A soldier from the ROK Army's 6th Division performs guard duty at the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) while wearing night-vision equipment. Central front of the DMZ, Cheorwon-gun, Gangwon-do, summer of the 65th anniversary of the Armistice. July 24, 2018. [Photo = Yonhap News]

The Ministry of National Defense recently announced a proposed revision to the Military Unit Management Directive. The proposal includes provisions that allow commanders to decide whether to eliminate nighttime guard duties (night watches) in units equipped with alternative verification systems such as CCTV and patrols. It also includes the introduction of a prior notification system for random living quarters inspections, the designation of specific hours for physical training, and the clarification of criteria for restricting the display of photos of disgraced commanders.

Rigorous guarding and surveillance are the fundamental principles of maintaining a military and the absolute basis for survival, regardless of the battlefield. Nevertheless, this policy, which allows battalion-level commanders to replace traditional night watches in barracks with CCTV and patrols at their discretion, forces us to question whether our military—a group standing on the front line of national security—has adopted an unacceptably complacent attitude.

Even youth on a voluntary camping trip maintain a night watch

Throughout history, failure in guard operations has not been a simple mistake but a catastrophic disaster, leading directly to national collapse and total annihilation. There is no need to recount the countless historical examples of nighttime raids.

The tragedy of military forces being completely wiped out in a single night because they were caught off guard—leaving the entire encampment defenseless under the enemy's blade—is the most sobering lesson taught by military history from ancient times to the present. A fundamental tenet of military doctrine is that a commander who fails in guard operations cannot be forgiven.

A night watch is not merely a cumbersome task of staying awake at night to kill time. In peacetime, it is a clear extension of guard operation training in preparation for wartime.

During sleeping hours, from 10 PM until the next morning, it serves as a core unit management function and nighttime adaptation training: monitoring for external intruders, preventing emergencies such as fires or theft, and checking the hygiene and health status of soldiers in real time.

Through this process, soldiers deployed in two-person teams learn the responsibility of protecting their comrades and develop the nighttime sensory awareness and tactical tension required for immediate response in contingencies.

The Ministry of National Defense argues that modernized security systems and CCTV are sufficient replacements. Of course, technological advancement should rightly increase the efficiency of defense systems. However, mechanical equipment and the gaze from behind a screen cannot fully replace human senses and on-site responsiveness.

If we rely solely on cameras and control room monitors—which inevitably have blind spots—and end up allowing an enemy infiltration or missing an unexpected fire, the responsibility falls squarely on the resulting gap in national security. Have we already forgotten the painful truth taught by military history that a failure in guard operations equals the annihilation of the military and the loss of a war?

The raison d'être of the military is to protect the lives of the people

More concerning is the direction of other clauses in this proposed amendment. A prime example is the mandate that commanders or duty officers must provide advance notice when inspecting living quarters.

While the stated purpose is to ensure the soldiers' right to rest and privacy, the essence of the military lies in the discipline and tension required to prepare for emergencies that could occur at any time, whether in war or peace.

Unannounced, random inspections are the minimum safety mechanism for establishing discipline and maintaining military order. If one must even seek permission in advance to conduct an inspection, how can we hope to control the lethargy and complacency that might become rampant within the military?

Provisions in this amendment, such as separating physical training hours, reflect the correct direction for modern militaries to improve the welfare and rights of soldiers. However, the pursuit of welfare and human rights must never lead to a weakening of the military's inherent combat effectiveness or a relaxation of its guard posture.

The sole reason for a military's existence is to deter enemy provocation and protect the lives of the state and its people. Eroding the guard operation system—the bedrock of a soldier's survival and the bastion of national security—in the name of convenience and efficiency is a reversal of priorities.

The Ministry of National Defense must ask itself whether it is dismantling the fundamentals of security in the name of soldier convenience, and it should reconsider this amendment from scratch, essentially wiping the slate clean. In actual combat, a failure in guarding means death and annihilation. In national security, there is no such thing as a remedy applied after the disaster has already occurred.