Defense reform falls far short of expectations
The nation’s military underwent one of the most difficult and humiliating periods last year because of North Korea’s repeated provocations. So it was disappointing to see the much-heralded plan to overhaul the national defense system lacking in strong will and plausible steps to meet expectations.
Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin summed up the plan as instituting the three major goals of interoperability, deterrence, and efficiency. The most noticeable steps toward this end included the streamlining of the top command structure by reducing the number of generals by 15 percent and introducing state-of-the-art military equipment such as high-altitude spy drones and stealth fighters.
The military’s willing sacrifice to trim its top-heavy manpower structure is commendable, and the adding a sophisticated weapons system is inevitable to offset North Korea’s ``asymmetrical combat ability.”
What the plan is lacking in, however, is any will to drastically change the currently Army-oriented defense structure at the relative isolation of the Navy and Air Force. The sharply enhanced authority of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is feared in this regard to not strengthen but weaken the cooperative maneuverability between the three pillars of the armed forces as long as the top JCS post continues to be monopolized by Army generals, as has been the case.
Nor does the undue concentration of power on the JCS chairman or the chief of the new combined military command conform to the principle of a civilian-led national defense by sharply weakening the checks and balances of the defense minister.
Kim said the cut in the number of generals by about 60 to 380 by 2020 would save about 100 billion won ($85 million) a year. Yet far more important than the personnel cost cut, which is less than one F-35 stealth fighter, the ministry is considering introducing how to make the most of it in the most balanced ways.
Also regrettable was that the reform plan, which has 2030 as its target year, appears focused only on North Korea and the military threats it poses. This is rather out of tune with President Lee Myung-bak’s repeated remarks that ``national unification is approaching fast.” Should the nation also be paying far greater attention to the two military giants in this part of the world ― militarily resurgent Japan and China, who can always jump from regional to global military power ― by then?
This is not to say the reform plan should have pointed out neighboring countries as potential threats, yet this plan is painfully devoid of a regional, much less global, horizon.
It is beyond the ability of most ordinary citizens to compare various command structures. The general public knows, however, no amount of command system streamlining would work unless the military can purge itself of irregularities and inefficiency.
One can easily see which areas need surgical operation most urgently from the almost year-long series of media reports on corruption involving major defense procurement projects and failed weapons development plans.
Any reform plan worked out by those who actually should be subject to such reforms is bound to fail.
Reference: www.koreatimes.co.kr
Guide Questions:
1. Why did the article say that last year was one of the most difficult and humiliating periods for South Korea's military?
2. What defense reform does the Defense Ministry plan to implement?
3. Why does the author say the defense reform plan falls short of expectations?
4. Do you like this reform plan?
5. Why do you think South Korea's military is Army-oriented?
6. Would reduce the number of generals by 15% would help strengthen the military?
7. What can you say about the statement that the reform plan focuses only on North Korea?
8. What is the impression of ordinary Koreans in your military?
9. What is one thing you want to change in the military?
