The integrated model being envisioned by the Ministry of National Defense is the so-called '2+2 network type' structure, in which cadets receive integrated education at the Armed Forces Academy in their first and second years, and are divided into each military academy in their third and fourth years to take in-depth major courses. The government claims that through this, it will be able to break down the selfishness of each military branch and increase jointness, while also allocating education resources more efficiently and saving budget. However, the Military Alumni Association and reserve generals are expressing strong doubts about this blueprint, saying it is a hasty administration that overlooks the essence of military education. It is pointed out that forcing uniform integrated education at a time when each service must establish its unique identity and build expertise from the time of entry-level officers has a high risk of castrating the uniqueness of each service and weakening the foundation of the military organization.

In particular, there is strong criticism regarding the procedural legitimacy of this policy. The Korea Military Academy Alumni Association criticizes the fact that the Ministry of National Defense has already formed a task force and made integration a fait accompli before the results of the research service from the Korea Institute for Defense Analyzes (KIDA) have even been released, which is clearly a hasty move. Parents of active-duty cadets also complain that policies decided unilaterally without sufficient communication with the parties involved are only instilling in cadets a sense of defeat and anxiety about the future. In fact, Park Pan-jun, president of the Korea Military Academy Alumni Association, pointed out the policy implementation that ignored procedures and expressed a strong stance that he would even file a claim for damages in the future. The field of security should not be a testing ground for political achievements, and the principle that all policy-making processes must be transparent and objectively verified is missing.

The issue of the military relocation to regional areas is also at the core of the controversy. As speculation grows that the Taereung site in Seoul will be relocated to Sangmu University in Jangseong-gun, Jeollanam-do, alumni associations and security experts are raising concerns. Taereung is not just an educational facility, but a cradle of national defense with a history of participation in the Korean War, and is evaluated as an optimal location to enjoy the metropolitan area's excellent educational infrastructure and industry-academia cooperation environment. The prevailing analysis is that if the cadets move to a regional area, it will become difficult to secure excellent faculty and the opportunities for various academic and military exchanges available to cadets will be significantly reduced. There is constant criticism that turning a symbolic space of national security into an apartment complex according to development logic is a long-term national loss.

The backlash from the political world is also strong. People Power Party lawmakers are holding a one-person protest in front of the Ministry of National Defense, defining this policy as an "act of self-harm to security" and calling for an immediate stop. In a joint statement, 13 former Army Chiefs of Staff also emphasized that in-depth verification by experts and the formation of national consensus must come first. The Ministry of National Defense is currently not officially using the term 'consolidation' and is giving a general answer that it is preparing to create a prestigious educational institution to train future elite officers. However, in a situation where cadets and military members who are direct stakeholders in the policy are not convinced of the validity of the policy, the government's unilateral push-back approach is likely to only lead to greater social conflict and division within the military.