[Q&A] Setting straight common misconceptions about a post-OPCON Korea

Armored autos cross a river throughout a joint river-crossing drill between South Korea and the US in South Korea on March 6, 2023. (through ROK Military on Fb)

In June, the Hankyoreh printed the collection “Debunking OPCON Doubts” as a deep dive into factors of rivalry over Korea regaining wartime operational management (OPCON) of its armed forces. 

After publishing this report, a number of readers emailed us with questions on what occurs after OPCON is transferred, particularly whether or not the ROK/US Mixed Forces Command (CFC) would stop to exist and whether or not a common from the ROK Military would command the USA Forces Korea (USFK). 

Others famous the so-called Pershing Precept, which states that American armed forces could by no means be commanded by a overseas military, and questioned whether or not the ROK Military would be capable to actually command US forces. 

We reply to those questions in an easy-to-understand Q&A format under. 

Q. Some declare that the CFC, at the moment a key a part of the mixed protection posture, will likely be dismantled upon Korea regaining OPCON. Is that true?

A. It isn’t true that the CFC will likely be dismantled. 

In a US-Korea summit assembly held in February 2007, throughout the George W. Bush and Roh Moo-hyun administrations, the 2 nations agreed that OPCON could be transferred to Seoul on April 17, 2012, and {that a} parallel command construction could be created after the dissolution of the CFC through which the ROK Military would lead and the US Military would play a supporting position. Below this method, the joint command construction of the CFC would stop to exist, because the ROK Military could be managed by Korea whereas the US Military would stay beneath US management. 

Nevertheless, throughout the Moon Jae-in administration in 2018, Korea and the US signed a doc referred to as the “Guiding Rules Following the Transition of Wartime Operational Management” through which they agreed to ascertain the “future Mixed Forces Command” — a construction that’s much like the present CFC system. 

Below this future reincarnation, which might change the CFC after the OPCON switch, a four-star common from the ROK Military would function commander whereas the deputy commander place could be held by a four-star common from the US Military. At current, the place of CFC commander is held by a US Military common, with a ROK Military common serving as deputy commander. 

Each this future formulation and the present CFC share a joint command construction, so the essential framework, group and capabilities could be virtually equivalent.

Q. If the commander of the longer term CFC is in control of the ROK Military, does that imply a common from the ROK Military would command the USFK? When OPCON is returned to Korea, what precisely is the authority being transferred?

A. The ROK Military commander of the longer term CFC would solely management the operations of a portion of the USFK as stipulated within the Operational Plan (OPLAN). The US would proceed to train operational management over different US forces. 

The Korean Peninsula is at the moment in a DEFCON 4 state of readiness, so Korea maintains operational management of the ROK Military throughout instances of peace.

If a disaster on the Korean Peninsula had been to escalate sufficient for the CFC commander to declare DEFCON 3, the OPLAN states that the South Korean armed forces and USFK would fall beneath the CFC’s operational management. Which means the CFC would train operational management over the South Korean navy.

The query of which South Korean and USFK items are designated within the plan in accordance with the settlement between the 2 sides’ governments is handled as a navy secret and has not been made public. 

In keeping with data and accounts from former senior navy figures, many of the South Korean navy has been designated, with the exceptions of the Capital Protection Command, Particular Warfare Command, and the 2nd Operations Command, which is tasked with defending areas within the rear. In distinction, solely a portion of USFK has reportedly been designated.

 
Q. Opponents of Korea regaining OPCON argue that the US adheres to the “Pershing Precept,” which states that it workout routines sole command authority and isn’t topic to the command of some other nation. The precept is reportedly named for Gen. John Pershing’s refusal to just accept command by British or French forces whereas serving as commander of the American Expeditionary Forces in Europe throughout World Conflict I. On the time, Pershing was quoted as asserting that the US navy had by no means been beneath the command of some other nation’s navy since its basis. With this precept in place, wouldn’t it be doable for a South Korean common to train operational management over USFK as a commander of CFC after the switch takes place?

A. The Pershing Precept just isn’t a US navy doctrine or official coverage. Not solely does the Joint Doctrine for Multinational Operations issued by the US Joint Employees include no reference to the precept, however it accommodates examples of the precise reverse scenario.

A piece of the Joint Doctrine beneath the title “Command Relationships” states that the US president “retains command authority over US forces,” however provides that it’s “typically prudent or advantageous [. . .] to position acceptable US forces beneath the operational management (OPCON) of a overseas commander to realize specified navy aims.”

There have additionally been precedents of US forces being commanded by overseas ones. The appendix to the Joint Doctrine features a “Consultant Record of US Participation in Multinational Operations,” which mentions Pershing within the 1918 instance of “Allied Armies in France, World Conflict I.”

Initially, France and Britain argued that US troops “needs to be positioned in allied items as particular person and small-unit replacements as quickly as they arrived in theater,” however this was vetoed by Pershing. The textual content additionally explains that the conflict resulted within the precedent being set that “US troopers ought to stay in giant items beneath US command.”

Finally, Pershing’s American Expeditionary Forces had been topic to the command of a overseas navy. The Joint Doctrine states, “Some 2,000,000 Individuals served alongside French and British armies beneath the general coordination of a French Officer, the Commander in Chief of the Allied Armies in France, Marshal Ferdinand Foch.”

Throughout World Conflict II, US forces had been subordinated to British commanders on quite a few events on fronts in Italy, Normandy, and China, Burma and India.

In 1965, the US shaped a multinational peacekeeping power within the Dominican Republic with six Central and South American international locations. The power in query was commanded by a common from Brazil.

Within the early Nineties, round 9,000 US troops participated in a UN peacekeeping power in Somalia. The final commander was a Turkish common, assisted by a US deputy.

Within the case of the Worldwide Safety Help Drive mission in Afghanistan, which the US joined in 2001, greater than half of the commanders had been from armed forces exterior the US.

By Kwon Hyuk-chul, workers reporter

Please direct questions or feedback to [english@hani.co.kr]