The U.S. secretary of defense confirmed that the U.S. is set on handing over the wartime operational control to South Korea as scheduled in 2015, despite the Center of Strategic and International Studies’ recommendations to the contrary.

The report submitted by the Washington-based bipartisan think tank to the Congress last week suggested that the wartime operational control handover and the fate of the Combined Forces Command should be decided after related issues have been thoroughly assessed.

In addition, the Washington-based think tank said that the South Korean military’s capabilities in a number of fields including missile defenses, artillery units and command and control needs to be improved, and that wartime operational control handover should be postponed if threats from China and North Korea increase.

The report, commissioned by the Pentagon, also suggested increasing the presence of U.S. marines and positioning advanced missile systems in South Korea to better counter threats from north of the border.

While U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said that the Pentagon and the CSIS were in agreement in general, he expressed disagreement on some issues including those regarding South Korea.

“The Department of Defense is already drawing up numerous measures to ensure that there is no loss in the South Korea-U.S. joint combat readiness in preparation for the handing over of wartime operational control,” Panetta said in his comments on the report.

Seoul and Washington began discussing transfer of wartime operational control in the early 2000s as part of preparations for the reducing of the U.S. military presence in South Korea. The two sides had initially decided on the transfer deadline of March 15, 2012, but the date was postponed once under the Roh Moo-hyun administration and again under the current Lee Myung-bak administration to December 1, 2015.

“The CSIS independent assessment seems to imply that the United States needs to impose new caveats on wartime OPCON transition. This includes the provision that dissolution of Combined Forces Command be contingent on ROK (South Korea) attainment of necessary capabilities, including command and control,” he said.

He also said that his department was ready to report the details of the plans to the Congress.

Although central to the transfer of wartime operational control from the U.S. to South Korean forces in 2015, plans to dismantle the CFC have seen strong opposition from a number of groups including defense experts and retired generals.

“The biggest problem is that the Joint Chiefs of Staff is not fit to take charge in case of war. The JCS is focused on administration and has been bureaucratized,” Yang Uk, senior research fellow at Korea Defense and Security Forum, said. He added that while personnel from the Army, Air Force and the Navy work together within the JCS, problems such as discord between the three branches of the armed forces remain, and that it requires that much more funding for the military to be fully ready.

“As long as the U.S. Forces Korea exists, the CFC should be maintained. Right now, the U.S. forces here provide about half of the defense...Dismantling the CFC should only be done when our military is able to do everything on its own,” Yang said.

With the situation standing as it is, speculation and unconfirmed reports have surfaced that the U.S. military is also opposed to dissolving the CFC.

In June, commander of the U.S. Forces Korea Gen. James Thurman was reported to have suggested keeping the CFC intact even after the wartime operational control is handed over to Seoul.

The report, however, was denied by both the U.S.F.K. and Seoul’s Ministry of National Defense.

The CFC has served as a command structure for joint operation of South Korean and U.S. forces since 1978.

With the dissolution of the CFC, led by a four-star U.S. Army general who heads the U.S. Forces Korea, South Korea will have operational control over the ground units.

By Choi He-suk and news reports
(cheesuk@heraldcorp.com)