By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The commander of the 707th Special Missions Group, Kim Hyun-tae, issued a public apology for deploying troops to the National Assembly on December 3rd, following the declaration of emergency martial law. He accepted full responsibility for the actions of his 197 soldiers, stating that he ordered them to breach the building. Kim attributed the incident to his own incompetence and criticized former Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun for utilizing the troops. Following the incident, the military prosecution sought an emergency travel ban on ten personnel, including Kim Hyun-tae and the Army Chief of Staff.
Read the original article here
The South Korean special forces unit chief’s apology – “I am an incompetent and irresponsible commander” – is striking in its raw honesty. It’s a stark contrast to the often-seen defensiveness from leaders facing criticism, and this immediate acceptance of blame is rare indeed. The circumstances surrounding the apology, the deployment of his elite 707th Special Mission Battalion to the National Assembly, however, raise numerous questions.
Was this a genuine admission of failure, or a strategic move to deflect greater scrutiny? The timing, following a controversial attempt to assert greater executive control, certainly suggests the possibility of pressure from higher-ups. The chief’s statement could be seen as a calculated effort to protect himself and, perhaps more importantly, his men from harsher repercussions. His troops, highly trained and equipped, are not simply expendable assets; their reputation, careers, and families are all at stake.
The chain of command is undeniably crucial in any military operation. The chief, however, highlights a potentially problematic element: he received an order to deploy his unit, which he followed. The question then becomes whether the order was lawful and whether a commander should always obey an order, even if morally dubious. The context here is critical; this wasn’t simply a routine deployment; it involved the National Assembly, a cornerstone of South Korean democracy.
Many commentators noted that simply following orders isn’t a sufficient defense in this case. The commander’s extensive experience, leading one of the nation’s most elite units, should have equipped him to recognize the potential illegality and the profound implications of the order. A seasoned special forces leader, it is argued, should possess the judgment to evaluate the situation, particularly given the lack of any clear and present threat justifying such action. The deployment seemed, to many, more like a show of force intended to intimidate the assembly than a legitimate response to a national security threat.
The chief’s decision is further complicated by conflicting accounts of the events. His statements seem to differ from those of his superiors, raising questions about the extent of his awareness regarding the potential implications of the deployment. The available information indicates that the president’s actions lacked transparency and that the decision to deploy troops appeared abrupt, even to those directly involved in the operation.
The chief’s admission of incompetence raises an important issue: who bears ultimate responsibility for this controversial deployment? While the chief’s apology is commendable, many believe that the blame does not rest solely on him. If he acted under orders, then those who gave the order must also bear significant responsibility for the ensuing events. It’s essential to establish accountability at all levels, and the president, as the ultimate authority who declared martial law, is certainly in the line of fire.
Ultimately, the incident serves as a harsh reminder about the fragility of democratic institutions and the importance of checks and balances within a country’s power structure. The potential for abuse of power exists when those who possess the instruments of violence are given unfettered authority. The actions of the president, and the deployment of special forces to the National Assembly, shook the foundation of democratic processes. This incident demands that accountability be fairly assessed and addressed across all levels of command, ensuring that such actions are never repeated. The chief’s sacrifice, whether intentional or not, highlights the deep complexities that exist within military leadership and the difficult decisions faced in the face of potentially unlawful commands. The hope is that such clarity, however painful it might be, helps prevent future events of this nature.