[Q&A] Why Korea’s military needs to revamp its officer training system

The Korea Military Academy (KMA) has been a recurring factor in the country's three coups, leading President Lee Jae Myung to criticize the institution for never being held accountable. He voiced concern about potential future coups linked to the academy following the Dec. 3 insurrection attempt. In response, some argue that integrating the country's military academies is necessary to prevent another coup.

This proposal has sparked controversy, with the academy's alumni association and opposition party labeling it as "retaliatory" and "punitive."

The Q&A explores questions surrounding the military academies of other nations and how they compare to Korea's system. Countries like Israel, the US, France, and the UK each have distinct officer training systems. Israel does not have a separate academy, instead promoting proven soldiers and non-commissioned officers to higher ranks.

The US, France, and the UK each have academies for their respective branches of the military, with graduates receiving degrees. The US system, in particular, has been compared to Korea's, as the KMA was revamped after the Korean War by incorporating the education and training methods of West Point.

KMA graduates comprise 3.7% of all officers commissioned as second lieutenants but make up a disproportionately large percentage in higher ranks, with 41%-42% of field-grade officers being KMA graduates. This dominance has raised concerns about the potential discouragement of talent and the risk of private interests overriding constitutional values.

To prevent this pattern from recurring, even if the academies are merged, it is essential to ensure that graduates of the unified academy do not monopolize the military's upper echelons.