The discussion surrounding the relocation and integration of the Korea Military Academy (KMA), a sacred site for national security, is devolving into a polarized political conflict. A large-scale protest against the integration of military academies is scheduled to be held at the National Assembly on Wednesday, the 8th.

People are bewildered by the decision to abandon the perfectly functional, naturally fortified KMA facilities in favor of spending massive budgets on relocation. They are outraged that the state is ignoring the long-term future of the military and using the KMA relocation as a political tool, leading them to raise fundamental questions.

Is this persistent pursuit of a project opposed by the majority of the public yet another case of "divide and rule"? Does it imply that only the three military academies need "jointness," while the other ten officer training institutions, which produce 80% of our officers, do not? Is this political "selective jointness" merely a devious political ploy to sever the traditions of the military academies and dismantle the military?

Whose idea was it to shut down the KMA under the guise of military academy integration, whose security policy does it serve, and what kind of destructive act against the nation is it intended for?

Sacrificing a time-honored sanctuary with 80 years of history and world-class architecture just to build apartments, while simultaneously pushing for a separate, multi-trillion-won relocation budget, is a plan that the public will never find justifiable, regardless of the strategy proposed. Citizens are furious at the predatory politics that seek to move even the KMA, the cradle of national defense and security, to a specific region.

In the Joseon Dynasty, just before the Imjin War, the royal court was obsessed with the administrative efficiency of the "Jeseungbangryak" (centralized defense strategy). They abandoned the "Jingwan" system—a defense structure that favored regional mobilization, training, and the motivation to defend one's own homeland. This history of defeat, which forced the King to flee his capital at the start of the war, serves as a lesson for us today.

The "Jeseungbangryak" had a plausible justification for integration—reducing the risk of being defeated in detail as in the Jingwan system and enabling efficient large-scale troop mobilization. However, it sidelined the essential qualities of the military: raw field spirit, realistic training, and the motivation to protect one's parents and siblings. The result was a bitter defeat. The history of how a hasty strategic shift led to the devastation of our land leaves us with a critical lesson.

The current military academy relocation project must be re-examined from the same perspective. Is a "hardware-oriented relocation," costing an estimated 3 trillion won, more urgent than the contemporary tasks of strengthening our military's capabilities and cultivating elite officers? Is this not, by any objective measure, a case of gross inefficiency in national security resources and a subversive act that shakes the foundations of the nation?

A truly strong military is not born from artificial integration or political maneuvering. A victorious military is forged through grueling realistic training, overwhelming combat skills, and, above all, the pride of an officer corps dedicated to the nation.

Therefore, the massive budget slated for military academy integration should not be invested in construction; it should be used to transform the military's core and become a "spark for fostering a strong military." I propose that the 3 trillion won intended for integration be invested as follows:

First, recognize that the essence of the military lies in "training" and "combat power," and invest aggressively in creating environments and incentives for realistic field maneuvers and advanced tactical education. Invest the 3 trillion won in building a robust security shield that cannot be swayed by the enemy and in researching practical methods for civilian control.

Second, improve the working conditions and the quality of education so that junior and mid-level officers, who are the roots and the future of the military, can serve with spontaneous pride and professional stability.

Third, the Russia-Ukraine war has shown that the nature of warfare has completely changed. Focus resources on next-generation power systems and the advancement of intelligent, AI-based defense systems to prepare for future battlefield environments. When the 3 trillion won in taxpayer money is invested in "soldiers," "training," and "future combat system development," our military will be reborn as a strong force capable of leading a free unification.

Fostering a strong military is the only way for our forces to avoid repeating the initial failures of the Imjin War 400 years ago and to gain an overwhelming advantage on future battlefields. We do not want history to repeat its failures. Security policy must be based on thorough strategic calculations for victory, not on the logic of power.

Treating precious security assets as tools for real estate development, political maneuvering for specific regions, or administrative convenience will invite divine retribution. The misdeeds of those in power cannot be erased by the passage of time. We must stop this exhausting and divisive debate that aims to alter the essence of security under false pretenses. Security funding must be concentrated on "building a strong military" and creating a "victorious force."

Policymakers tasked with maintaining and developing the framework of the nation must read the future security environment. They must not commit the folly of a starving crab eating its own legs. The citizens of Seoul will also oppose the relocation of the KMA to Jangseong. The northeast region of Seoul, where the KMA is located, serves as a natural defensive position that blocks the enemy's access to the capital. Holding onto this security sanctuary is one of the spiritual pillars that reminds us that defending Seoul means defending the Republic of Korea.

Furthermore, when North Korea's slave regime collapses and free unification is achieved, young people from the North will also apply to the military academy. Isn't it a short-sighted idea to send the academy to "Jangseong" instead of keeping it in "Seoul," the center of the country?

I urge the Ministry of National Defense to immediately discard the hasty military academy integration plan and deeply consider what truly serves the national interest and the prosperity of our people. I hope they will soothe the anger of the public and the military through substantive improvements in military welfare and an open security policy. I hope they do not commit the folly of being the last to realize the severity of a situation that they themselves have triggered through provocation and frustration.

◆ Commissioner Park Pil-gyu

Editorial Writer, Han-Mi Ilbo

Korea Military Academy, 40th Class