragedies caused by political immaturity: From ancient times to the Vietnam War

National security is a combination of total physical strength and the trust forged by political leadership. Historically, the misjudgments and political immaturity of national leaders have served as fatal traps that dismantle alliances and threaten the very existence of a nation.

During the Peloponnesian War in ancient Greece, Athens displayed political immaturity by failing to restrain its expansionist ambitions. Athens’ arrogance, which destroyed the balance of power with Sparta, triggered the departure of its allies and ultimately led to self-destruction through political isolation—a fate far worse than physical military defeat.

Modern Britain’s appeasement policy toward Nazi Germany remains the pinnacle of a security tragedy born of political complacency. Chamberlain’s misjudgment that Hitler’s ambitions could be contained through "political negotiation" betrayed the trust of allies and plunged Europe into ruin. Unpredictable pacifism has never succeeded in stopping the enemy’s blade.

The Vietnam War, the most painful example, tells the same story. The South Vietnamese leadership lost the hearts of the people due to corrupt politics and an absence of a clear stance against their enemy, while the U.S. repeatedly intervened and withdrew based on internal political situations without a solid security strategy. The combination of inconsistent U.S. strategy and South Vietnamese political incompetence tore the alliance to pieces, and South Vietnam ceased to exist.

Ultimately, national security is achieved only when the "hardware" of military power and the "software" of political insight are in harmony. History proves that security failures stemming from political immaturity, which fails to refine security strategies with intellect and insight, are a form of national suicide more dangerous than any enemy.

3. Are we free from political immaturity?

Political immaturity is a lethal trap for national security. The history of security proves that consistent strategy and political capacity of leadership, rather than physical force, determine the success or failure of an alliance.

Today, our 방위비 분담금(defense cost-sharing) negotiations are a continuation of this "political immaturity." The hurried agreement made in the face of Trump-style "Art of the Deal" tactics has resulted in us voluntarily trapping ourselves in a strategic role as a logistics base for China, despite bearing astronomical costs.

The incompetence of failing to leverage our core assets—semiconductors, shipbuilding, and defense industries—into bargaining power for sovereignty is a form of self-inflicted security harm. National security is not a gamble on a "piece of paper for peace"; it is completed when the military's strategic insight into maximizing geopolitical value is harmonized with sophisticated political technique.

4. If politics fails in security, who sheds the blood?

The price of security failures caused by political immaturity is always paid by the youth on the front lines. When politicians are buried in domestic power struggles and fail to read the grand currents of international affairs, the catastrophe returns as the sacrifice of our soldiers.

During World War I, the diplomatic miscalculations of European leaders led millions of young men to die in the trenches. In the Vietnam War, the U.S. withdrawal combined with South Vietnam's political misjudgments and corruption made the young soldiers who stood by their posts until the end the scapegoats.

The war started by Putin's misjudgment has caused massive casualties for the Russian military, with estimates of cumulative casualties exceeding 1.4 million. This is a staggering figure consistent with international assessments of the war situation. Ultimately, the wrong decisions by leadership result not only in the sacrifice of soldiers but also in the tragic invoice of national economic collapse, exacerbating the suffering of innocent citizens and leading them to their deaths.

Our current situation is no different. The hasty integration of military academies leads to low morale among current officers and cadets and weakens future combat capabilities on the battlefield. Security does not come from arrogant peace gambles by political powers, but from an intense sense of sovereignty that pierces through the cold international power dynamics.

When politics ignores the essence of security and hides behind the shield of failure, we must remember that it is not the people in power who stand before the judgment of history, but the sacrifices of the young who silently defended the country.

The solemn duty that our politicians must fulfill is to prevent war through diplomatic insight, maintain full military readiness to ensure our youth are not driven to the front lines, and uphold the red line of our national interest amidst the competition of major powers.

◆ Commissioner Park Pil-gyu

Editorial Writer, Korea-U.S. Daily (Hani-Ilbo)

Korea Military Academy, 40th Class