Guest Columnist, KMA Class of 1980 The security heart of the Republic of Korea is on the verge of necrosis. The main culprits are security destruction by politics and the loss of security conviction by political soldiers. If political destruction of security is like a ‘frog in a laboratory,’ then the loss of security conviction by political soldiers is like ‘frog behavior,’ acting contrary to the public's expectations. Is it the destruction of security by politics that came first? Or the loss of security conviction by political soldiers? The sequence and dominant relationship are unknown. What is clear is that due to a lack of common sense and conscience in the military and politics, the military has fallen from being the 'people's army' to the 'regime's army.'  

1. Generals who fall before the wind 

   The military is neglecting its inherent mission of combat readiness and the constitutional value of political neutrality, becoming engrossed in the political disputes of politicians and the political sphere. The statements by high-ranking generals regarding the 'December 3 martial law' are particularly pathetic. Whether there was pressure from power or it was voluntary, to the public, they appear as humble weeds that fall before the wind. 

On October 14, during a parliamentary audit, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Jin Young-seung, stated, "The military participated in acts of rebellion, causing concern to the public," and apologized. This is equivalent to denouncing the entire military, over which he should be issuing orders, as a 'rebellion army.' Joo Sung-woon, Commander of the Ground Operations Command, who should command 70% of the Army's forces, also presumptuously apologized at the parliamentary audit on October 21, saying, "I offer my deepest apologies for the fact that some of our military forces participated in acts of 'rebellion,' causing concern to the public."  

At the National Defense Committee plenary session on September 29, the Chiefs of Staff of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, when pressured by Assemblyman Kim Byeong-ju's question, "Is the December 3 martial law rebellion, or not?" responded with hollow answers. The acting Chief of Staff of the Army stated "not all but some," the Navy Chief of Staff qualified it as "personal opinion," but all four stated that the December 3 martial law was a 'rebellion.' 

Before the judiciary's final ruling on the 'December 3 martial law,' five out of seven South Korean generals, lacking conviction, pragmatically aligned themselves with political logic for self-preservation. This act rightly deserves condemnation for throwing the military into the center of political disputes. Their statements were precarious, risking their positions depending on the judiciary's ruling on 'rebellion.'  

The tendency of active-duty generals to conform to factional logic with every change of administration mirrors the servile opportunism of 'power-serving' political soldiers in the past, who begged for positions by obeying the authorities. Despite being a constitutional institution that must maintain political neutrality, the military, while in uniform, has essentially pledged allegiance to the regime, even encroaching on the judiciary's authority. Assemblyman Kim Byeong-ju, who intimidated the Chiefs of Staff of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, remained silent during his tenure as an active-duty general regarding the 9.19 military agreement, which was akin to surrender, and the destruction of GP sites.

Kim Byeong-ju, who intimidated the military, which acts on orders, into confessing to 'rebellion,' will face divine punishment for breaking and forcing the political neutrality of the military. History will record that the military leadership under the Lee Jae-myung administration failed to resist political pressure with their conscience. The history of the Army must record that the acting Chief of Staff of the Army committed a shameful act by failing to stand up to Assemblyman Kim, who was coercing them into an unjust 'rebellion.'

2. Compliance with the abolition and reduction of training is an act of undermining the essence of the military.  

   The core of security lies in robust deterrence and steadfast readiness. The 9.19 military agreement and the restoration of wartime operational control directly contradict deterrence and readiness, while training reductions undermine the military's inherent nature and reason for existence – to fight and win. Are there no generals who, with their conscience, instinctively sense the crisis in the military and make recommendations? Why can't they express their convictions that reducing training contradicts the assertion of self-reliant defense?

During the Moon Jae-in administration, when major training was abolished altogether, not a single one of the approximately 300 generals raised any objections. In August of this year, outdoor field training (FTX) as part of the combined US-ROK training (UFS) was postponed to September due to heatwaves, with about 20 out of over 40 sessions rescheduled. Only 5 sessions were conducted in September. Despite 87% of planned training being reduced, our generals remained silent.

The annual large-scale field maneuver, 'Hoguk Training,' scheduled for late October, was postponed to November due to the Gyeongju APEC Summit. The combined US-ROK Air Force training, 'Freedom Sentinel,' was reduced from two weeks to one week. The scheduled cancellation and reduction of military training are acts against the military, comparable to a fighter jet turning off its engines during combat. Yet, we have not heard of any soldier who has bravely protested the military's training cancellation and reduction for political reasons.

The current administration's claim of 'self-reliant defense' while reducing field training is contradictory. As the military adage goes, 'sweat during training is a drop of blood,' training is an essential condition for maintaining combat power. The moment military judgment is swayed by political circumstances and concern for North Korea's reaction, security posture inevitably weakens, and the credibility of the US-ROK combined system is damaged. The practice of prioritizing military training based on political interests is a dangerous gamble that self-inflicts security gaps. In the past, generals themselves have degraded their professional authority to 'stars' not recognized within the military hierarchy. The moment the public refers to them as 'stars,' their military identity has been forfeited.

3. We must no longer tolerate political soldiers who ruin the military. 

   If the military continues to be occupied by politics, it will be difficult for the Republic of Korea to endure. In a situation of civilian control where politics intervenes in the military, it may be impossible to walk the path of a true soldier. Nevertheless, determined soldiers who pursue training based solely on military judgment must survive. In a situation where politics dominates and wields even security, it is difficult to expect generals who will protest the collapse of security and uphold constitutional values against the regime's misjudgment and commands. While the current administration glorifies defiance, it will likely perceive any defiance against itself as a challenge and expel those responsible.

The complacent conduct of generals who have advanced by avoiding political scrutiny should be condemned. Even if promoted to the highest ranks by the regime's choice, political soldiers who sacrifice security for self-serving remarks rather than speaking with conscience must face a trial of honor from retired personnel. Those who disrupt military order and tarnish its honor are not fit to be buried in national cemeteries.

'Bien Hoa' Military Cemetery was the national cemetery for South Vietnamese soldiers. After the fall, it was treated as a cemetery for 'enemy soldiers' and was destroyed and neglected. Retired personnel must remember the history of South Vietnam's fall and come forward to defend the free system. The 'Bien Hoa' Military Cemetery serves as a powerful testament to why even retired personnel must risk their lives for national defense.

Before the military deteriorates further, I propose and urge retired personnel to step forward.

Park Pil-kyu, Guest Columnist