I hate to beat a dead horse but can't anyone in the press acknowledge and explain the real issue here?  OPCON Transfer is all about dissolving the ROK/US Combined Forces Command and establishing two separate war fighting commands.  We should keep in mind the four major tasks the ROK/US Combined Forces Command must do:

1.  Deter attack from north Korea and if deterrence fails fight and win.

2.  Prepare for war and north Korean regime collapse.

3.  Maintain a combined readiness posture to respond to north Korean provocations as well as deter and defend against war and deal with regime collapse.

4.  Support the unification of Korea.

And then we should ask if it is better to accomplish these tasks with a combined warfighting command or two separate national commands?  I would submit that the ROK military and perhaps even the ROK civilian leadership are very worried about the future sustained military commitment to the defense of the Peninsula given US fiscal constraints, force structure cuts, and the move to a rotational presence the combination of which sometime in the future will make the decision to reduce the military commitment to the ROK much easier (and maybe even inevitable).  The bottom line question for the US is whether maintaining the alliance is in US strategic interests.  If not precede full steam ahead on the current plan.  If it is determined to be in the US interests then conduct the strategic analysis to determine the best way to meet ROK and US strategic objectives and support the  1953 ROK/US Mutual Defense Treaty     (which by the way says nothing about OPCON of forces).  From Article III:

“Separately and jointly, by self help and mutual aid, the Parties will maintain and develop appropriate means to deter armed attack and will take suitable measures in consultation and agreement to implement this Treaty and to further its purposes…” (emphasis added)

What are the appropriate means that should be developed?  That is the question that must be answered.  From the ROK perspective it is not by following the current course.  What is it from the US perspective?

V/R

Dave

Handover of U.S. command of South Korean troops still under debate

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/handover-of-us-command-of-south-korean-troops-still-under-debate/2013/09/29/25a73374-28fb-11e3-83fa-b82b8431dc92_story_1.html

JACQUELYN MARTIN/AFP/Getty Images - US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel (R) is greeted by US Forces Korea Commanding General James Thurman on arrival in Seoul, South Korea on September 29, 2013. Hagel is on a visit to South Korea and Japan where he is set to affirm military ties that are entering a new chapter in the face of North Korea's threats and China's growing power.

By Craig Whitlock, E-mail the writer

SEOUL — Sixty years after the end of the Korean War, the United States and South Korea still can’t agree on who should take charge if another war breaks out with the communist neighbor to the north.

For years, Washington has been trying to persuade the South Korean military to take operational control of its own forces in wartime, ending a six-decade arrangement during which U.S. commanders have retained that authority over South Korean troops. Although supportive in principle, a succession of governments in Seoul has repeatedly delayed the command transfer, reinforcing doubts about whether the South Korean military is capable of operating without U.S. leadership.

Previous deals that would have transferred wartime command of South Korean troops to Seoul in 2009 and 2012 fell by the wayside. Now the latest timetable — to transfer control to the South Korean military by December 2015 — has become infected with doubt as South Korean leaders have expressed anxieties again about their ability to command their own troops in the face of threats from an increasingly unpredictable North Korea.

South Korean officials began a public campaign this summer for another delay beyond 2015 but haven’t specified a new date for a command transfer. U.S. officials have not agreed to any changes so far. Some have said they are becoming frustrated with South Korea’s reluctance to take charge of its own defense.

On Sunday, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel arrived in Seoul for three days of talks. But he told reporters traveling with him that he doubted that the thorny issue could be resolved during his visit.

“We’re constantly re-evaluating each of our roles,” Hagel said. “That does not at all subtract from, or in any way weaken, our commitment.”

In a reminder of how a sudden outbreak of war remains a constant threat here, Hagel was scheduled Monday to tour the Demilitarized Zone, the 2.5-mile-wide buffer that divides North and South Korea and is the most heavily guarded border in the world.

There are 28,500 U.S. troops permanently stationed in South Korea. That’s a fraction of the size of the South Korean military, which has 640,000 personnel. The South Korean government, however, considers the U.S. military presence a crucial deterrent, and some South Korean officials worry that a lessening of the U.S. role could embolden North Korea.

(Continued at the link below)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/handover-of-us-command-of-south-korean-troops-still-under-debate/2013/09/29/25a73374-28fb-11e3-83fa-b82b8431dc92_story_1.html

HAGEL IN SOUTH KOREA FOR SECURITY TALKS

Does this statement leave open the possibility of a delay or better yet a new path for transformation that retains the combined war fighting capabilities?

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel flew to Seoul on Sunday, and said there will be conversations about the possible extension of the 2015 deadline, but likely no decisions will be made.

"We're constantly re-evaluating each of our roles," Hagel told reporters traveling with him. "That does not at all subtract from, or in any way weaken, our commitment — the United States' commitment — to the treaty obligations that we have and continue to have with the South Koreans."

But I would remind Ms. Glaser that this is not simply about war time control.  There is no "transfer" to be made. What is happening is the dissolution of the ROK/US Combined Forces Command and the establishment of separate national war fighting commands.   Despite her assessment there will be significant military implications beginning with the lack of unity of command going forward from 2015.  And with all due respect, I think the last thing the Korean military want is to have its relationship compared to the Japanese and I would ask any military professional which type of command arrangements they would like to have if fighting a major theater war and I doubt that it would be based on the US-Japanese military relationship.

 

Bonnie Glaser, an Asia expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that it's time to complete the transfer of wartime control to South Korea.

"This is not going to in any way weaken the ability of U.S. forces to work with South Korean forces," she said. "I think you could argue it could strengthen it. It would make it more similar to the kind of arrangement that we have between American and Japan forces."

V/R

Dave

HAGEL IN SOUTH KOREA FOR SECURITY TALKS

By LOLITA C. BALDOR

—      Sep. 29 6:44 AM EDT

—      http://bigstory.ap.org/article/hagel-south-korea-security-talks

—       

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — Amid escalating threats from North Korea, U.S. and South Korean defense officials will meet over the next few days and discuss whether to extend America's wartime control over the South's armed forces, 60 years after a truce ended the Korean War.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel flew to Seoul on Sunday, and said there will be conversations about the possible extension of the 2015 deadline, but likely no decisions will be made.

"We're constantly re-evaluating each of our roles," Hagel told reporters traveling with him. "That does not at all subtract from, or in any way weaken, our commitment — the United States' commitment — to the treaty obligations that we have and continue to have with the South Koreans."

U.S. officials have acknowledged that the South Koreans have informally expressed an interest in delaying the deadline when Seoul is supposed to assume wartime control of the forces that would defend the country in the event of an attack by North Korea.

The target date initially was in 2012, and was pushed back to 2015.

Defense officials said they expect to have discussions about it with the South Koreans that will help map out the way ahead.

Officials said that South Korea's military capabilities have continued to improve, including its ability to communicate and coordinate with the U.S. on missile defense, particularly with American Navy ships deployed to the region.

But the South still needs to strengthen a number of military and intelligence capabilities, including surveillance and reconnaissance as well as its missiles

U.S. control of the forces is a holdover from the Korean War, and America has been trying for years to build South Korea's capabilities. But it has proved difficult to wean the South off its dependence on the U.S. military, particularly as the threat from North Korea has escalated.

Earlier this year, Pyongyang conducted another nuclear test in defiance of U.N. Security Council resolutions. The detonation at a remote underground site was seen as a key step toward the North's goal of building a bomb small enough to fit on a long-range missile capable of striking the U.S.

And, earlier this month a U.S. research institute said that recent satellite images appeared to show that North Korea was restarting its plutonium reactor at the Nyongbyon nuclear facility.

That facility was closed in 2007 under the terms of the six-nation disarmament agreement.

On Friday, South Korean Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se urged the U.N. General Assembly to make a united effort against North Korea's nuclear program, as it has against the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

Bonnie Glaser, an Asia expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that it's time to complete the transfer of wartime control to South Korea.

"This is not going to in any way weaken the ability of U.S. forces to work with South Korean forces," she said. "I think you could argue it could strengthen it. It would make it more similar to the kind of arrangement that we have between American and Japan forces."

(Continued at the link below)

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/hagel-south-korea-security-talks