Implications of US Army’s structural transformation for Seoul

The U.S. Army issued a white paper titled “Army Force Structure Transformation” on Feb. 27. The transformation reflects the systemic changes in the security environment in the world and in Northeast Asia over the past two decades. At the same time, the transformation is to have a significant impact on the security cooperation between the Republic of Korea and the United States.

Let me highlight some outstanding points in the white paper.

The report repeatedly emphasizes that the transformation is called for so that the U.S. can effectively conduct large-scale combat against technologically advanced military powers. After the end of the Cold War, in particular, after Sept. 11 when the U.S. fought wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. Army’s structure has been transformed to conduct counter-insurgency and counter-terrorist operations more effectively.

Today, in the U.S.’s assessment, more imminent threats to national security are posed by technologically advanced military powers. Now, the U.S. Army’s structure must be refocused on conducting large-scale combat operations. The report then lists and elaborates the transformations the U.S. Army intends to make.

One of the most significant new structural additions is to complete the buildout of the Army’s Multi-Domain Task Forces (MDTFs). The U.S. military has long recognized the necessity of multi domain operations in view of the fact that the spatial scope of modern warfare surpasses land, sea and air and extends to cyberspace and space. The U.S. launched its Cyber Command in 2010 and re-launched its Space Command in 2019.

The MDTFs are being formed at the brigade level and optimized to effectively fight modern warfare. They will consist of, among others, a multi-domain effects battalion, a long-range fire battalion and an indirect fire protection capability (IFPC) battalion.

These battalions will work to conduct intelligence gathering and synchronization, deliver non-kinetic space and cyber effects to shape operations, and deliver long-range firing in support of joint force maneuvers. The long-range weapons will range from the M142 HIMARS with a range of 500 kilometers to hypersonic missiles with more than 2,500-kilometer range. The IFPC battalion will provide mobile, ground-based protection to defeat cruise missiles, unmanned aircraft systems, rockets, artillery and mortars. The importance of IFPC capability became all the more apparent in the wake of the Ukrainian war.

Three task forces will be assigned to the U.S. Army Pacific.

One will be assigned to the U.S. Army Europe-Africa, and another will likely focus on the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility. Significant investments in the force structure supporting multi-domain effects, long-range fire and indirect fire protection capability in particular will be made at the corps and division levels as well.

What are then the implications of this transformation for security cooperation between South Korea and the U.S.? The U.S. national security strategy was changed significantly through the 2002 U.S. National Security Strategy report. That change was eventually reflected in the U.S. Global Posture Review and brought about important changes in security cooperation between South Korea and the U.S., such as the redeployment of U.S. troops in the South, the Yongsan Relocation Plan and the construction of Camp Humphreys, updated strategic flexibility for U.S. troops stationed in South Korea and the transfer of responsibility to the South Korean military.

The U.S. national security strategy underwent another important change through the 2017 U.S. National Security Strategy report.

The current U.S. Army Force Structure Transformation is conducted in line with that change. As we experienced in the early 2000s, the ongoing transformation will, in turn, impact the security cooperation between South Korea and the U.S. As an example, the white paper states the inactivation of legacy formations, including cavalry squadrons in continental U.S.-based Stryker brigade combat teams. They are, in fact, deployed in Korea on a rotational basis.

Seoul needs to heed the implications of these transformations and proactively respond to these changes.

For that, Korea will have to start with a rigorous assessment of its security needs and force structure. The U.S. white paper explains that the U.S. arrived at the above decisions through such assessments using a process known as Total Army Analysis. Over the past two decades, on top of the changes in the security environment in the world and in Northeast Asia, significant changes have taken place on the Korean Peninsula as well. With respect to North Korea’s nuclear capability alone, it conducted nuclear testing no less than six times, now alleging that it succeeded in testing a hydrogen bomb.

In the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the cooperation between Russia and North Korea has evolved to an unprecedentedly high level, with Russia providing oil, materials and diplomatic support to North Korea, quite possibly even weapons of mass destruction technologies. In comparison with the early 2000s, these are highly ominous developments on and around the Korean peninsula. They call for Seoul’s proactive response.

The importance of IFPC capability became all the more apparent after the

Ukrainian war.