Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Byung-joo (left) at the commission ceremony for Korea Military Academy graduates. [Photo = Yonhap News/ROK Army]

It is deeply concerning that recent calls from the political sphere to integrate the Army, Navy, and Air Force academies—justified by changes in the future battlefield environment and the demographic cliff—are spiraling toward catastrophe, driven by arrogance and dogmatism.

Proponents of integration, including Representative Kim Byung-joo, cite the nature of modern warfare, where operational domains such as drones, missiles, cyber, and space overlap, as the rationale for consolidation.

However, this argument is a dangerous notion that interprets phenomena solely through a technical lens, while overlooking the value of the "fundamentals" and "expertise" that constitute the essence of military education. It commits the contradiction of ordering interior decoration before even laying the foundation.

True, all-weather security talent is not forged through the physical integration of military academies, but through "applied education and on-site job training" that is carried out in stages after the foundations of each service branch have been firmly established.

1. We must first recognize the procedural ignorance and the sequence of military structural design

The first point to highlight is the fatal procedural flaw committed by proponents of academy integration. Military strategy and tactics must follow a logical hierarchy of "concept-structure-personnel-education."

Attempting to integrate military academies first—while a future joint battlefield operating concept has not even been properly established, and while the processes of designing the military structure to implement that concept and calculating the supporting personnel structure have been skipped—is a complete reversal of logic and the height of ignorance, akin to putting the cart before the horse.

Where exactly did the proponents' concept of "military academy integration" even come from? Basic military administration dictates that a future battlefield operating concept must be set first; only after the military structure to implement that concept is designed, and the supporting personnel structure is planned, can an academy education system suited to those needs be designed.

Proposing integration without any philosophical or strategic consideration of military structure is nothing more than a "shallow idea" born from the misconception that the future battlefield will be so oversimplified that the sky, sea, and land will physically blend together. If the proponents had ever served as company commanders, they would have experienced firsthand how difficult it is to master even one's own branch, let alone all of them.

2. Warning against the dilution of military identity and the breeding of 'jack-of-all-trades' officers

The essential goal of military academy education is to provide a "root" space where cadets internalize the unique values, discipline, and culture of their respective services, and build the intellectual and cultural foundation for their field of expertise.

The characteristics of the Army's ground operations, the Navy's maritime operations, and the Air Force's air and space operations are vastly different, as are the engineering and humanities foundations that support them.

Forcing integration prematurely without solid foundations will dilute the identity of each service, ultimately resulting in "jack-of-all-trades" officers who lack deep expertise in any domain.

If we want "all-weather talent" capable of handling future battlefields, the answer is not integration, but the "phasing of education." The strategic standard is to secure expertise in each service through basic-applied-advanced stages, followed by "continuing education" (such as OBC, OAC, and service colleges) and specialized master's or doctoral programs after commissioning, with joint operational capabilities then being nurtured through job training at the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

3. Judging future security under the guise of efficiency is self-sabotage

Emphasizing efficiency due to the demographic cliff is a myopic attitude that views the military's future solely through the lens of cost-cutting. As the population shrinks, the density of expertise in each officer must be increased.

The reason past discussions on integration—such as during the Lee Myung-bak administration—were scrapped was because they were backed by the voices of those in the field and the necessary practical and philosophical deliberation. Reviving a proposal that was already discarded due to a lack of effectiveness is a regression.

No matter how much future battlefields shift toward integration, the agents executing those operations remain officers who have mastered the expertise of their respective services. The fact that drones and missiles have caused operational domains to overlap does not mean that teaching Air Force precision strike theory to Army cadets or ground combat tactics to Navy cadets with equal weight is the path to creating "integrated talent."

Integrating military academies is a grave act of security self-sabotage that could shake the very foundation of the military. Instead of burying the military in the flashy slogan of "integration," we must uphold the basic principle of current education: basic and continuing education within each service, and joint application and integration through JCS job training.

True military strength is not created through slogans, but completed by elite officers produced through thoroughly staged, professional education. I hope Representative Kim Byung-joo and the proponents of integration will re-learn the order in which to draw the blueprint for national security:

① Clearly establish a future joint battlefield operating concept to set a strategic vision

② Design the optimal military structure to implement this

③ Parallel this with the design of a personnel structure that defines specific manpower requirements and necessary competencies based on this organizational foundation (including consideration of a 6-month military service system for women)

④ Professionally redesign the curriculum and education system of military academies to cultivate elite officers equipped with the defined competencies

I hope it is realized that only this four-step systematic approach can upgrade the military's human assets to secure core competencies, defend the nation in a rapidly changing security environment and multidimensional future battlefields, and protect every citizen who draws breath.

◆ Commissioner Park Pil-gyu

Editorial Board Member, Korea-US Daily

Korea Military Academy, 40th Class