The presidents of the U.S. and the Republic of Korea, in a relatively unproductive summit meeting last week, essentially punted on the issue of who controls South Korea's security during wartime. They reached a vague accord but gave themselves another month to tackle the tough question: When will this happen?

That's not a bad move in this case. Clearly, some distance was needed here, considering the discord that flared over President Roh Moo-hyun's stance that South Korea take over wartime control soon: Even some of his generals say Korea's not ready.

The wartime control of South Korean troops has rested with U.S. commanders since it was handed to the United Nations Command, the military authority led by the U.S., in 1950, just after the Korean War started.

Last week's accord basically masked the gulf separating Roh from the Bush administration, which has been pursuing a defense policy of "strategic flexibility." In short, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been pressing for the right to use American troops in South Korea for military operations elsewhere in Asia. This leaves some officials in Seoul, where the drive toward full South Korean sovereignty has been ongoing for years, feeling uneasy.

So setting a timetable for turning over control won't be easy, and it shouldn't be rushed to resolution in a month.

Reports from the region indicate that some in South Korea would prefer holding off the takeover until 2012; U.S. commanders favor joint exercises that would prepare for the transfer in about three years. The 2009 timetable sounds reasonable, given that the demands on our military forces elsewhere are mounting — and that about 12,500 American military personnel already are set to leave South Korea in 2008, under a previous agreement.

It's going to take some focused diplomatic efforts (and a reality check, on both sides) to advance toward a middle ground that respects South Korea's move toward sovereignty while keeping that part of the Pacific basin secure.