Kang Shin-cheol, the Minister of Defense, questioned concerns from cadets about the potential loss of tradition and identity due to the relocation of the Army Academy, asking, "Did the Air Force Academy fail after moving to Cheongju?" He suggested that it may be necessary to consider other options, citing the Air Force Academy's relocation as an example. However, he acknowledged the cadets' concerns about the relocation, stating, "We are continuously contemplating the location issues of military academies, including the Army Academy."
During a meeting with cadets following a gathering of alumni from various military academies, differing opinions emerged regarding the necessity of integrated education through the establishment of the National Military Academy. Cadets expressed that enhancing joint capabilities and educational reforms could be achieved within the existing system, voicing concerns about the potential weakening of specialized military education and the confusion that could arise during the transition.
At the meeting held at the Army Academy's Chungmu Hall in Nowon-gu, Seoul, Kang responded to cadets' fears that leaving the Warangdae site could erase their identity by recalling that past Air Force Academy graduates had similar concerns. He stated, "There is tradition here, and I recognize its importance as a graduate of the Army Academy," while also noting that "there could be other options and different paths to explore." He emphasized that the Air Force and Army may differ and encouraged viewing the relocation as just one example.
Cadets highlighted that the historical significance and spirit of defense accumulated at Warangdae and Bulamsan extend beyond mere location, contributing to their identity and combat effectiveness as officers. One cadet questioned what advantages and military benefits could justify the relocation and integration compared to the existing system.
Kang replied, "We are contemplating the location issue, including the Army Academy," affirming the importance of intangible values such as tradition.
Cadets continued to raise questions about the primary justification for integration, which is to enhance joint capabilities. A fourth-year cadet argued that developing specialized skills within each branch should take precedence, asserting that the current joint education and training could sufficiently provide the necessary joint education at the cadet level. Another suggestion was to strengthen joint education at the junior officer level rather than focusing on integrated education at the military academies.
Air Force cadets also questioned the added benefits of the proposed '2+2' or '1+2+1' models compared to existing joint education, arguing that simply training in the same location does not guarantee an understanding of the distinct missions and characteristics of different branches. They requested that the independent systems and specializations of the existing military academies be maintained.
Kang agreed with the point that joint capabilities cannot exist without specialization, emphasizing that specialization should come first. He explained that the meaning of integrated education should not only focus on joint capabilities but also on securing excellent faculty and improving the quality of education to prepare for future warfare.
The issue of how to harmonize integration methods with specialized military education was also a point of contention. Cadets expressed concerns that dividing the four-year military education curriculum could weaken specialization. They specifically questioned whether the self-governing leadership system, which allows cadets to learn command, responsibility, leadership, and followership while living together, could be effectively maintained in a decentralized education system.
Kang acknowledged the value of the self-governing leadership system but stressed the need to improve rigid seniority culture that does not recognize the capabilities of juniors. Regarding integration methods, he stated, "The '2+2' and '1+2+1' models have not been decided yet," suggesting that a network-based approach is more likely. He outlined an educational direction that encourages developing questioning skills, building specialization within each branch, and finding answers through advanced education.
Kang emphasized the importance of humanities and basic science education, stating that the goal is to establish schools with master's and doctoral programs in military fields to secure excellent faculty. One Army cadet raised concerns that discussions about relocation lead to issues of regional development, joint capability enhancement, and accountability for the Army Academy, questioning whether the future of military academies is being discussed based on immediate policy needs rather than a long-term defense vision.
Concerns were also raised about the justification for policy initiatives and uncertainties. Other cadets pointed out that past mistakes by some military academy graduates should be distinguished from current educational reforms.
In response to a cadet's comment that the discussions on integration have heightened anxiety, Kang expressed, "As the Minister, I apologize for creating that anxiety." He acknowledged that the mistakes of past graduates could be perceived as affecting current cadets, and concerns were raised that fewer juniors might aspire to join after integration.
Kang clarified that President Lee Jae-myung is not dismissing all military academy graduates but is addressing specific individuals. He reiterated his apology for any anxiety caused by the integration discussions.
Cadets also demanded representation and transparency in the feedback process. One cadet noted that the attendees represented only a portion of the whole and requested that a survey be conducted among all cadets from the Army, Navy, and Air Force, with the results made publicly available.
Kang responded that he has already issued relevant guidelines and will analyze and announce the survey results. Regarding the civilian advisory committee set to launch that day, he mentioned that opinions were divided, with half in favor and half opposed, and he promised to listen to diverse opinions and ensure greater transparency in the process.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.