By SHELTON BUMGARNER
Marmot’s Hole Guest Blogger
|
The eight dead from last Sunday’s incident. |
The news week exploded into our consciousness with a hail of bullets and a grenade blast that resulted in the death of eight Korean soliders in the DMZ area.
According to news reports, the incident took place in Yeoncheon, about 43 miles north of Seoul. The alleged shooter is a 22-year-old soldier named Private First Class Kim Dong-min, who claimed to have commited the crime “due to habitual harassment by a senior soldier.”
|
The site of the incident. |
As the week progressed, questions began to circulate about exactly what happened. The incident led to a call for a new military in the ROK and shock at the status of Korean military barracks. It was also learned that Private Kim attempted to escape capture by escaping “south of the civilian control line (CCL) ”
By week’s end, Private Kim was apologizing to the victim’s families for the murders, but admited he still felt anger towards some of the fallen.
Kim made the remarks in a closed-door interview with a panel from the National Assembly?????s Defense Committee, its chief Uri Party Rep. Ahn Young-gun said.
Ahn quoted Kim as having said: “I feel sorry for the bereaved families, remembering my parents and my elder sister.” But Kim said he still ???felt hatred???? toward those of his victims whose bullying he says goaded him into committing the crime, according to Ahn.
“Kim is thought to have run amok because his introverted nature was compounded by orders and verbal abuse from senior comrades,???? Ahn said. ???That sort of verbal abuses can happen in military and social life. Kim appears to have committed the crime because he was unable to cope.”
Meanwhile, Foreign Affairs Magazine contributers were making news on several fronts, telling us that not only does the United States have serious geopolitical problems with the DPRK (and Iran), it is falling behind South Korea and other Asian nations vis-a-vis broadband technology and its stragic interests are at risk due to the eventual (inevitable?) outbreak of avian influenza somewhere in East Asia.
The week ended with the 55th anniversary of the start of the 6.25 (Korean) War.
The Quote of the Week comes from Richard N. Haass, writing in Foreign Affairs Magazine, on the United States’ policy-of-no-policy on the remaining two thirds of the “Axis of Evil.”
A foreign policy that chooses to integrate, not isolate, despotic regimes can be the Trojan horse that moderates their behavior in the short run and their nature in the long run. It is time Washington put this thinking to the test, toward what remains of the axis of evil. Delay is no longer an option, and drift is not a strategy.
62 Comments
This is where “South Korea?€?loves to be referred to as “Korea”.
A friend of mine was charged with being a trainer/drill sergeant during his Korean military stint. Normally a nice, quiet guy, his job in the army was to berate his subordinates. One day one of them snapped and shot him in the head. The bullet glanced off his helmet, leaving him with a great tale to tell the grandkids, and more than a few nightmares.
The bowing and highest forms of address weird me out, too. Korean universities are in some ways similar: another friend told me of having to bow and say “????…??????????¹Œ, ????°°????” every time he passed an upperclassman from the same department–even if one of them strolled up to the adjacent stall as he was taking a piss. The benefits are that ????°°’s generally treat their ????°°’s well, treating them to meals and drinks and what not.
since 1996 the korean gov’t hasn’t put their capital punishment law to the test, and i wonder two things. first, is there gonna be more than mere sentencing for civilian yoo, the serial killer last year? and secondly, does the korean military use capital punishment and, if so, do they also use hanging (read strangling at times) like civilian courts?
anyone wanna bet that there are no executions under noh…
This guy kills 8 people and is only sorry to the “innocent” people he killed and not the ones that gave him a bad time? Sorry Uri Party lawmaker Lim Jong-in, but there IS an inherent flaw in this kid.
There have been calls for a new military. I am all for improving the living standards for the soldiers and somehow changing the endemic harassment by seniors. But I would have many reservations about implementing a volunteer military. A big military is a necessity for South Korea being the small guy in a big tough neighborhood. I just can’t see enough South Koreans willing to serve their country voluntarily. Even if you had a relatively good benefit system for soldiers as the US does, not enough Koreans would join.
I wonder what kind of punishment this guy will get for his crime? If it is too light I would hope it wouldn’t spur more copy cat crimes.
“exploaded”
I see someone is even more wasted than I am this fine Saturday evening. I hope I mistype something while I’m writing this because it would be a shame for me to nail an entire bottle of tequila, then taunt some poor guest blogger for their mistake without making any of my own. *hiccup*
Actually, this was a pretty good post.
“I wish to meet and apologize to the bereaved families of soldiers who were killed in the incident although they did not harass me,” lawmakers quoted Private First Class Kim Dong-min as saying.
I wonder if Private Kim would object to the bereaved families of the innocent (which EACH victim was) being allowed to shoot him.
I’m stunned that a government official would even associate his name with a mass murderer. Passing along the murderers wish to apologize to a select group of his victims families is just mind numbing.
Does SK have a volunteer or a draftee army?
Good post although that last quote had nothing to do with the incident. This nut job will fry, his comrades are dead and the saddest past of this story is that no one will seriously examine the abusive treatment of subordinates by officers and NCOs.
Got to catch my plane… that is it for now, maybe more later.
Scott: draft. Used to be 36 months, I think it’s less now. The draft is evil, and even more so in places like that…
24 months for regular conscripts, but a variety of options exists.
I fixed the spelling mistake.
I regret the error and will be more careful in the future.
Some of the Korean military will start getting beds and some decent plumbing pretty soon. Every year the average kids’ heights are getting longer, but the barracks are still 1960’s style squalid conditions where the taller kids’ feet are sticking out of the raised floors when they’re trying to sleep in 40 degree heat.
It’s litteraly a different generation of soldiers, raised soft on internet and then spoiled rotten. They’re not willing to put up with what their fathers put up with. The Korean military too, is under the microscope.
I don’t think I’d describe Korean guard post living conditions as “squalid.” Last RSOI/Foal Eagle my team and I were pretty happy to be sharing bed space in one of those little barracks instead of sleeping in some crap GP small tent in 10 degree weather. They had high speed internet access and plenty of good food, so while definately not up to American military living standards, I don’t think they’re unliveable and certainly not bad enough to explain some kid’s killing spree. Definately better than most FOB living conditions in Iraq.
Now on the other hand, I have gotten pretty weird vibes out of those places. The way the subordinate soldiers bow in reverence and speak in only the highest forms to their seniors really freaks me out. I understand Korean culture heavily emphasizes power relationships but I have a nagging suspicion that the older soldiers are doing as was done unto them and adding a few helpful hands (or fists) to the formula. An interrogator sergeant here at my current unit was formerly air assault infantry in the ROK Army and his stories are pretty f*cked up. He’s got cigarrette burns all over his back to prove ‘em. Honestly, I’m surprised this kind of revenge killing isn’t more common.
p.s. While we’re pointing out spelling slips, that should be “alleged shooter,” not “alledged.”
fixed
Having spent a long time in Korea with the military and fortunately and unfortunately having spent a lot of time on Korean bases, I can attest that many of the barracks have gotten a lot better. Living conditions have definitely improved, even the food has gotten better.
Many of you made comments about the Confucian idea of rank, position, and age, but in the U.S. military we have similar things. You readers that are in the military - in a gas situation - when determining who takes off their masks to see if a gas agent is still present - who is it? The lowest rank. If you have four people who are the lowest rank you then go by promotion date, and finally age - youngest takes off the mask.
If you are standing at the urinal at suddenly the commanding general walked in and stood at the urinal next to you - you wouldn’t greet him - perhaps with a good afternoon sir? If I remember right you are supposed to acknowledge his presense. Of course that doesn’t mean that you immediately snap to attention - do a right face and salute him - the whole time urinating on his leg, but you still acknowledge him.
It is not only a Korean thing - it is a military thing to acknowledge rank and seniority.
Someone made a comment about angering a guy with a grenade and loaded weapon was plain stupid - that may be - but this is really not that extraordinary. I am sure some of the readers who have been here for a great many years will remember the young soldiers riding the public buses with their weapons - not in great numbers - might just be a couple of men - or maybe an entire squad. Sometimes these guys went over the edge. I think it was just before the Olympics that one soldier stole an amount of ammo and went to the Seoul station area and killed a couple of people - a coffee shop keeps coming to mind.
I remember in Wonju that the First ROK army had to roll out and disarm the reserves who were drunk on the corners and firing their shotguns in the air.
Naturally don’t think this is reserved only for the Korean soldiers here - in 1985 an American seaman/soldier at Chinhae’s communication bunker had all he was going to take and shot up his communication post with an M-16, - I don’t believe anyone was injured in that incident.
It would probably be safe to drop the word alleged. Eye witnesses and his own admission make it safe to say he IS the shooter.
It seems the rage lately to correct each other’s writing - let me correct mine real fast
If you were standing at the urinal and suddenly the commanding general walked in and stood at the urinal next to you - wouldn?€™t you greet him - perhaps with a good afternoon sir?
I think the guy needs to spend a day in a closed room with bereaved family members so that he can learn the true meaning of harassment.
I do not know what kind of harassment this murderer received, but his seemingly nonchalant attitude after the fact makes me sick. It also makes me sick to see the Korean media and others trying to make the murderer into the victim.
Korean society has created a generation of irresponsible spoiled brats, who are so absorbed in themselves that they feel they can do almost anything without consequences. The murderer in the above story, for example, still seems to think his hatred for some of the victims has priority over the grief of the victims’ families. He seems to be saying that given the same circumstances, he would do the same thing again.
In Korea, victims seem to have very few rights while criminals are treated with kid gloves. Korean judges are doing a piss-poor job of holding criminals responsible for their actions. The system seems to be geared to confessions, not punishment. A confession will get you a slap on the wrist, and if that does not work, the Korean president will grant you amnesty on the next holiday.
Many Koreans seem to think that apologizing is enough to make up for any misdeeds or failures in judgment. Every semester I have students who come and ask me to raise their grade in spite of their admitting that they goofed off during the semester. The plea usually goes something like this:
“I know I goofed off this semester, but I promise to study harder in the future. Please raise my grade.
Where do Korean students get the nerve to make such requests? Where is the acceptance of responsibility for one’s actions? Why do my students feel victimized when I turn them down? The answer I think is that Korean society has become so forgiving that many Koreans now feel they can do almost anything without suffering any consequences. The ultimate example of this is Kim Jong-il, whom Koreans also seem quite willing to forgive.
“…You readers that are in the military - in a gas situation - when determining who takes off their masks to see if a gas agent is still present - who is it? The lowest rank…”
Actually, there is a more elaborate protocol specified in the manuals for this situation. You have grossly simplified it, in a manner that soldiers (and ex-soldiers) normally delight in doing when “shooting the bull” over a beer or two. Especially if there are naive new soldiers or civilians in the listening audience (to include impressionable female civilians).
All US military units are well supplied with chemical “defensive” equipment, to include various types of individual and team chemical detection gear and test kits. Gas masks are not removed until such equipment is employed extensively to check if chemical agents are still present.
And then the exact sequence for doing so would be very dependent on the type of agent that was used (persistent or non-persistent, and whether it was choking, blood, or nerve agent), as well as the immediate tactical situation. For example, if your infantry squad is manning a defensive position in full chemical defensive gear (gas masks, overclothes, boots, and gloves), and the squad can clearly see that chemical artillery shells have exploded nearby (ones filled with persistent liquid nerve agent) — then the area is going to be “hot” for days while the stuff keeps vaporizing.
In which case you’ll want to leave the area, move upwind and to high ground, before beginning unmasking procedures. The longest that well-trained troops can stay in the full chemical suit “ensemble” is usually held to be around 6 hours (by US doctrine). And if the enemy has hit the area with persistent chemicals hard, he’s almost certainly not going to come through there himself — his purpose would be to deny the use of the area to friendly troops for some reason, while he makes his attack elsewhere.
When it’s time to unmask (in the aftermath of a confirmed chemical attack), the idea is for one man to “crack the seal” of his mask for just a second first. Then he quickly reseals and “evacuates” it (by holding his hand over the outlet valve(s) and blowing hard to clear out any trace of agent that has entered under the mask). Then he is watched by the others for a few minutes (5 min? can’t remember now, it’s been a while since I had to remember this stuff).
If no reaction, then he takes the mask off for a brief time (2 minutes?), then puts it back on. Then he’s watched again for a while (5 minutes?)
Only then, if there has been no reaction, does everyone unmask.
Yes, the idea is to select a “non-essential” soldier for this. Most US small unit combat leaders understand though that all of their soldiers are “essential” to their own mothers and families (which is why you won’t find US soldiers being routinely beaten (or burned with cigarettes) as a disciplinary measure).
If it is a well-disciplined unit, one in which the leaders have trained their soldiers well in defensive chemical warfare procedures, there probably won’t be a problem getting a volunteer for this particular duty.
Indeed, I can tell you that wearing a gas mask is hard work and requires “acclimating”; many get claustrophobia after being in it for a while, and in an actual combat situation, following the use of chemical agents by the enemy, it’s often going to be a problem keeping soldiers in masks until proper unmasking procedure can be effected.
Especially if they can see other personnel off in the distance who are unmasked and appear unaffected. But chemical agents won’t be uniformly distributed across the battlefield; the atmosphere is a huge “ocean”, and the enemy won’t be able to deliver an infinite amount of the stuff. Depending on the particular weather situation and windspeed, the threat could be very different from place to place along the front, even from just one terrain feature to the next.
If the unit has been hit hard by casualties and is demoralized, then a good small unit leader might choose to do the unmasking procedure himself, even though this is a “violation” of doctrine.
So why do I go to so much trouble to explain all this? I suppose I still feel an obligation to try to “step on” the old “martinet” stereotype of brutally hierarchical military service. It’s been 225 years since soldiers in the armies of Frederick the Great were routinely caned for small infractions; but even back then, when “Baron” von Steuben came over from Prussia to instruct Washington’s Army in battlefield drill and tactics, he saw right away that this leadership model would not work for American soldiers. (So, I suppose this means that “sometimes even the Prussians didn’t act like Prussians”).
But I reckon the stereotype of the uncaring and unfeeling authoritarian military leader will be with us for much longer (unless and until I can figure out a way to “beat it out” of bad novelists, as well as Hollywood scriptwriters and directors).
The US Army soldiers and Marines who advanced into Iraq in March 2003 spent a lot of time in full chemical ensemble, in the full expectation that chemical agents would be employed against them by Iraqi artillery and short-range rockets. Yet they went forward and were victorious, against the expectations of many in the media who felt they would meet with disaster against the “hardened” Iraqi veterans (anyone else remember the predictions of a “Stalingrad”? I sure do).
They didn’t make this successful advance because brutal sergeants were beating them routinely in order to make them go forward, but because they had confidence in their leaders and in their equipment — the confidence born of excellent training and experience.
I imagine many units of the Iraqi Army of Saddam Hussein had experimented extensively with the “negative authoritarian” leadership model routinely. So, the comparative results of the Iraqi campaign speak for themselves, at least to anyone who is able to remove the mask from his own eyes.
I am utterly convinced that private soldiers of different nationalities the world over are much more alike than they are different, no matter how different the “cultures” from which they come. So I think the ROK Army would be well advised to discard “negative” aspects of the authoritarian leadership role model. (For example, I can’t imagine soldiers who were made to “eat shit” by a small unit leader having much confidence in him in a battlefield situation, assuming of course that they don’t load up their rifles and start blasting away, immediately following “latrine” duty).
Hey, what about this “respectful elder brother” role model, the one that somebody once talked about on one of these Korea blogs (in the sense that the US is supposed to be fulfilling this role vs. a vs. ROK)?
People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw hand grenades.
I wonder if the problem is perception versus reality.
With the massive spread of internet, information whether they be truth or rumour puts the entire society under the microscope, and the military is no exception.
This incident reminds us of the NRA claim that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Certainly one of the questions that comes to my mind is how this joker was able to arm himself with live ammo if he was not on duty. I was under the impression that it is standard operating proceedure to account for all rounds and explosive devices issued to soldiers with the possible exception of soldiers who are deployed to a hot war zone where it is expected that issued munitions would be expended and difficult to account for. If this guy was on duty, when then was he not questioned by the other soldiers on duty with him when he took his loaded weapon and left his post?
I have know people whose accounts of their life in the Korean army I trust and they all talk about the physical abuse that goes on. Sometimes, if you get a few of them together, they will compare beating stories. One of the guys I work with was an officer and still suffers from back problems as a result of beatings he took from superior officers. I also know people that are entering the military now and they claim that the beatings are not they used to be in the past but I am not sure if I believe that. As I said before it is too bad that the system will blame the entire problem on this guy being mentaly unstable and not address any of the underlying issues with the system.
Having never been in a barracks of any kind I cannot judge from an experienced point of view but from what I have seen and heard, the Korean army sleeping arrangements are not that bad-not the hilton but they could be alot worse I think. I would agree with the sentiment that many of the younger generation are spoiled expecting parents to take care of every whim they have from studying overseas to wearng this or that. There are obviously plenty of people out there that do not fit into this generalization but plenty that do and they are the ones of whom I speak.
James:
Having never been in a barracks of any kind I cannot judge from an experienced point of view but from what I have seen and heard, the Korean army sleeping arrangements are not that bad-not the hilton but they could be alot worse I think.
They are not that different from what I’ve been through as a Finnish conscript in the late 1980s and what they seem to be at the moment (except that the toilets have doors). Right or wrong, conscripts tend to have “simpler” conditions than volunteer soldiers. Beating on the other hand is not a general conscript army characteristic; hazing, surely has something to do with the kind of closed institution that an army is with age grades, but it can be dealt with as well if the authorities are interested.
(For comparison of sleeping arrangements in barracks, picture one, two, three.
Shelton! When a ya gonna settle down and get married already? Look at choo! Whatta they feedin you ova there? Why dontcha you put the picture with the tie from David’s wedding? Aunt Zoe says it looks like they cut ya hair with the chopsticks. She’s ova from Jersey for a few days. She brought over Uncle Lenny’s favorite farfel with the chicken chunks. Does Gloria still call you? She’s a lovely girl Shelton, a lovely girl.
“Korean society has created a generation of irresponsible spoiled brats, who are so absorbed in themselves that they feel they can do almost anything without consequences.”
Have you been to Seattle lately? Minors cannot be prosecuted for car theft unless caught in the act. Jail time does not come without an average of 7 convictions (then a 30-day lockup, I think). We have one of the highest car theft rates in the US. What do you think little punks do for fun?
“If the unit has been hit hard by casualties and is demoralized, then a good small unit leader might choose to do the unmasking procedure himself, even though this is a ?€œviolation?€? of doctrine.”
Whoever wrote this knows what he is talking about, period. Whatever flaws that the US Armed Forces may have, I am convinced that the leadership training, particularly at the low- to mid-officer level is outstanding (as folks approach the general officer rank, things start changing and the “perfumed prince” syndrome becomes more manifest, but that’s another story).
The emphasis on “mission-type” orders (based on recon-pull) rather than “detailed command” (command-push) orders (the whole Auftragstaktik vs. Befehlstaktik thing, to be pedantic) also really encourages initiative and sense of ownership rather than sullen obedience.
The problem with ROK Armed Forces is simple for me — it relies on a “leadership” model of officers beating the NCOs and NCOs beating the conscripts into submission. Maybe this worked well when armies were made up of peasants who were rounded up and expected not to break at a critical juncture (say, being run down by cuirasiers on open ground), but the days of Kadavergehorsam (zombie-like unquestioning obedience) are over in the age of the individual.
I am of the opinion that the sooner ROK goes all-volunteer and adopts more “American” customs, including a rational leadership model, the more effective its military will be (not to mention garnering more respect from civilians).
As it were, even in this age of ROK officers with multiple advanced degrees, one still hears about “Goon-Bal” (jackboots), a term of scorn.
“Have you been to Seattle lately? Minors cannot be prosecuted for car theft unless caught in the act. Jail time does not come without an average of 7 convictions (then a 30-day lockup, I think). We have one of the highest car theft rates in the US. What do you think little punks do for fun?”
Sell automobile theft insurance?
Guns and Butter
I think the problem with an all volunteer South Korean military is there would not be enough volunteers even if there were similar conditions to that of the U.S.
The US can have a volunteer military because it has a huge population base with friendly neighbors. Canada and Mexico are not planning to invade the U.S. South Korea has a very unfriendly neighbor in North Korea. North Korea has a million man army whose stated goal is to unify the peninsula. China could also toss its hat into a war as well.
“I think the problem with an all volunteer South Korean military is there would not be enough volunteers even if there were similar conditions to that of the U.S. ”
I disagree. If people are paid (men and women) 2 million won a month starting salary and then salaries increase over time with a retirement at 20 years, and half-pay a month for retirement based on the last paycheck, then the military would be one of the sort after careers in Korea.
Weren’t there thousands of Korean soldiers volunteering to go to Iraq once the advanced salary kicked into effect? I believe there’s a waiting list to go to Iraq, no?
sought not sort
Pay junior soldiers W2,000,000 instead of W30,000 a month?! That would be a huge shift. I think it’s a great idea to have a well paid professional military, but I’m not sure how Korea would make that shift.
Hardy and tiny
Just how much Korea would have to pay the soldiers and could afford to pay the soldiers is a good question. I was assuming Korea would pay relative to their GDP or overall standard of living.
The US GDP per person is around 40,000
http://www.fsmitha.com/world/a2day.htm
Last time I checked a private got about $1200 US dollars or 1.2 million won. It might be up some but it isn’t $2000 US or 2.0 million won unless you?€™re talking about the soldiers in Iraq getting special danger pay. South Korea’s GDP is about $19000 per person according to the same Website. That would mean a private would get 600,000 won. That isn’t very appealing to most Koreans although it would help from the terribly low salary a soldier gets now. Getting Koreans to spend more on their military is like pulling teeth. I’m not even sure the politicians and public would support dramatically increasing the military budget for 600,000 won a month let alone 2.0 million won a month. If a soldier did get 2 million won a month I agree that they just might have enough soldiers.
Thousand of Koreans did volunteer for Iraq. Extra pay, advancement, and wanting to help Iraqis were some of the reasons for going. It wasn’t all about extra pay. The problem is Korea would need oh…let?€™s say 400,000 volunteers for the South Korean military. I just don’t see it happening.
“The problem with ROK Armed Forces is simple for me ?€” it relies on a ?€œleadership?€? model of officers beating the NCOs and NCOs beating the conscripts into submission”
Guns and butter, there was no evidence that there were any physical hazings of the soldier who is accused of killing his fellow soldiers. None at all. All the eyewithnesses said there were no physical wrong doings. The accused himself admitted that there were no physical hazings, and that he was angry because he was verbally repriminded for doing his job poorly. He complained that the army guys used nothing but profanity which made him lose it. Are they now supposed to outlaw profanities in the military?
“I think the problem with an all volunteer South Korean military is there would not be enough volunteers even if there were similar conditions to that of the U.S.”
A country unwilling to defend itself does not deserve defending. The time for an all-volunteer army in S. Korea has arrived.
Someone wrote:I think the problem with an all volunteer South Korean military is there would not be enough volunteers even if there were similar conditions to that of the U.S.And then jcb wrote:A country unwilling to defend itself does not deserve defending. The time for an all-volunteer army in S. Korea has arrived.How did Korea suddenly turn into a country where it’s unwilling to defend itself? According to the CIA, South Korea spent 2.80% of its GDP on the military, ranking it ahead of other US allies such as Taiwan, France, Australia, the UK, India, Portugal, Thailand, Italy, Brazil, Poland, Spain, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Austria, Mexico, and a bunch of other countries.
On top of that, the vast majority of men here expect to spend at least two years of their lives in military service, yet ending compulsory military service is not a part of any major party’s platform.
So how did this get to be a country where people unwilling to defend their country? Based on a few thousand people who switched to foreign citizenship out of millions who didn’t?
In an egalitarian-oriented society like Korea, most people are reasonably satisfied that everyone goes into the military, not just those with no other choice. When issues of unfair practices to avoid military service come to light, people clamor for tougher enforcement of the rules, not eliminating or scaling down the system.
The all-volunteer military may work fine in the US (although we are failing to meet some of our goals, causing the age of enlistment to be raised), but that does not mean it is the optimal situation everywhere else. Korea is in a state of war, and relying on an all-volunteer military may not be the way to go if it means failure to meet enlistment goals or a tendency for the poorest to go, which would upset the egalitarian values of the country.
True non korean, S. Korea would not be expected to pay 2 mil a month. Maybe 6-700,000 for new lower enlisted and double that for officers.
I was searching around the net for a current VOLUNTARY S.Korea military pay scale but didn’t have any luck. I was also wondering what percentage of SK forces are voluntary. Anyone?
Then again, all benefits equal, would someone making W700,000 won a month in S Korea live at the same level as someone making $1,400 dollars a month in the USA? Yeah, maybe, that could be about right.
Looks like the Chosun Ilbo is having a sale on “run amok “. Buy one, get 10 free.
“Sell automobile theft insurance?”
Nah. I think for living.
“I think the problem with an all volunteer South Korean military is there would not be enough volunteers…”
Obviously, ROK government would have to increase pay, increase quality of leadership, training and educational opportunities for the armed forces, in order to attract volunteers. Funny how supply and demand work that way.
Will this require a substantial increase in defense budget? Not if it reduces procuring “gold-plated” weapons and equipment and concentrates instead on better doctrine, training and superior personnel quality. It would also help to rationalize defense procurement and do more off-the-shelf purchasing and less glorious-but-expensive indigenous manufacturing.
Also, ROK does not need a 600,000 or even a 400,000 in terms of personnel. The key is to generate combat power. Having lots of low quality light infantry does little to generate combat power (but it does increase chance of confusion, dislocation and panic should some Nork specops types land in the rear areas). It’s about time that the ROK military should go for quality rather than quantity (yes, I know that quantity has a quality all to its own).
“Guns and butter, there was no evidence that there were any physical hazings of the soldier who is accused of killing his fellow soldiers.”
Not referring to this specific case. I am talking about the general command and discipline system for ROK armed forces, which is heavily reliant upon “scaring the men into fearing the superiors more than the enemy.”
To repeat, abuse and fear don’t generate confidence in leadership and restore morale in a dicey situation — it’s the leader who gets up in a hail of fire and inspires others to follow.
?€œSell automobile theft insurance??€?
Nah. I think for living.
I guess insurance salespeople don’t think:(
Korea is a special case, an all volunteer army will not work. I think people are comparing apples and oranges when they’re comparing to the US military. The Korean military faces a deadly enemy only 30 miles away, the US does not have an enemy 30 miles away from Washington. US military flies in to conflicts around the world, thus afforded much time to go back to mandatory draft if they need to. Korean military has such no luxury. They only have one and only chance to get the policies right, with no room for experiments.
Korea is a hilly country, with the enemy amassed at the border, with most of their threat coming from infantry. The war in Korea will be a closely fought hand to hand infantry war, this is no Iraq where you can just sit back from far away and bomb the enemy with F15’s and guided missiles. An all volunteer military will completely sap Korea’s economy at a time when its economy is fragile. Not only will they have to pay these guys 15 to 20 times their current pay, but they also will have to replace the lost men with higher level of technology and upgraded hardware. This will break the bank because Korea can’t afford it. Even if Korea raises their defense spending to 5% of the economy I have my doubts they can switch to an all voluntary army. The last thing Korea needs is to weaken the economy with a heavy defense burden. Having a weak economy will not help the military. Growing and strengthening the economy raises the defense budget, and correspondingly strengthens the military.
the numbers involve more than just finding enough soldiers to defend the border. as far as i can tell, there are a lot of people doing military service in post offices and government offices, etc. the amount of “free” work that is had from all the soldiers would be expensive and/or hard to replace. it’s going to cost the government serious money.
i have talked to engineers who have told me that once they have their ma’s they can complete their military duty at a large company, getting paid very little but getting to live at home and not on a base. it would be hard for these large companies to suddenly have to pay real money to their “employees,” although it would be only fair. companies will have to shell out serious money.
one more thing: even if it were possible to get enough volunteers to carry guns, could the government expect people to enlist knowing that they’d be working at the post office for less than the guy working beside them? would you even want to employ the people willing to sign up to work the police riot line?
I haven’t seen the “real” ROK military in action but I have seen the ROK riot police and they are not very good at their job. It’s not their fault. Few of us would perform well against a mob of 30-something Korean guys after being forced to sleep on a cold/hot bus for 8 hours and then forced to spend the rest of the day standing around for 2-3 hour shifts. Hopefully this style of force is unique to the riot police squads and does not give me an idea of how the actual ROK military operates. However, we can look at a comparison between a well-paid/trained 200 man riot police force, and a couple of thousand college-age conscript kids stacked liked sandbags in front of an angry fire-bomb wielding crowd of rioters. This is unrelated to the threat from North Korea. How do we suddenly get these kids from riot bus police/government office workers to South Korean warriors in a week or even a month?
I think we?€™re better off forcing those young men to participate in once-a-month SERIOUS training with weapons and at the same time establishing a professional permanent career minded riot police/government office force.
I’m not a defense analysis, but if what you say were true then I certainly wouldn’t want the soldiers we have now. Soldiers who just can’t wait until their time in service is over, hoping to leave the dirty work to the next guy. We need career soldiers who are ready to fight, experts, well-trained, paid well and like what they do.
Clamp down and collect the proper tax as best as possible. The current volunteer force is at about 20% with enlisted members getting a starting salary of about 800,000 won a month and officers start at about 2 million a month. The volunteers are at about 140,000 with the involuntary at about 560,000. The force could be come more efficient with 4-420,000 paid well.
What about the money that will flow in from the USA gov and other allies? We?€™ll also pay foreign contractors and at least 50% of what they make will go back into the economy. Open the doors and let it flow?€?..
i think the mandatory universal military service is a good thing. why should anyone be allowed to skip out of doing his/her bit to defend her country? this applies to, for example, the US as well. it’s quite unfair that disproportionate number of kids from working class families serve in the military while the kids from well-off families go off to college, avoiding military service altogether, and are rewarded with yuppie lifestyles afterward.
(this coming from a guy who has never stepped into an army barrack - i’d have gotten shot within a week for attitude problem anyways)
in a way, conscription law means a universal voluntary military.
the problem with Korean military is the way they are run, not voluntary/conscription. i don’t hear such horror stories from Israeli kids coming out of their military service.
another thing came to me. Korean society being so hierarchical, the mandatory military service may be one not-so-brief period where a kid from a poor rural family can “get back” at the kids from fancy Seoul families.
There have been some very good points brought up here. My understanding is that Koreans that get MSs can work for a Korean company and have only to serve reserve duty (sans boot camp). While they are employed by the company, I believe they are compensated on an equal level with other people who served their time in the military (at least my friends are), the pay off for them is obvious, for the company, they are able to better attract talented employees and pay them a little less than they might make working for say a non-Korean company but only marginally so. The government from a long term point of view is able to encourage its citizens to get advanced degrees in the sciences that could lead to strategic economic advantage in the future. From a business point of view, most technology companies will brag about how many engineers they have working for them and how many patents they produce.
I believe there are some voluntary parts of the Korean military. My understanding is that in order to become a Marine or Navy UDT one must volunteer and then pass the training. A purely volunteer military in Korea would be a difficult thing to put together at this point in time. The government would have to raise (and collect) significantly more taxes to pay the soldiers the rates that have been discussed here. As has also been discussed here, the question would then have to be asked what about the people who fill non-military public service roles? Would they also be changed to paid government positions? A very expensive proposition. I disagree that rich kids are treated like anyone else in the military. I know too many instances where daddy pulled some strings and the son is assigned to be the regimental commander?€™s adjutant or some other reasonably easy job as opposed to humping a heavy amount of gear up and down the mountains as a grunt.
Despite the fact that the situation in the US and Korea are completely different, it is interesting that even in the US there are those that are considering some sort of forced public service for young people. Many countries have something like it. I agree with the views expressed earlier that the military in particular needs to be a well trained committed force of professionals that do it because of choice-not a bunch of people who were forced to do it.
the comment about israel is interesting and broadens the conversation a bit to include more than just the differences between korea and america.
i have met israelis who were not overly keen about going into the military. however, you might have actually heard less people complain about doing military service in israel, but that’s likely a question of math. the rewards of having done your time in the army far out way the problems connected to having not, which is very different from korea.
what happens in korea if you don’t do your military service? maybe you get a bit of a ribbing when you go drinking with your co-workers.
what happens in israel if you don’t do your military training? well, good luck finding a job. most good jobs in the county have a security rating. only those who have completed military training can apply. can you make friends? sure, but maybe only with other people who failed to get into the army. one of the first questions people ask is where and when you served. things tend to progress from there.
how about a wife? could you find one of those? sure, but she’d have to be the sort of gal who doesn’t mind hooking up with someone who is either physically or mentally a bit off.
right! there’s an important difference between the korean and israeli armies! the israelis actually test the mental stability of the recruits. that’s how they can have a huge number of armed 18 year old walking around without worrying about people going off and shooting one another on the bus, let alone on a base.
I think here in Korea, people that did not serve in the military usually avoid the topic of military service when they can. I do not think that they are considered social outcasts but I am sure that there is some speculation as to how they were able to avoid seriving, maybe they have well connected relatives, dual citizenship, physically incapable or…? but I don’t think they are looked down on too much.
The point about pyscological evaluations is interesting. I understand that in Spain you are required to undergo some sort of evaluation in order to own certain breeds of dogs like Pressa Canario, Pit Bulls and a few others-imagine what it is like for the military. I know that in Germany, some form of public service is required. If you opt in to the military your time to serve is two years and if you opt not to take the military option your service requirement is four years. As with certain groups of the military here in Korea, particularly the Marine Corps, military service in Germany is valued for the networks that one can cultivate.
the rewards of having done your time in the army far out way the problems connected to having not, which is very different from korea.
what happens in korea if you don?€™t do your military service? maybe you get a bit of a ribbing when you go drinking with your co-workers.This is not the whole picture. People who serve in the military are given extra points on many types of exams (e.g., corporate entrance exams, government service exams, etc.).
The boost is enough that it became an issue of gender discrimination a couple years ago (although women who serve in the military, I believe, do get the same points).
Also, men who are not exempt from military service but have not yet served DO are restricted when it comes to traveling abroad.
Kushibo:
point taken, but there is a difference that should be noted. basically, getting extra points on a test for a job because of military experience is not the same a not being allowed to even take the test because of a lack of military experience. so, there are people in korea who have good jobs even though they have not done any time in the military, while in other countries this is not the case.
in the end, i think the more than two years of service you save yourself avoiding the army puts you far ahead in terms of schooling. extra points on an exam seem like something a person with two years’ worth of extra time could easily overcome.
I like the ideal of no job if not served in the military. That will quickly put a stop to all the playings with loop holes.
jd wrote:Kushibo:
point taken, but there is a difference that should be noted. basically, getting extra points on a test for a job because of military experience is not the same a not being allowed to even take the test because of a lack of military experience. so, there are people in korea who have good jobs even though they have not done any time in the military, while in other countries this is not the case.Don’t get me wrong… I am not saying that the situation in Korea is equal to that of Israel. But I am taking issue with the idea that the difference between service and non-service is “maybe you get a bit of a ribbing when you go drinking with your co-workers.”
Those extra points DO make a big difference on highly competitive tests. Without the extra points to begin with, many of those who served would not be in that job to rib those who didn’t do the service.in the end, i think the more than two years of service you save yourself avoiding the army puts you far ahead in terms of schooling. extra points on an exam seem like something a person with two years?€™ worth of extra time could easily overcome. Some Korean corporate or academic exams are so competitive, that not having this extra edge practically eliminates you from consideration.
Back when I was working to help college students get into business school and grad school in the States, I would tell them that they should emphasize their three years (back then, that’s what it was) of military service. It was/is funny how so many consider them “lost years.”
Anyway, few people want to go, but almost everyone willingly goes, so I just think, as I was saying, that it’s grossly unfair to paint South Korea as a country unwilling to defend itself based on a very tiny percentage who use extraordinary means to get out of it.
“I guess insurance salespeople don?€™t think:(”
Sensitive! I like to say that “I think for living,” because I work as a policy wonk for a think tank.
“The Korean military faces a deadly enemy only 30 miles away…”
All the more reason to have long-service professionals who are motivated and know what they are doing rather than unmotivated conscripts of dubious value.
“Korea is a hilly country, with the enemy amassed at the border, with most of their threat coming from infantry.”
No. Even in 1950, NK infantry attacks across the hilly central part of the border was held by the hard pressed ROK army. When the flanks (the valleys on the coastal areas) collapsed, however, the units in the center had to retreat. They in fact did so in reasonably good order until the C2 collapsed.
The risk in a traditional invasion scenario has always been high tempo armored/mechanized thrust across the valley corridors and subsequent exploitation into Seoul while NK commandos destablized rear areas. Where in this scenario do you find conscripts with a year or two of training useful?
“…this is no Iraq where you can just sit back from far away and bomb the enemy with F15?€™s and guided missiles.”
Tell that to the ROKAF spending billions to buy gold-plated F15K with plenty of “guided missiles.”
“Soldiers who just can?€™t wait until their time in service is over, hoping to leave the dirty work to the next guy. We need career soldiers who are ready to fight, experts, well-trained, paid well and like what they do.”
Abso-f***ing-lutely. In a modern war, you need highly motivated, long-service professional warriors with technical expertise in relevant tools of warfare. Unmotivated conscripts with a year of basic training is worse than useless — they’re extra mouths to feed.
“…in a way, conscription law means a universal voluntary military.”
No it doesn’t. Unless you subscribe to the meaning of “is” varies school of thought. Conscription, by definition, preclude voluntary anything.
“As has also been discussed here, the question would then have to be asked what about the people who fill non-military public service roles? Would they also be changed to paid government positions? A very expensive proposition.”
This is funny. You are advocating that a government compel a citizen to perform an economic service in an involuntary fashion for “economic competitivenss”? I think that’s called slavery.
For that kind of “economic competitiveness,” why not draft everyone in the economy into government positions and pay them below market salaries and run the economy that way. Very low labor wages!
“Despite the fact that the situation in the US and Korea are completely different, it is interesting that even in the US there are those that are considering some sort of forced public service for young people.”
Hell no. Not if I and other conservatives have anything to say about it. My boss, a former Reagan official, was one of the first public figures to call for a volunteer military after Vietnam. The exact same rationale applies to mandatory “public service.”
“That will quickly put a stop to all the playings with loop holes.”
So will turning the military into an all volunteer force. There is no crying when everyone who is in chose to be in.
How are you going to pay for this professional army? No one here is arguing the merits of a professional army. It’s a nice thing to have. But actually paying for it is a whole different matter. Korea will have to divert the entire economy to have something similiar in line with what the US military is. This is at a time when economic competition from China is looming and Korea’s economic competitiveness is slipping. To have a strong military, you must have a strong economy - the two go hand in hand. Taxing the public to death to pay for the professional army, is the last thing you want to do. It is just too unrealistic to discuss professional military for S.Korea, if you ask me.
“No one here is arguing the merits of a professional army. It?€™s a nice thing to have.”
This is a different tune than your earlier remarks.
“How are you going to pay for this professional army?”
You weren’t paying attention, were you? To repeat:
“Will this require a substantial increase in defense budget? Not if it reduces procuring ?€œgold-plated?€? weapons and equipment and concentrates instead on better doctrine, training and superior personnel quality. It would also help to rationalize defense procurement and do more off-the-shelf purchasing and less glorious-but-expensive indigenous manufacturing.
Also, ROK does not need a 600,000 or even a 400,000 in terms of personnel. The key is to generate combat power.”
To be more specific, I envision a highly trained professional standing force of 300,000 to 350,000 (it could be perhaps a bit smaller still), backed up by a first tier reserve force of 100,000 to 150,000. Initially, the reserve personnel would have to be based on the existing system, slowly to be phased out and replaced with volunteer reserves based on American reserve/NG system.
The key to reducing personnel size while maintaining or increasing combat power is to increase readiness, training, doctrine and leadership. This will mean a substantial increase in NCOs as well.
The defense procurement system would have to be completely rationalized. No more indigenous production unless it makes economic sense. Those that do not would be purchased overseas based on competitive bidding. Equipment can be quite inexpensive to buy if no demands are made for offsets and technology transfer.
?€œ?€?in a way, conscription law means a universal voluntary military.?€?
No it doesn?€™t. Unless you subscribe to the meaning of ?€œis?€? varies school of thought. Conscription, by definition, preclude voluntary anything.
Setting aside semantics for a moment, the Korean government is a democracy (hey don’t laugh), and I would argue that the conscription law is one of the few things that a big majority of Koreans constituents agree on and strongly support. Yeah, you can go the distance that it still is not an unanimous consent or that the kids going into military weren’t the ones who voted for it, but you get the gist - hence “in a way.”
As for the semantics, let me switch “conscription,” which sounds too much like the king forcing the folks into his military service, to the mouthful “mandatory universal military service,” then. That still may not meet the strict standard of being “voluntary,” but there is a difference as just noted.
Despite the small number that sneak out, the mandatory service provides not only the requisite manpower, but fosters a sense of fairness with strong support from the public, and this is an important benefit of its own.
As for such regime not being up to the task, Israelis amply demonstrate that is not necessarily so. Obviously Koreans are not Israelis, but that doesn’t change the fact that a competent, highly capable military force can be forged with mandatory service.
democracy by a resaonable standard for definition for the word.
democracy by a resaonable standard for definition for the word.
Sorry this bit ended up there by mistake. Maybe electronic Freudian slip or something.
?€œI guess insurance salespeople don?€™t think:(?€?
“Sensitive! I like to say that ?€œI think for living,?€? because I work as a policy wonk for a think tank.”
I’m not sensitive, I don’t sell insurance. Just sounded arrogant.
pacific poker 40 free
Please check some relevant pages dedicated to texas holdem card Texas Holdem Online free online texas holdem poker
loans
You may find it interesting to check out the sites about home loans mortgage rates
same day flower delivery
You may find it interesting to take a look at some information on lily of the valley
premios paginas web
Take your time to check some relevant pages on jugar apostar
pc black jack
Please check out the pages on golf