Key Facts
• In 2006, wartime operational control transfer was a major issue between South Korea and the U.S.
• Michael Finnegan, then U.S. Defense Department Korea Desk Chief, prepared for South Korea’s request.
• The U.S. responded with “Take it now” and presented a bill for operational costs.
• Costs included satellite surveillance, communication interception, and strategic weapon operations.
• Estimated costs were astronomical, comparable to $10 billion annually as proposed by Trump.
• A map showed China’s plan to deploy troops within 60 km of the North Korean border during a crisis.
• South Korea faced challenges in managing Chinese troop withdrawal post-reunification.
• Calls for operational control transfer diminished due to financial burdens.
• Elbridge Colby, U.S. Defense Department official, emphasized flexible U.S. troop deployment to deter China.
• U.S. bases in South Korea are strategically close to Beijing, making withdrawal unlikely.
• South Korea’s National Security Office labeled the transfer a “long-term issue” with no current progress.
• Discussions on U.S. troop redeployment caused controversy, delaying further action.
Summary
The transfer of wartime operational control from the U.S. to South Korea remains a contentious issue due to its financial and strategic implications. In 2006, the U.S. prepared for South Korea’s request, presenting a significant cost burden for operational expenses, including satellite surveillance and strategic weapon use. The financial demands, comparable to $10 billion annually, deterred further progress. Additionally, concerns over China’s potential military actions during a North Korean crisis complicated the matter. U.S. officials, including Elbridge Colby, advocate for flexible troop deployment to counter China, emphasizing the strategic importance of U.S. bases in South Korea. Despite ongoing discussions, South Korea’s National Security Office has deemed the transfer a long-term issue with no immediate plans for implementation.
