Former Commander of the 707th Special Mission Battalion, Kim Hyun-tae, was dismissed after being tasked with blockading the National Assembly under the orders of former Special Warfare Commander Kwak Jong-geun during the December 3rd Martial Law. [Photo = Yonhap News]Of the over 1,600 personnel mobilized during the December 3rd Martial Law, more than 860, including generals and field-grade officers, underwent separate investigations, requiring the involvement of over 120 investigative personnel. 

Subsequently, the current administration initiated large-scale disciplinary actions against approximately 100 military generals, commanders, and staff, simultaneously implementing job suspension, dismissal from posts, audits, and referrals for investigation. 

All-Encompassing Investigations and Disciplinary Actions Undermining the Military Organization 

The scope of disciplinary action was not limited by rank, ranging from four-star generals to field-grade officers. Notably, Lieutenant General Ju Seong-woon, Commander of the Ground Operations Command, and Admiral Kang Dong-gil, Chief of Naval Operations, who were promoted to four-star general after the current administration took office, were suspended on suspicion of involvement in the martial law. 

The grounds for these actions were broadly applied, encompassing 'direct involvement,' 'omission of reporting,' 'awareness,' and 'suspicion of involvement.' 

Furthermore, the government's 'Respect for the Constitution Government Innovation TF' referred 110 individuals for investigation on charges of 'sedition.' Of these, 108 were military personnel, and 48 out of the 89 facing disciplinary action were also from the military. 

Additionally, commanders who were not indicted by the special prosecutor were included in the military's severe disciplinary actions. Although the martial law ended a year ago, investigations continue, effectively concentrating all responsibility on the military. 

Such wide-ranging investigations and disciplinary actions are damaging to the military organization. In the event of a similar situation in the future, commanders are likely to prioritize preserving their positions over making decisions to protect the nation. 

Officers will likely calculate legal risks rather than the speed of command execution. This is not an enhancement of civilian control but the destruction of the military organization and the dismantling of national combat power.

The Military Organization Designed on the Premise of Absolute Obedience

Obedience to orders is the lifeblood of the military and the core framework of its organization. Therefore, the military is designed on the premise of absolute obedience, which runs counter to the principles of democratic diversity. 

Due to the hierarchical nature of the military's chain of command, subordinates are trained to focus on execution rather than the background of orders. Soldiers cannot, and should not, question the rightness or wrongness of an order. 

 Minister of National Defense Shin Won-sik (left) and Director of the MND Investigation Agency Park Jeong-hoon announce the results of the Ministry of National Defense Respect for the Constitution Government Innovation TF activities at the MND briefing room in Yongsan-gu, Seoul, on the 12th. [Photo = Yonhap News]A military that does not guarantee the immediate execution of orders is no longer a military. Punishing soldiers for following the orders of the commander-in-chief is akin to blaming a well-sharpened sword for its sharpness. 

The greater problem is the atmosphere where the entire military is treated as a potential suspect. The distinction between strategic, operational, and tactical phases blurs, leaving only the criterion of 'involvement.' 

If a comprehensive responsibility is applied without distinguishing between planning and execution, active and passive involvement, or awareness and unawareness, it goes beyond a matter of justice and could lead to a reduction in the military organization's future wartime mission capabilities. 

When fear, rather than responsibility, governs an organization, deterrence is the first thing to weaken. Ill-informed politicians are doing the enemy's bidding by undermining the military. 

The military should not become a tool of politics, nor should politics make the military a scapegoat. Before holding soldiers accountable, the nation must ask itself:

Were there institutional mechanisms to filter out illegal orders? Was the right to refuse orders practically guaranteed? Were structures in place to protect the military from political pressure? Before assigning blame, the absence of a system for the political neutrality of soldiers should be questioned and reflected upon.

For the accountability of the military to be legal and just, institutions must first be established, and responsibility must be attributable. The approach of suspecting the entire military simply for following orders is dangerous. 

However, a military that does not question the legitimacy of orders is also unacceptable. The issue is not balance itself, but the institutional foundation that enables that balance. 

△ Differentiate Responsibility by Stage

The method of treating everyone the same, like a game of soldiers, without distinguishing between planning and execution, active and passive involvement, or awareness and unawareness, must be discarded. 

The military is an organization that executes orders, not an institution that artificially creates guilt retrospectively and interprets the background of orders. Holding it accountable without respecting its nature will only lead to the military's contraction and disintegration.

△ Establish Systems to Intercept Illegal Orders

Procedures for real-time verification of order legality, substantial protection mechanisms for commanders to refuse illegal orders, and the safety of internal dissent and reporting channels are minimal safeguards. Holding individuals accountable without such a foundation is akin to the state offloading its responsibilities onto the military. 

△ Establish Institutional Mechanisms to Protect the Military's Political Neutrality

There is a need for review by an independent 'National Security Special Committee' to protect the military from political pressure, transparency in personnel and command structures, and an end to the practice of treating the entire military as 'potential participants.' 

The military is a shield that protects democracy by controlling its involuntarily conscripted members through anti-democratic means. If that shield cracks due to internal distrust, it will be unable to overcome external threats, even with state-of-the-art weaponry, much like the South Vietnamese army.

Before arbitrary disciplinary actions, the military must first refine the systems that protect its political neutrality and devise morale-boosting measures. 

The past tendency of the military to be swayed by politics has robbed current military personnel of their morale and future, and has served as a factor in causing even mid-career officers to leave the military. The politically motivated destruction of the military, which leads to national ruin, must cease immediately.

Subscribe to Hankook-Ilbo Weekly Edition
Inquiries: 02-2088-1201

◆ Park Pil-gyu

Editor, Hankook-Ilbo

40th graduating class, Korea Military Academy