Exclusive Lee Says "Integrated Military Academy to Prevent Coup"... What About New 'Tri-Service Unified Network' Checks?

President Lee Jae-myung has directly cited past military actions by Korea Military Academy graduates and the issue of military leadership monopoly as reasons for integrating the Army, Navy, and Air Force academies, drawing attention to whether the academy integration discussion will expand into military power structure issues.

On the 5th during a defense ministry briefing, President Lee pointed out that the Korea Military Academy had been at the center of repeated military actions in the past without accountability, saying “Shouldn't we structurally make absolutely sure this never happens again?” He also mentioned the increasing proportion of KMA graduates as military leadership rises, emphasizing “Won't such possibilities be somewhat reduced through integration?”

However, arguments have emerged that while academy integration may weaken the existing KMA-centered military network, it could create a new form of military faction. If officers from the same class educated together at an integrated military academy later diverge into the Army, Navy, and Air Force after commissioning, a tri-service unified network with greater authority than existing service-specific networks could form.

A military network refers to informal personal connections within the military formed through alma mater, commissioning path, and class cohort. When a specific group maintains major command and personnel positions over extended periods, it can function as an influence network separate from official command structures.

Suwon Ilbo surveyed Rep. Bu Seung-chan (43rd Air Force Academy class, Democratic Party, Yongin, Gyeonggi Province), who supports academy integration, and Rep. Lim Jong-deuk (42nd Korea Military Academy class, People Power Party, Yeongju and Yeongyang, North Gyeongsang Province), who opposes it, regarding the possibility of military network formation post-integration. Both representatives acknowledged that new personal networks could form, but offered opposite assessments on risks and solutions.

Both representatives acknowledged that integrating the military academies cannot entirely prevent military network formation. However, their perspectives diverged on how to view and check newly forming networks.

Rep. Bu stated “It's logically weak to think that integrating military academies can block network formation” and “It's natural for personal networks to form anywhere, not just the military. An integrated military academy would be no different”

However, Rep. Bu viewed the problem not as the existence of networks themselves but as the structure where specific graduate groups monopolize military leadership. As a solution, he proposed activating diverse commissioning pathways such as ROTC and the Army Cadet School alongside an integrated academy to activate competition among different graduate groups.

Rep. Bu said “If we maintain an integrated military academy, reduce mandatory service to five years, and activate the Three-Year Officer School and ROTC, natural competition will emerge” and “When competition becomes active, monitoring and checks naturally become possible, and side effects from military networks such as cartel formation and secret martial law declarations will largely disappear”

Conversely, Rep. Lim stated “Being military academy classmates itself creates networks” and “When officers who lived as the same class at an integrated academy are dispersed to Army, Navy, and Air Force after graduation, a personal network connecting all three services simultaneously could form, unlike existing service-specific networks”

Notably, Rep. Lim explained that the very existence of the Army, Navy, and Air Force as independent organizations with different identities, traditions, and interests functions as a check mechanism within the military.

Rep. Lim stated “There's talk that when military academies integrate, inter-service check functions themselves could collapse” and “Within the military, there are inter-service checks and cooperation, so the independence of the Army, Navy, and Air Force performs mutual check functions within the military, separate from civilian control”

While Rep. Bu views competition among commissioning pathways as a check on military power monopoly, Rep. Lim prioritizes inter-service independence and mutual checks. Regarding potential networks post-integration, Rep. Bu believes side effects can be reduced through competition with other graduate groups, while Rep. Lim expressed concern that school-based and class-based networks connecting all three services could weaken existing inter-service check structures.

Against this backdrop, experts note that separate structural oversight and check mechanisms must be established alongside academy integration to prevent new networks from developing into closed power groups.

A military affairs expert stated “If integrated academy graduates simultaneously advance to leadership positions in the Army, Navy, and Air Force, a new network penetrating all three services could form” and “Since the president cited coup prevention as the grounds for integration, discussion cannot stop at weakening the existing KMA network”

The expert continued, “While preventing network formation itself is difficult, there is a need to monitor high-ranking position concentration by origin and strengthen congressional oversight and control to prevent specific networks from monopolizing personnel and command authority” and “Furthermore, institutional check mechanisms must be jointly discussed to prevent military networks from leading to political intervention”

Prof. Hong Kyou-deok from Sungshin Women's University also expressed concern in a media interview last month that “nations operating tri-service integrated military academies lost inter-service checks and balance” and raised concerns that consolidation could lead to an ‘unchecked single cartel’

The government has hitherto presented future warfare response, enhanced jointness, and talent acquisition as key justifications for academy integration. As battlefields expand beyond the Army, Navy, and Air Force to space and cyber domains, the government maintains that jointness should be strengthened from the officer training stage. The plan involves integrating existing separate military academies to improve educational conditions, implementing common training from the cadet stage to establish jointness, and cultivating officers through service-specific specialized education.

Both sides on integration displayed differing perspectives.

Rep. Bu explained that the purpose of academy integration lies not solely in dismantling military networks but in restructuring officer training systems to adapt to changing future warfare environments.

Rep. Bu stated “With battlefields expanding to space and cyber beyond the Army, Navy, and Air Force, the existing service-specific separated educational system has limitations” and “Issues in securing talented personnel, such as declining military academy applicants, post-admission attrition, and early retirement, can be addressed through integration”

In contrast, Rep. Lim agrees that jointness must be strengthened in future warfare but contends there is no reason to link this to physical academy integration. Rep. Lim's position is that through common courses and distance education, physical constraints can be overcome, making physical academy integration not a prerequisite for securing jointness.

Rep. Lim stated “Jointness means integrating each service's expertise at necessary times and places to create synergy effects based on each service's specialization” and “If understanding other services is needed at the cadet stage, it's possible through other methods without consolidating schools”

In fact, existing debates surrounding academy integration have focused on jointness versus specialization and integration methods. While the government presents ‘enhanced jointness’ as the core rationale, opposition from military academy alumni associations and opposition parties emphasizes that each service's identity and specialization could be compromised.

As President Lee presents coup prevention as one reason for academy integration, discussion scope is expanding beyond officer training to military power structures.

Notably, as military-affiliated representatives from both ruling and opposition parties recognized that military networks could form even post-integration, how to check such networks has emerged as a new issue.

Additionally, with arguments emerging that separate structural oversight and check mechanisms must be established to prevent post-integration tri-service unified networks from leading to monopolization of command and personnel authority or political intervention by specific graduate groups, attention is drawn to whether future academy integration discussions will expand to military power dispersion and control issues.