The South Korean military has participated in US-led wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Through these deployments, Korea suffered significant troop casualties and other collateral damage, while gaining material benefits as well as Washington's confidence. The question now is whether Seoul will send military forces to support the US-Israeli war with Iran.
US President Donald Trump has repeatedly asked Seoul to join US operations there in return for continued US security commitments to Korea. Korean officials are now hinting at some form of participation, although it remains unclear what that would look like.
The issue may ultimately come down to whether the United States demands a combat-capable deployment. If the request involves dispatching troops who could be drawn into battle, the answer should be an unequivocal no.
What the Korean government could consider is limited participation in search-and-rescue operations or efforts to protect freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. Because Korea depends heavily on the flow of oil and gas through the strait, Seoul has both practical and diplomatic reasons to help secure the waterway.
Even limited participation, however, could carry serious risks.
Escorting or protecting Korean-flagged or Korean-chartered vessels with a Korean naval ship may initially appear relatively safe. But the mission could quickly escalate if Iranian forces launch an attack. In that case, what would the rules of engagement be? Should the Korean Navy immediately retaliate with comparable force, or avoid confrontation? The same dilemma could arise during a seemingly routine mine-clearing operation in the waterway. Civilian evacuations and other humanitarian efforts could likewise face military provocations from Iran. If Korean forces operated under US command, the risks would become even greater.
For all these reasons, sending military resources — even noncombat forces — to the region could impose a heavy burden on Seoul.
The government would first have to convince a skeptical public that such a deployment was necessary. Trump is increasingly portraying the issue as a test of the South Korea-US military alliance. He argues that Seoul has an obligation to repay Washington for stationing 28,500 US troops in Korea. Trump has also linked the issue to other bilateral matters, particularly the ongoing tariff negotiations that are critical to Korean exporters. The Korean government would therefore have to persuade both the public and the National Assembly that limited support for the US war in Iran is necessary to protect Korea's economic and security interests.
Public consent is especially important given Korea's controversial participation in previous US-led wars.
During the height of the Cold War in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Korea sent as many as 325,000 soldiers to Vietnam to fight alongside US forces. It was the largest foreign troop deployment there after that of the United States. President Park Chung-hee made the bold decision to demonstrate Korea's loyalty to the bilateral alliance. Through the deployment, Korean companies benefited significantly from procurement and construction contracts, earning as much as $5 billion and helping drive Korea's economic development. The Korean military also gained valuable combat experience, while the bilateral alliance was further strengthened through joint field operations.
Yet the costs of the deployment were also enormous. More than 5,000 Korean soldiers were killed and 11,200 wounded during the war.
Reports of civilian massacres by Korean troops tarnished Korea's image as a peace-loving nation. Although Vietnam has since become a close trading partner of Korea, memories of brutal and tragic front-line battles, along with calls for compensation, continue to cast a shadow over bilateral relations. Domestically, the deployment further solidified Park's authoritarian grip on power, paving the way for his prolonged dictatorship.
More recently, Korea's participation in the US war in Iraq in 2004 also sparked controversy. Although the deployment was limited, it produced several negative repercussions.
Korea sent approximately 3,600 soldiers, and the Zaytun Division operated in noncombat fields such as reconstruction, medical assistance and engineering. Nevertheless, the deployment provoked retaliation from Iraqi militants.
One Korean aid worker was killed, and Korean soldiers were repeatedly exposed to threats. More importantly, the deployment was criticized both at home and abroad because the Iraq War lacked clear legal legitimacy. The US invaded Iraq without UN authorization after failing to present a convincing case for the intervention. Korean public opinion was deeply divided over whether to send troops.
This time, a similar degree of division and debate is likely to surround Korea's possible participation in the Iran war.
On the one hand, conservatives will call for a greater contribution to US operations as proof of Korea's commitment to the alliance. After all, they will argue, the United States lost more than 36,000 service members while helping Korea during the Korean War. Because Korea depends heavily on the Strait of Hormuz, as well as on US trade and tariff policies, they will maintain that Seoul should help the United States win the war at almost any cost.
On the other hand, liberals in Korea are generally critical of the US war in Iran, viewing it as an unjust conflict aimed at controlling global energy supplies while assisting its increasingly belligerent ally, Israel. More importantly, many progressives in Korea are dissatisfied with Trump's unilateral and predatory foreign policy.
As a member of the same liberal camp, President Lee Jae Myung would face the daunting task of persuading these critics if he decided to send military assets to Iran.
- - -
Lee Byung-jong
Lee Byung-jong is a former Seoul correspondent for Newsweek, The Associated Press and Bloomberg News. He is a professor at the School of Global Service at Sookmyung Women’s University in Seoul. The views expressed here are the writer’s own. -- Ed.
khnews@heraldcorp.com
