By The Marmot’s Hole has an interesting post he translated from a Korean media report on the problems with the ROK Army. Here are a few of the complaints:
- Bureaucratic generals instead of effective generals
- Lack of combat experience within the ranks
- Politicians playing political games with the military
- Lack of public trust in the military
- Budget goes more to personnel costs instead of enhancing the military’s ability to kill people and blow things up
You can read more at the link.
I think a case can be made that some of these issues faced the US military before it had to become a effective fighting force to fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. When you compare the Generals from the early years of the US war effort to the Generals now I think the quality has definitely improved. Just compare General Ricardo Sanchez to General David Petraeus. With the lack of battlefield competence as a necessity for ROK military senior leadership, following the established bureaucracy becomes the way to get promoted.
Combat experience in the US military before the recent wars was limited to the veterans of the 1st Gulf War in 1991. Now the US military is filled with extremely experienced combat veterans. The ROK military really missed a chance to get experience in Iraq when it refused to become the regional command for the Kirkuk – Kurdistan sector of the country. Instead the ROK government had thousands of capable Soldiers hiding out on an airfield in Kurdistan and not due a whole lot.
Politicians playing political games still goes on now in the US and probably something that will never be stopped. That is why airplanes and equipment the Pentagon doesn’t want gets forced upon them as make work programs among the host of social experiments the politicians like to play with the military. I’m much of the same things goes on in the Korean military as well. The lack of public trust is something I think the US military has never really had to deal with since Vietnam because the US public generally always has a favorable view of the military. Due to the ROK military dictatorships of the past many people in the Korean public still remain suspicious of the military.
Personnel costs in the US military are also very high because to get quality recruits you have to pay them. I think with the ROK Army just the fact they have to maintain such a large military for a country their size is why the personnel costs are so high. The ROK Army is actually quite well equipped, it is just a matter of politicians letting them train and use the equipment they are given to respond to North Koreans provocations. It appears that is what is about to happen.
So basically the challenges facing the ROK military are ones that peace time militaries often face, but I think it is beginning to don on the Korean government and military that a peace time stance is no longer suitable for the North Korean threat they face.
3:29 pm on December 8th, 2010 1
And the ROKA missed a chance to gain combat experience in Afghanistan..at least they could have sent their special forces..and while the taliban aren't the Norks at least they would gain some tactical experience.
4:26 pm on December 8th, 2010 2
No worries. Peace in our time. Check out the last paragraph of this NY Times story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/world/asia/09ko…
" … the governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson, will travel to North Korea next week to meet with government officials, Reuters reported, although a senior American official characterized the trip as a private visit."
7:03 pm on December 8th, 2010 3
I personally think the recent sinking and the shelling is actually a lucky break for ROK armed forces. Let me explain why.
Sure they are unfortunate but such incidents give ROK DoD the chance and motivation to really fix the problem before it's too late or too big to fix. If the 2 incidents had not happened, such honest/brutal review of ROK armed forces wouldn't have taken place. So imo this turn of events will have a positive outcome for ROK.
Let me add something I learned as I was reading a piece written by Gen. Paik Sun Yup, author of 'From Pusan to Panmunjom'. Before the Korean War, there were quite a few incidents involving communist moles (sleeper agent) in the SK army. A SK naval vessel was kidnapped by communist agents that were serving as SK navy sailors and taken to NK. A whole SK battalion 'defected' to NK by crossing the 38th. The CO (NK sympathizer)got the unit moving in the middle of the night under the pretext of training and before the soldiers realized it, the unit had crossed into 38th. Only a few in the unit were communists but it was too late for majority of the unit.
As you can tell by now, NK had penetrated deep into the SK govt and army before Korean War. Had Korean War broken out at this stage, Gen. Paik really believes SK could've collapsed due to the enemies within. What really got SK to look seriously into the communist agents within SK army was Yeosu-Suncheon Rebellion, 1948 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeosu-Suncheon_Rebellion). The wiki is kinda weak but the background story provided by Gen. Paik was really revealing. Gen. Paik explained that the communist agents were really isolated from each other to keep their identity secret. They didn't know who else was working for NK outside of their little group.
What started the 1948 rebellion was a drunk sergeant in a SK army unit(actually a NK agent/sympathizer). He got drunk, got the soldiers together and through a series of events, he got the unit to 'rebel'. He and his underlings got the men to muster and with little notice brought out other non-comms and shot them. And he deceived/threatened the men to join in the rebellion. Other men of higher rank in the unit were killed by this group also. The irony is that some that were killed were actually NK agents but they didn't know each other.
SK army did overwhelm the rebels soon enough but the CO of the SK army unit that came down to suppress the rebellion was 'assassinated' by another NK sympathizer. He was reputed to be a great leader had close relationship with Gen Dean of US Army (yes the one that was captured by NK in Korean War), than in SK as part of US occupation force. Gen Dean personally came to Kimpo airport to receive his body as it was flown back to Seoul.
After these chaos, SK took a serious effort to purge the SK army of possible NK agents/sympathizers, especially at the officer level. Gen. Paik was one of few in charge of this effort. Many were discharged from SK army and some were executed. One who was to be executed was Park Jung-hee, who was than a senior level officer in SK army, later to be the SK president that brought the economic miracle to SK. He got caught in the dragnet and was to be executed but (according to Gen. Paik) his personal friend in the SK army was able to save his life, and Park Jung-hee got to work in the army as a civilian worker. When the Korean War broke out, he was reinstated, distinguished himself in the service, and was even picked to go to an artillery school in US. The rest is history.
So yes, this is actually a great chance for SK armed forces.
1:22 am on December 9th, 2010 4
I agree with #1 and #3 (Richardson is just a liberal buffoon looking for some headlines, ala Carter and Clinton).
The ROKA would have (and still could), do well by sending some combat troops to Afghanistan. The mountains are similar to what would be found in Korea, steep, cold, and dangerous. Since only a handful of ROKA troops have any combat experience, this would be a great way for them to acquire a few more experienced combat troops that could pass on the lessons learned to the other troops.
6:47 am on December 9th, 2010 5
How is guerrilla warfare going to help with combat readiness in Korea?
1:16 pm on December 9th, 2010 6
@5
Combat is combat, and every war will inevitably revert to being some form of guerrilla style war. China and North Korea used a lot of guerrilla warfare tactics during the Korean war. I am not saying the ROK should or shouldn't send combat troops to Afghanistan but if they were to it would only serve to benefit the ROK military's combat readiness.
2:18 pm on December 9th, 2010 7
Then how come the US-Korea military commander told the ROK to stand down, when the ROK jet fighters took off to retaliate right after the island was attacked by NK?
It was in the news today. It was the US who decided to stand down, and the ROK military leaders tried to cover it up, but they were found to be lieing.
And who is this Michael Muller fellow who are telling the Koreans to not to act hasty? It seems to me, it's the US side that's trying to prevent S.Korea from using its military to defend itself.
2:22 pm on December 9th, 2010 8
#5
It would give them an opportunity to sort out any combat leadership and effectiveness issues they may have.
2:30 pm on December 9th, 2010 9
#7
Maybe you heard Michael Mullen. He is the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. He has no direct authority to order the ROK military.
Sounds like someone on the ROK side is trying the scapegoat to the Korean media.
3:09 pm on December 9th, 2010 10
No. It was Commander of US-Korea forces Walter Sharp who said "NO" to a counterattack after 30 minutes of meeting, soon after the NK attack.
http://news.hankooki.com/lpage/politics/201012/h2…
The ROK high military command tried to cover this fact up, to protect themselves and their US buddies from criticism that South Korea is US colony. But now all the lies are slowly being uncovered.
3:25 pm on December 9th, 2010 11
I found the following paragraph on Yonhap News. It is a little difficult to understand what the writer intended to say, but it seems to indicate that the rules of engagement limited them to a 'proportional' artillery response. And those rules of engagement were established some time ago by joint agreement between the ROK military and USFK.
Still looks like an attempt at scapegoating.
3:29 pm on December 9th, 2010 12
Ask your commander for his side of the story.
The US commander's own words:
'한국이 공격당한 것은 무척 가슴 아프지만 대신 이번에 한 번 참으면 앞으로 북한을 몰아붙이며 제대로 공략할 수 있다'
"I'm really saddened that South Korea was attacked, but if South Korea hold back just this once, we can really pressure North Korea into submission".
The USFK and ROK met for 3 and half hours in emergency meeting, came to this decision. And after that, Walter Sharp met with the UN rep for another half an hour to come back with the same conclusion.
They also conclude, ROK must confer with the US and get an agreement, before they bomb North Korea.
So South Korean president is under the US Forces Korea command, and he must listen to his orders.
So I ask, is S.Korea US colony that they must ask US if S.Korea can defend itself?
Second, I guess all the talk about weak S.Korean response is really should be about the weak US military response.
3:31 pm on December 9th, 2010 13
Because the US just loves the shit out of North Koreans and would hate to see so much as a hair on a North Korean head harmed?
3:38 pm on December 9th, 2010 14
No, more like US being kicked in the butt in Iraq and Afghanistan and they didn't want to add North Korea to the list of countries that are kicking Uncle Sam.
According to this, after a meeting with ROK and US reps, they announce that the ROK has the right to attack North Korea on their own without permission from the US, if ROK is attacked again. This was Dec. 8th meeting.
http://news.hankooki.com/lpage/society/201012/h20…
So why do they have to announce this now? Was it because this part of rule of engagement was hurriedly just changed on Dec.8 to avoid public criticism?
4:43 pm on December 9th, 2010 15
"and they didn’t want to add North Korea to the list of countries that are kicking Uncle Sam"
But if it went pearshaped it would have been all over the SK's face rather than the US', so that doesn't really explain anything.
4:48 pm on December 9th, 2010 16
Well Tom, I'm not really following this story, but I would think that the actions are designed to limit death toll on all sides.
Those who rush in without proper information on the enemy, often rush out with their assets on fire.
The ROK doesn't have to listen to USA suggestions or advice. The ROK can grab their guns and charge forward. But if they waste assets on hasty action (as I wanted to happen) they risk much death and the US saying "I told you so" when the smoke clears.
If I were Korean, I wouldn't want to risk the US wagging their finger in my face, saying "I told you not to do it", if it didn't work well and I need help later.
But WTH, I'm American…GO FOR IT! CHARGE! GO FOR BROKE!! I'll have my finger ready to wag and a "you've been a bad boy" look on my face.
5:45 pm on December 9th, 2010 17
"How is guerrilla warfare going to help with combat readiness in Korea?"
Only a guy like Tom would say something like that…
5:52 pm on December 9th, 2010 18
Something civilians may not understand about allied combined forces commands. While allies may pledge their forces into an integrated chain of command they don't completely forfeit their independence or sovereignty. If one side is tasked to do something they feel violates their laws, principles, or values they can refuse to to it. For they same reason, if they feel strongly enough that some action must be taken, the only thing keeping them from doing it is their commitment to the alliance.
If South Korea felt strongly enough that they needed to launch and air attack on the North Korean site, Gen. Shape's words would have been no more restraining than the U.S. advising Israel not to attack an Iranian nuclear facility.
10:39 pm on December 9th, 2010 19
Correct. All SK did was to take US advice, right after the attack. All this criticism that SK was weak in responding should now be redirected at the US who gave Korea the advice, and in which Korea and US signed as an agreement, including the number of artillery rounds that SK marines were allowed to shoot. Is that not correct?
12:35 am on December 10th, 2010 20
Poor Tom…. All That South Korea needs to do to have full control of what it's military does, is to get off it's ass, and assume full control and "Responsibility". It was scheduled to take place in 2012, but the Korean Government requested the date be delayed, since they did not have the needed money and technology to take the lead with its own military.
1:34 am on December 10th, 2010 21
ROK military incompetence, bottom line.
1:58 am on December 10th, 2010 22
Sounds just like the U.S. military. Generals and Admirals are basically politicians, just look at the current JCS and SECDEF.
2:08 am on December 10th, 2010 23
I think getting rid of the US military will resolve this issue and their incompetent "advices".
2:17 am on December 10th, 2010 24
Tom needs to provide a link, sounds like BS which is his specialty. SK has Armistice OPCON they don't need US approval for a counterattack, look it up. They do need it if they want US assets to assist.
2:21 am on December 10th, 2010 25
Tom, I posted a more lengthy reply after #20, but it didn't show.
So I'll keep this one short and sweet: UTG #21 is WRONG. Conway East #22 is correct.
Tom #23 You are also CORRECT.
3:01 am on December 10th, 2010 26
Why was transfer of wartime command to the ROK postponed again? Seems to me that US advice would be less significant if they weren't set up to take command if the situation escalated.
I just hope they get this stuff sorted out before the next round of provocations. In the meantime other penalties should be considered, for instance a closing of Kaesong could be passed with a trigger clause to go into effect the next time a south korean died at north korean hands.
3:27 am on December 10th, 2010 27
"Tom needs to provide a link, sounds like BS which is his specialty."
I already posted many links up there, mr.dork.
My point is, you guys can't accuse South Koreans of being weak by not striking North Koreans, when it was you guys the ones who told South Koreans to pipe down and not react.
And who is this Michael Muller fellow, going around South Korea and telling Koreans to pipe the h*ll down and telling S.Koreans not to act alone, as if S.Koreans are in the mood to listen to him.
3:52 am on December 10th, 2010 28
Here it is:
"We made a formal request to President Obama and to the U.S. administration for the adjustment of the transfer of the timing of the wartime operational control," Lee told reporters at a joint appearance with Obama.
"And I would like to thank President Obama for accepting this proposal, and we agreed to transfer this in the latter half of 2015 – by late 2015."
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4688272
3:54 am on December 10th, 2010 29
died => dies
4:06 am on December 10th, 2010 30
EVERYONE, just ignore TOM.
4:31 am on December 10th, 2010 31
Why? He sort of makes sense for once.
4:36 am on December 10th, 2010 32
#31
I wouldn't know because I don't read what he posts.
6:10 am on December 10th, 2010 33
I thought you didn't read my posts?
7:28 am on December 10th, 2010 34
#33
Yes TOM, I've been skipping over what you post if it's longer than 1 line. I posted #30 because I saw that others were replying to your posts. Is that hard to understand?
7:58 am on December 10th, 2010 35
You just responded to me again because you read my posts.
8:25 am on December 10th, 2010 36
#35
Read my #34
"I’ve been skipping over what you post if it’s longer than 1 line."
Yes I was responding to your post #33. It's a ONE line post.
9:03 am on December 10th, 2010 37
I tried to read tom's posts but they line the kitty litter tray, the cat seemed to enjoy burying them.
tom is a good guy, just misguided … living in the usa probably, just itching to come back to Korea to join the army and grow a set. It's always easy to rile up the peons, when you're far away from grabbing your ankles, and kissing your butt goodbye. Maybe we should take up a collection for him so he can get on the plane tomorrow, and show his resolve to rush headlong into the fray.
but alas i suspect that tommie is just another guy living in America, reaping it's benefits, enjoying the good life, driving his bmw, and wondering if the INS is coming for him.
come on tom, get on the plane, show us your cajones …. man up, grow a set, it's not far from Incheon airport to the potential action …
9:28 am on December 10th, 2010 38
My father in law is a retired ROK Colonel. He says ROK is incompetent. I've talked to a lot of his retired buddies and they share the same concerns. One common issue I hear is the ROKs have a lot of new high tech hardware, but their training is lacking. And even if training is good, they don't put enough through the training. These old guys all do appreciate the US having their backs though.
10:05 am on December 10th, 2010 39
#38
I agree. I sense ROK army's wishful thinking is they are or want to be a digital army, like US, but their training and experience is still in the analog era.
11:23 am on December 10th, 2010 40
Americans chickened out when it came time to show up for battle. They didn't want to, so they "advised" South Korea not to fight back. Now these incompetent Americans are saying Koreans are incompetent. Wow I had my laugh of the year.
12:20 pm on December 10th, 2010 41
GI KOREA!!!
You have totally misread the entire Wars OIF and OEF.
Obviuosly you are a "Light Army" proponent.
1. The entire cause of the crises 2002-2008 was caused by Tommy Franks (FA) and his not planning for the occupation of Iraq and integration of the people in normal affairs. He just kicked the Military butt and "bailed Out."
2.Argueably, the insurgency finally succumbed or petered out due to Iraqi "Sons of Iraq" action, not the US Military presence, we supported the S.O.I. Some smart folks like Gen. Petraeus knew that the battle had to be won by the Iraqi's themselves.
3. I do not propose to take anything from our Service Men and Women, they have set the highest example of sacrifice, on and off the battlefield. But, their lot as given by the Mission was mostly just drive a route, patrol, and clear buildings, becoming the targets of ambushes and IED's.
4. Money is not the answer, Americans, from all backgrounds, traditionally have been willing to sacrifice for the cause of freedom. To say "You are the best, because I pay for it", is to insult all of those volunteer Patriots of years past. I believe the volunteer or draftee from WW1-Vietnam was equal as to the task of Combat and hardship as the current volunteers.
5. As for Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, I worked for him when he a an Armor Battalion XO in Germany, he was an intellegent competent tactical officer, to compare the circumstances at Abu Graib with him is the same as Patton being punished for slapping a Coward.
12:48 pm on December 10th, 2010 42
Tom #5. If the NK army invades SK and temporarily occupies a large portion of SK then guerrilla warfare will be necessary. You may have a point because when I was stationed in Korea I was told by some people that there was two main reasons that we were there. 1. Deter a NK attack on SK. 2. Stop the SK military from going north. When I first joined the US Army in 1976 there were a whole lot of Vietnam veterans still in the service. They said without exception that the ROK Army was topnotched & was not to be f'ed with. In Korea I saw that their training methods were tough, even brutal but they had to be considering the NK threat. It is a sorry state of affairs that political correctness has undercut the strength of the ROK Army. The good news is that it is looking more & more likely that the NK regime is getting closer to collapse although it is by no means certain. If NK attacks again I hope the ROK's tear them a new one.
12:49 pm on December 10th, 2010 43
Ole Tanker. 41, Tommy Franks also failed to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Then he spoke at the 2004 Republican convention to endorse George W Bush for re-election.
12:53 pm on December 10th, 2010 44
It's all moot now. The president and the new defense minister have made bold statements. The next North Korean attack will trigger a decisive response, irregardless of rules of engagement.
There will be no more excuses. How they respond will be completely up to the ROK from now on.
1:08 pm on December 10th, 2010 45
The ROK is a Defensive force, albeit trained in the "Active Defense" role.
The greatest weakness is the lack of Small Unit Initiative, a PLDR won't take a sh$t without permission, it's in their culture.
Hopefully the North will implode with a peacefull reunification, cheaper and less painful than Germany.
1:22 pm on December 10th, 2010 46
South Korea needs to restrain the rhetoric, Read "The Guns of August."
We don't need to goad them on.
1:44 pm on December 10th, 2010 47
Nice source Tom, now try a credible one. Oh wait, you only have heresay? Not Tommy Tang!
Nice try though. Armistice OPCON control is in ROK hands. You want Uncle sugar's toys then you need to ask. No one can stop the ROK for self defense. You lie again.
6:07 pm on December 10th, 2010 48
No fuel or food and watching gay K-pop and K-dramas of plastic surgeried celebs. It's just a matter of time before NK implodes. Smarter to wait it out.
6:48 pm on December 10th, 2010 49
#7
Release # 101210-1 Dec. 10, 2010
USFK Corrects the Record
Seoul, Republic of Korea — The information being reported by some South Korean press that alleges the U.S prevented the Republic of Korea from responding to the Nov. 23 attack on Yonpyeong Island using their military aircraft is not true. The Republic of Korea did not ask Gen. Walter L. Sharp, commander, United Nations Command, Combined Forces Command, and United States Forces Korea for permission to strike North Korean targets.
The Republic of Korea and U.S forces maintained a common operating picture as we always do and shared critical information throughout the duration of the response to counter North Korea belligerence.
As U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen said here Wednesday, “South Korea is a sovereign nation that has every right to protect its people and to respond as it sees fit in order to effectively carry out that responsibility. They also have the right to choose the method with which they respond.”
The decision of the Republic of Korea to exercise its inherent right to self defense, including the scope, duration and assets to be used, rests solely with the nation’s military and elected leaders.
-30-
보도 자료
번호 # 101210-1 2010년 12월10일
한미연합군 사령부의 입장
대한민국 용산기지 – 지난 11월 23일 북한의 연평도 포격 도발에 대해 한국이 전투기 공격으로 대응하려는 것을 미국이 말렸다는 보도는 사실이 아니다.
유엔군사령관/한미연합군사령관/주한미군사령관인 월터샤프 (Walter Sharp) 대장에게 한국이 북한에 있는 목표물을 폭격하기 위한 허가를 요청하지 않았다.
한미 양국은 항상 그래왔듯이 공통 작전 상황도를 유지하고 북한의 호전적 행위에 대응하는 기간동안 중요한 정보를 함께 공유해왔다.
미 합참의장 마이클 멀랜 (Michael Mullen) 대장은 지난 수요일 이곳 서울에서 “한국은 주권국가로서 자국 국민을 보호하고 그러한 책임을 효과적으로 이행하기 위하여 할 수 있는 알맞은 방식으로 대응할 모든 권리를 가지고 있다. 그들은 또한 그들이 어떻게 대응할 것인 지를 선택할 권리도 가지고 있다.” 고 밝힌 적이 있다.
한국이 자국의 자위권을 행사하기 위해 어떤 군 무기를, 어떻게, 얼마동안 사용할 것인 가는 오로지 한국군 지휘부에게 달려 있다.
–끝-
8:24 pm on December 10th, 2010 50
Here's a link to the statement copied by Leon LaPorte 49
http://www.usfk.mil/usfk/press-release.usfk.corre…
9:09 pm on December 10th, 2010 51
Says who? Says ROK military who has to suck Uncle Sam's military's butt hole who tells them what to do. I wouldn't be surprised if the US "advised" these guys to put out this announcement.
9:20 pm on December 10th, 2010 52
oh so sorry, after reading the statement over again, it's the US themselves who make this statement.
12:12 am on December 11th, 2010 53
Tom knows that if it didn't come from Beijing, its not worth knowing.
12:22 am on December 11th, 2010 54
Beijing is more believable than USFK who obviously reads this board.
12:25 am on December 11th, 2010 55
So which one of you was responsible for this press release?
http://www.usfk.mil/usfk/press-release.usfk.corre…
Was it you, Hamilton?
2:33 am on December 11th, 2010 56
Someone finally read the defense treaty. Wonders never cease.
11:15 am on December 11th, 2010 57
Toms credibility just exposed. Lesson learned, quit reading unreliable sources. No wonder your logic is always twisted and full of holes.
11:21 am on December 11th, 2010 58
I don't think USFK sources have any credibility. They're too busy killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan.
11:31 am on December 11th, 2010 59
I'm pretty sure USFK hasn't killed anyone in Iraq or Afghanistan.
2:27 pm on December 11th, 2010 60
Tom's running out of what he thinks are intelligent assesssments because he's run out of credible resources, so he just has to make juvinile comments now.