Indeed, what Seoul’s defense authorities have shown to the public in the wake of the Aug. 4 incident is a flurry of emotion-laden pledges to “retaliate” and strengthen border defense, which includes resuming loudspeaker propaganda broadcasts and installing camera-equipped drones.

Defense Minister Han Min-koo ordered the military to respond “bravely and unsparingly” if provoked, with his ministry upbraiding the North for violating the Armistice Agreement and vowing to make it “pay dearly” for the blast.

But what seems to be missing in Seoul’s reaction is deep soul-searching regarding the seemingly porous frontline defense that again allowed the unpredictable state to catch Seoul’s defense establishment off guard and launch what could have been a deadly attack.

This discussion, of course, is by far subsequent to nationwide and international condemnation and warning against North Korea, which once again resorted to provocation in violation of the cease-fire treaty, a grave challenge against the stability of the Korean Peninsula.

However, repeated vows of retaliation seem to be routine practice for the South Korean military, which has come under fire for having failed to fend off North Korea’s apparently periodic provocations, including the two deadly attacks in 2010 that killed 48 South Korean troops and two civilians.

Seoul’s harsher rhetoric against Pyongyang could even be seen by critics as a move to divert public attention from its sore spots and circumvent the emerging public criticism that “the better-equipped South once again was dealt a blow by the ill-equipped North.”

What’s fortunate is, of course, that no fatalities occurred, thanks to the South Korean troop who took proper emergency response steps, although the two soldiers suffered indelible physical and mental scars.

Rather than focusing on how to outdo the North in the game of provocation, the South Korean military needs to ask itself fundamental questions: Why has the defense been porous? How can it prevent a recurrence? Has it ever been complacent? Are there other possible ways of future North Korean provocations?

Long embroiled in seemingly ceaseless disputes over defense industry corruption, inter-service rivalries and animosities “among friendly forces,” which stem from abuses in the barracks, the military should really think about how it can reinforce itself -- and do so strongly enough to deter the evolving North Korean provocations.

As the Seoul government dealt with the land mine incident, it has also revealed what appears to be a lack of inter-agency coordination.

The land mine explosions took place last Tuesday. A day later, Seoul’s Unification Ministry proposed working-level government talks with the North to discuss a range of pending issues. All the while, the investigation was ongoing to determine whether the North was to blame for the incident.

Seoul officials said that the dialogue proposal was made as nothing had been determined of the explosion at the time. But critics argue that it illustrates a lack of coordination between the ministries of defense and unification, though Seoul may want to say it was a case of a two-track approach employing dialogue and a stern response to the North’s provocations and nuclear development.

The most crucial virtues for a country’s external policy, particularly when dealing with an unpredictable partner, should be caution and prudence, as international relations pundits routinely say. These virtues should not be missing in the implementation of Seoul’s policy toward Pyongyang.

By Song Sang-ho (sshluck@heraldcorp.com)