Guest Editorial Writer · KMA Class 40 The National Assembly’s National Defense Committee audit should not be a venue for merely reprimanding government ministries and active-duty military personnel. It must serve as a sacred hall for analyzing and addressing chronic security issues, proposing practical alternatives to solidify the cornerstone of national security, and deliberating on policies and budgets to foster a formidable military. However, the current Defense Committee fails to provide security, peace of mind, or credible policy oversight. Instead, it is mired in political strife, causing disillusionment, inconvenience, and anger among both the public and active-duty troops. I share here the voices of the people and the military to be conveyed to the National Defense Committee. 

1. Defense Committee members must learn the art of listening before conducting national audits. 

The National Assembly is a place to engage in debate based on logic and mutual respect to address national interests, security discourse, and state affairs. It is not a den for ugly political warfare characterized by shouting, lying, sophistry, unilateral coercion, and self-serving assertions. 

Habitually getting angry and throwing tantrums whenever a colleague’s remark is disagreeable is akin to a beast howling after missing its prey; a lawmaker who explodes with emotion when their questioning is challenged exhibits the temperament of a hungry ghost or an animal. Interrupting a colleague during their questioning or shouting to disrupt their remarks because they said something unfavorable to one's party is truly shameful and pathetic behavior. The sight of a lawmaker shouting and becoming agitated at a chairperson’s logical statement that “emergency martial law cannot be considered insurrection” is reminiscent of a malicious commander who resorts to shouting whenever they are pushed into a corner by a subordinate’s reasonable suggestions or discussion. 

Lawmakers who throw fits seem to require psychiatric treatment. Members who disrupt parliamentary proceedings with tantrums, excitement, and jeering should be ousted in the name of the people. Much like publicizing popularity scores for professional soccer players, we should introduce a “manners and logic scoring system” for lawmakers. Those who erupt in outbursts should receive warnings and eventual expulsion; repeated failure to maintain decorum or the habitual use of deceit and rude interruptions should result in restrictions on questioning privileges. Conversely, lawmakers who maintain professional composure while analyzing issues and proposing innovative policies should be rewarded with additional time. We must fundamentally elevate the standard of the National Assembly, which has currently deteriorated to the level of street brawlers.

2. Do not treat the military as a tool for political strife; engage in constructive debate.

   The Defense Committee has politicized military incidents, such as the death of Corporal Chae, exploited parliamentary immunity to leak military secrets during government questioning, and summoned active-duty generals only to brand them as rebels, mock them, and insult their character. In an attempt to frame the declaration of emergency martial law as an insurrection, they have even characterized normal military responses to prior drone attacks by the enemy as an act of treason. They have badgered the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for not agreeing with their definition of insurrection and even dragged the Defense Security Support Command’s signal intelligence issues into the fray. 

Those who never hesitate to level harsh criticism at the military are never heard criticizing the security threats posed by North Korea or the Chinese Communist Party. The vicious habit of attacking our own forces and exploiting the military for short-term political gain persists. Using the military as a scapegoat to attack it and dismantle our own national safety net is a self-destructive act that harms the safety of all citizens and is therefore unforgivable. 

Even animals do not kill their own offspring. Even a flea has a sense of shame. Yet, lawmakers who are themselves academy graduates cruelly trample upon their own alma mater and junior active-duty soldiers for the sake of political fighting. Such actions erode the foundation of national security and benefit the enemy. A true mother would never suggest cutting her child in half. Reservists spit upon such traitorous behavior, where people burn down their own house just to catch political fleas. The sight of lawmakers fighting against their own side rather than engaging in policy competition may be why even cadets have become disappointed and are choosing to leave the military. 

3. Examine security policies from the perspective of the people and propose alternatives. 

   The realistic goals of national security are the prevention of war, the creation of national interest, and the pursuit of national survival. The Defense Committee must analyze and review the problems in the government’s security policy and offer alternatives. First, it must examine the security catastrophes resulting from the leader’s inconsistent attitude and determine whether security-related data has been lost due to fires at the National Information Resources Service. 

Members of the Defense Committee are security supervisors for the people. They must demand the total abolition of the “restitution of Wartime Operational Control,” which harms the ROK-U.S. alliance in the name of self-reliant defense, and the “restoration of the 9.19 Military Agreement,” which seeks to bind us like slaves in the face of enemy provocation. The committee should urge the military to bolster its capabilities to suppress the enemy through force—including discussions on extended deterrence (including independent nuclear armament and tactical nukes), deepening the ROK-U.S. alliance, expanding UN membership, and enhancing psychological and cyber warfare capabilities. Even if the current government does not show a forward-looking stance, the committee must inform the public of the severity of our security situation. 

The core of military strength is the cultivation of practical combat power. To this end, a “non-combat budget disclosure system” should be introduced to automatically cut programs that cannot prove their contribution to combat effectiveness, and even intangible factors like morale should be quantified for efficiency. The government’s security policies and defense projects must be reviewed from scratch. The committee should question the Ministry of National Defense and military leadership on their preparations for future threats—such as AI warfare, unmanned systems, and cyber warfare—that will emerge in 5 to 10 years, and support robust security through legislative action and requests for administrative decree revisions. 

4. The Defense Committee must lead by demonstrating a will to defend the Republic of Korea’s liberal democracy.

   The Defense Committee must awaken to the fact that a strong military rests on the morale of its field officers. However, we are seeing a reversal where the salaries of enlisted sergeants are overtaking the basic salaries of officers. This is not merely a salary issue but a degradation of officers' self-esteem due to an “imbalance in respect for the uniform.” 

We must devise measures to ensure the satisfaction and morale of junior officers. We should normalize sergeant pay and provide officers with “professional activity allowances” by rank and “local community contribution vouchers” to increase their real income. To prevent the premature departure of mid-level officers, we must support their stable social resettlement after 10+ years of service through a “mandatory employment law for veterans in companies with over 300 employees.” Site visits should be conducted in small groups without prior notice; if a unit is alerted in advance, one cannot see the reality of the situation. I recommend visiting units during off-duty hours. 

The military will only change if the Defense Committee changes first. It must declare its commitment to security from the center of national interest, not political infighting. On the final day of the national audit, the committee should adopt and publish a joint bipartisan resolution on security and North Korea, containing analyses of North Korean threats and security weaknesses, a call for independent nuclear armament, and a vow to prevent political interference in military training, thereby proving to the nation that the Defense Committee is committed to defending the Republic of Korea. 

I hope the ruling party members of the Defense Committee remember that they are not wearing an all-powerful armband to invent and frame people for insurrection, but are servants of the people tasked with auditing current and future security, preventing war, and designing measures to win should war break out.