Editorials
Wartime command transfer needs more than confidence
Disputes over readiness standards and AI-era military capabilities could delay Seoul's push to regain wartime operational control.
New Defense Minister Kang Shin-chul, left, greets Gen. Xavier Brunson, commander of U.S. Forces Korea, during his inauguration ceremony at the Defense Ministry in Yongsan District, central Seoul, on Sept. 22.
YONHAP
The United States continues to insist that conditions have not been met for validating the full operational capability (FOC) required to transfer wartime operational control (Opcon) to a Korean-led command.
President Lee Jae Myung's administration hopes to complete the assessment this year and set a target date for the transfer. But disagreements between Seoul and Washington threaten to derail the process at its first major hurdle.
Gen. Xavier Brunson, commander of U.S. Forces Korea, warned during a discussion at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on Tuesday that “time is also a condition.” A premature transfer without adequate capabilities, he cautioned, could undermine defensive readiness.
Complicating matters, Washington reportedly reassessed some capabilities it had deemed satisfactory last year and found them inadequate this year. This has prompted complaints within the Korean military that the United States is moving the goalposts.
Washington reportedly maintains that even previously satisfied requirements must undergo annual reassessment as battlefield conditions evolve.
American concerns focus particularly on surveillance and reconnaissance assets and command-and-control systems.
The United States is reportedly demanding improvements to data links and communications security to ensure compatibility with Maven, an artificial intelligence-based targeting analysis system already deployed in combat.
Washington also wants the future Combined Forces Command, which would be led by a Korean four-star general, to possess corresponding capabilities.
On the surface, the rapid spread of AI and advanced weapons systems in military operations has introduced unexpected complications into Opcon negotiations. Yet these are matters that should be manageable through close working-level consultations.
A more troubling possibility deserves examination: The difficulties surrounding a transfer for which both countries have established a timetable may reflect an erosion of mutual trust.
President Lee declared in May that there would be “no problem even if wartime operational control were returned tomorrow.” The Defense Ministry has likewise maintained that Seoul and Washington have no fundamental disagreements. But confidence alone cannot accelerate the transfer if the allies cannot even complete FOC validation.
Speculation has emerged that Seoul may postpone the Security Consultative Meeting to gain more time to persuade Washington while seeking a top-down agreement between the two presidents.
Rather than rushing toward a political settlement, the priority should be narrowing differences between military authorities over evaluation standards and the conditions required for transfer.
Regaining wartime operational control is an important objective for Korea's independent defense capabilities.
However, without firmly established operational capabilities within the Korean military and close communication between the allies, an accelerated transfer would only heighten public anxiety about national security.
This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.
