|
Washington wants to return wartime operational control of Korean forces to Seoul by 2009-2010, military sources said Tuesday. The government has been pushing for a handover in five or six years¡¯ time, but first concrete statements from the U.S. suggests Washington would like to be shot of it sooner rather than later.
A military source said Tuesday that Washington told Seoul in Security Policy Initiative meetings last week that returning wartime operational command before 2010 would be desirable, while another source said the U.S. is targeting 2009. The U.S. apparently pointed to the cutting-edge communications and command system C4I which the Korean military is establishing as among steps that have boosted Korea¡¯s independent defense capability, and feels 2011-2012 is too long to wait.
The sources say some groups in Korea objected that 2009 is too soon to expect Korean forces to be adequately prepared. A decision will be made at the Security Consultative Meeting in October in Washington with both defense ministers in attendance, when a roadmap for the handover will be laid out.
Some observers interpret the U.S. timetable as a sign that Washington is washing its hands of Korea as a result of strains in the alliance. Last week¡¯s meeting, contrary to government briefings, apparently did not make progress over who should pay for the environmental cleanup of bases the U.S. is returning to Korea, so the U.S. unilaterally announced on July 15 that it is handing back 15 of them. U.S. Forces Korea Commander Burwell Bell and others also take every opportunity to lament that the USFK has still not been assigned a new bomber training range.
Other experts and military brass feel even 2011-2012 is too early, pointing out how heavily Seoul relies on the U.S. for intelligence on North Korea, and saying the capability of the military must include precise aerial bombing of strategic targets and independent tactical planning abilities it lacks. They say wartime operational control should only be returned once South Korea¡¯s independent defense is watertight.
(englishnews@chosun.com )
|