For many veterans, including me, the DMZ is a place we remember with painful clarity. I served as an officer in the 7th Regiment of the Army’s 6th Division, stationed in the DMZ operational sectors.
The danger was real, marked by blaring North Korean propaganda broadcasts and constantly shifting day and night duties. We witnessed firsthand the tragic effects of land mine blasts and gunshot wounds on young soldiers. Decades later, those vivid memories remain with all of us who served along that line.
When two land mine explosions wounded three of our service members on Sept. 21, my thoughts went straight to them and their families. The public news cycle eventually moves on to other stories, but their lives will not. Recovery takes years, and some emotional scars never fully heal. As a veteran, I ask a vital question: Are we doing everything necessary to protect the soldiers heading out on the next patrol?
The most immediate concern is North Korea's aggressive behavior along the border. Defense officials report that North Korean troops crossed the Military Demarcation Line 50 times this year during border fortification work. Not every crossing may have had the same tactical intent. Nevertheless, we must ask what these repeated incursions signal to Pyongyang about our willingness to defend our border.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff concluded that North Korean plastic antipersonnel mines planted south of the demarcation line caused the severe injuries. The United Nations Command confirmed that the armistice had been violated. Soldiers on patrol deserve an honest, unvarnished assessment of the threats they face, without wondering whether official language was softened to suit political preferences toward Pyongyang.
Physical resolve must be demonstrated on the ground as well. Clearing the blast site on Oct. 5 was a necessary first step. However, it must be part of a continuing, systematic effort to detect and remove unauthorized mines planted south of the demarcation line. North Korean mine-laying cannot be allowed to dictate where our soldiers patrol.
Compounding this external threat is a second, internal concern: frontline weapon readiness. When we served on the DMZ, ammunition readiness was never up for debate. Every soldier on duty carried a fully loaded M16 rifle, an M60 machine gun and hand grenades, ready to engage per operational procedures. We understood why. If an ambush came in the dark, amid fatigue and noise, there would be no time to unseal pouches or load magazines. Weapons had to be ready before danger arrived.
Recent reports that weapons were kept unloaded across frontline commands, including Marine Corps units, are alarming. At a parliamentary hearing Thursday, a former 1st Corps commander defended these changes, asserting that combat readiness had not suffered. I find that assurance difficult to accept without clear evidence from stress-tested exercises. Ammunition stored nearby in a locker or pouch is fundamentally different from a weapon ready to fire instantly. A procedure that seems manageable during a daylight administrative inspection looks entirely different at night, when a young soldier is exhausted, terrified or under direct attack.
Preventing accidental discharges is crucial, and veterans understand the risk well. But measures to prevent accidents cannot leave soldiers exposed to enemy fire. Administrative convenience or personnel shortages must never justify shifting operational risks onto frontline troops in harm's way. Any policy change that delays their response must be accompanied by a rigorous, convincing explanation from military leadership.
Commanders also need unambiguous authority. A unit under sudden attack cannot wait for headquarters discussions or political clearance while bullets are flying. Rules of engagement, supported by clear legal boundaries and realistic training, must be set in advance to define when soldiers may act. A commander making a lawful decision under fire to protect his troops needs complete confidence that leadership will support him.
South Korea must leave Pyongyang in no doubt about our resolve to protect our people. Deterrence must apply whether a provocation occurs on land, at sea, in the air or along the DMZ. Restraint has a rightful place in military strategy, but it becomes dangerous when an adversary mistakes caution for an unwillingness to act.
Uncertainty on the frontline can also strain our alliance with the United States. ROK-US joint planning requires absolute confidence in each partner’s readiness to act. Vague policies risk inviting adversary miscalculation and complicating coordination with our allies. Dialogue remains worth pursuing, but it must be backed by a defense posture that both sides can rely on.
Political leaders must set clear strategic objectives and provide resources; commanders must translate those objectives into actionable orders in the field. The ultimate test is whether the soldier standing watch tonight can rely on decisions made above him. Readiness should be judged by what happens at those isolated outposts, not by issuing vague policy and operational guidelines.
To everyone who has patrolled the DMZ and to all others in uniform, especially those carrying the physical and emotional wounds of that service: Thank you for your service. To their families, who share that lasting burden, we offer our deepest gratitude and respect. You deserve enduring care, genuine honor and a national defense policy that truly protects those standing guard today. We salute you.
Man-Ki Kim
Man-Ki Kim is a professor at the KAIST Graduate School of Future Strategy, specializing in global public procurement, defense acquisition innovation and global strategic trends. He also serves as a senior adviser at Yoon & Yang LLC. The views expressed here are the writer’s own. — Ed
khnews@heraldcorp.com