[EDITORIAL]Military in Korea

The year of the presidential election, commonly called "the big election," has dawned, and military-related issues will again be the focus of the campaign, be they strategic questions or the individual service records of candidates or their close kin. At this point, however, we are obliged to warn all presidential hopefuls and their support groups to avoid using the military itself for any political gains.

The manuals of Korean political groups list military issues as the best subject to arouse public sentiment, as witnessed in the two previous presidential elections. In this country which has adopted the universal, mandatory service system since the Korean War, military service is naturally a most sensitive social as well as political subject because virtually every citizen has served in the army or has a family member in uniform.

Military service has been associated with the notion of physical hardship and extended detachment from social opportunities. Exemption for outstanding sports and artistic activities is regarded as a privilege, as is the disqualification from service for physical inferiority. President Roh`s suggestion last month to shorten the period of compulsory military service, therefore, was instantly rebuked as simply a ploy to attract young voters in the forthcoming election.

Ironically, President Roh, who spent three years in the Army as an enlisted man, must feel relatively free to speak frankly about military service compared to his predecessors who were not in the regular army. And, as a former human rights advocate, he must have no great respect for the military brass, who in his eyes, earned their stars or held commanding positions because of their personal connections with military rulers.

The checkered history of our armed forces - spanning from the great sacrifices in the war in which over 200,000 young officers and men were killed, to the politicization of officers through the coups in the 1960s and the late 70s, and the eventual establishment of civilian rule following democratization - allows for neither general disrespect for its present and former members; nor unrestrained eulogizing.

It is not reassuring to watch retired generals and admirals frequently meet and issue statements protesting the incumbent government`s military policies. It is discomforting to see anti-government political groups accept the statements of these old soldiers as actually representing public opinion. As the election draws near, defense issues will be hot topics on the campaign trail, and our young soldiers on the front line cannot but be confused by these conflicting arguments.

In these days of elevated security consciousness following North Korea`s nuclear test, parties and candidates for the highest office should devote their campaign to policy contests on how to improve the ability of the armed forces to deter the threat from the North. Least desirable are debates that may cause a decline of public trust in the military, or any scheme aimed to woo young voters with unrealistic promises of a change in the service system.