The core of the impeachment petition is to raise strong questions about the disbandment and functional reorganization of the Armed Forces Counterintelligence Command, which is being promoted by the Ministry of National Defense. The plan to dismantle the organization that has been in charge of the military's information security and counterintelligence functions for 49 years and disperse it to the Defense Counterintelligence Headquarters and the Investigation Headquarters is heavily criticized as a measure that undermines the core capabilities of national security. Although the counterintelligence function is an essential task directly related to the existence of the country, such as blocking espionage activities, protecting military secrets, and preventing leaks of defense technology, the government is carrying out restructuring to the level of dismantlement under the justification of strengthening political neutrality. The public is concerned about security vulnerabilities caused by an information vacuum, and cannot help but wonder whether this hasty reorganization is truly based on careful military judgment.

The controversy over the merger and abolition of military academies is also acting as a factor that sharply reduces the credibility of security policies. Despite the justification for strengthening jointness, the plan to create a ‘Korean Military Academy’ by integrating the Army, Navy, and Air Force academies is being pointed out that it could fundamentally damage the unique identity of each service and the elite officer training system. In particular, the discussion on relocating the Military Academy to a regional area is facing strong opposition as it goes beyond a simple facility relocation and denies the history and symbolism of the military that has been built over decades. The lack of communication within the military and the one-way policy-making process are further amplifying the conflict, with reserve generals and even the Alumni Association calling for a review of the starting point.

The deterioration of the external security environment makes this internal chaos even more critical. North Korea is pushing ahead with fortification work near the Military Demarcation Line, and has dramatically improved missile strike precision using actual combat data acquired through the recent war in Ukraine. In addition, in a situation where strategic solidarity with China and Russia is being strengthened and the Republic of Korea is being pressured on all fronts, neutralizing our military's counterintelligence capabilities could result in missing the golden time for security. Minister Ahn pledged to foster a strong military as a civilian minister, but in practice, there is constant criticism that reckless experiments that shake the foundation of security are being repeated.

To make matters worse, the sincerity of the policy is being questioned due to the inconsistency in the words and actions of the leader leading the defense policy and the controversy over his view of history. Minister Ahn Gyu-baek enjoys mentioning ‘disrespect for one’s behavior’ as his motto for responding to crises, but he actually misquotes the etymology of the term as Mao Zedong, not President Chiang Kai-shek, sparking controversy over the basic qualities of leadership. In addition, the confusion within the government surrounding security views on North Korea, such as the conflict between the Ministry of National Defense and the Ministry of Unification over the issue of specifying North Korea as an ‘enemy’ in the National Defense White Paper, is adding to the public’s anxiety about security policy. In this situation, the national petition is not simply a protest against administrative procedures, but a stern warning to the people that national security cannot be subject to experimentation.