South Korea, U.S. weigh flexibility in security roles

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Nov. 4, after the South Korea–U.S. Security Consultative Meeting, that the United States has a clear commitment to defend South Korea, adding, “At the same time, we need to enhance flexibility to respond to other contingencies in the region.” His remarks called for coordination between the two countries to expand the strategic flexibility of U.S. Forces Korea.

The two allies are said to have agreed in the Security Consultative Meeting joint statement, to be released soon, to accelerate efforts toward the transfer of wartime operational control, or OPCON. During the previous day’s meeting of the South Korean and U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, the two sides reportedly assessed that meaningful progress had been made on OPCON transfer and shared the view that the alliance contributes to deterrence not only on the Korean Peninsula but also across the region.

This year’s Security Consultative Meeting allowed both sides to discuss their defense objectives, strategies and plans in concrete terms, based on the "alliance modernization” agreed upon at the two previous South Korea–U.S. summits. It was also an opportunity to align the United States’ new National Defense Strategy for the second Trump administration with South Korea’s new defense policy direction.

As a result, South Korea is expected to take the lead in conventional defense against North Korea by strengthening its own military capabilities and expediting OPCON transfer, while the United States maintains extended deterrence against North Korea’s nuclear threat and adjusts the role of U.S. Forces Korea as part of its broader strategy to counter China.

However, the specific pace of alliance modernization and the roadmap for sharing roles have been left to “effective coordination through frank dialogue between the two countries.” Even as both sides emphasize their “ironclad” and “model” alliance, differences are inevitable due to their distinct geopolitical positions and capabilities. In particular, once OPCON is transferred to South Korean control and the role of U.S. Forces Korea is adjusted, concerns could arise that the move might amount to a de facto withdrawal of U.S. troops. Such perceptions could easily create friction within the alliance.

The true strength of an alliance lies in finding a balanced point of mutual understanding through adjustment and respect for each country’s circumstances. Rather than hastily setting an unrealistic timetable for OPCON transfer, South Korea and the United States should steadily fulfill the agreed-upon conditions. At the same time, as the role of U.S. Forces Korea expands, it is crucial to establish safeguards through sufficient consultation to ensure that South Korea is not drawn into regional conflicts against its will.