Putting Muscle into NGO Operations: Time to Raise Private Armies?

I read somewhere awhile back that the CEO of Blackwater, Inc. stated at a recent SOF convention that his company is capable of fielding a brigade-sized force to Darfur for just this purpose.

The French had it right -- the French Foreign Legion -- non-French men, under French officers to do the dirty work in the colonies. (I believe the Belgians also had such a force)

No Geneva convention, no torture concern, just a group of professional soldiers doing a nasty job, and damn poltical correctness.

If he could get the letters from Congress, I'd send some cash to donate to the cause.

I've long wondered why it wasn't done, and if it can be done, I'd volunteer some support, even if it is to Clooney's Marauders.

here here Jim. In fact, I think the idea of an American Foreign Legion is worthy of a post.

Workable (read: legal) if Clooney could get the Sudanese gov’t to authorize the intervention as an effort to repel an insurgency (a’la Sandline in Sierra Leone or was it Papua New Guinea?). Of course, the gov’t provides support to the primary evil doers in the region, so good luck with that . . . Otherwise they’re “mercs” per international convention and subject to all kinds of issues.

On the other hand, it is hard to argue with success and recent history has shown that a competent PMC force tends to clean the floor of most rebel groups.

Once they won, then what? What would be the exit strategy be? Secured borders? X # of Janjaweed heads? Rich actors alone aren’t going to fund a 10 year occupation.

All good points, many thanks. One of my intents was to point out the hard decisions that need to be made when someone pleads for "something to be done!" in [fill in the blank]. That being said, my modest proposal is 100 percent serious, and not at all a, "So why don't you do something, George, if you're so smart??" I'd like to see a solution.

heh, and btw...I'm POSITIVE George Clooney reads OPFOR.

How could he not?

1. I thought letters of marque were outlawed in some treaty?

2. Didn't I hear some report on NPR a couple of months ago of someone who tried to do this? The people at Blackwater and Executive Outcomes were very interested, but the USG had "a few" issues over it. Wish I could find that link.

Private forces may not be the answer here, but how about just dumping a couple hundred million dollars worth of military material to the Sudanese Liberation Army and letting them drive to Khartoum? Seriously, you can buy surplussed M113's for 50 gees if you can get the permits. M60 tanks will set you back a couple hundred thousand, and obviously there's a worldwide supply glut in RPGs and AKs.

LtColP, I think executive outcomes tried to take over a small African country. I am not sure about the full story, but it involves an oil rich country, P.M. Thatchers son, South Africa and a bunch of blackwater type guys. It's almost a "lee murray" type story from what I have read.

I agree a group like Executive Outcomes could do a great job in the Sudan. Their problem was they were too successful and the company was forced to dissolve in 1998 after the South African government under pressure from the U.N and Clinton administration passed the Regulation of Foreign Military Assistance Act. What most folks don’t know is EO was founded by former SADF Lt Col Eeben Barlow and most of his employess originated form the elite 32 Battalion Reconnaissance Wing.
These guys were a far cry from the traditional mercanry armies of Mike Hoare and Bob Denard. As for Mark Thatcher, his involvment was with some of the former EO leadership team. These included Simon Mann ( Ex Soct guards and SAS ) and Tony Buckingham who were arrested in Zimbawe in early 2004 during a flight stop over for allegedly attempting to smuggle weapons for a coup in Equatorail Guinea. Thatcher was one of the money men and pled out with a huge fine and I believe a 4 year suspended sentence in Cape Town.

William Scharf,
You made a good point about buying surplussed M113’s and M60 Tanks. But what about maintenance of such vehicles, training of the troops, and effective leadership? The PLO were given weapons and vehicles back when they were in Lebanon and they got crushed.
Michael,
Chad and Sudan have had their spats; they are still in a state war correct? I wonder if Chad forces could request such forces and that would provide them legal overhead?
An interesting topic, Kudos to Lt Col P

Oddly enough, I saw a similar proposal (though in a more whimsical manner) in Col Kratman's corner of the Baens bar Web Board.

He suggested "Onward Christian Soldiers" as an NGO dedicated to financing and training the Christian minority being stamped out in Darfur.

Oh, you guys are just gonna _love_ A Desert Called Peace. ;)

Hi Lt Col P,

It was suggested I visit your site and take a look at the comments re Executive Outcomes and Darfur.

However, I’d like to just set the record straight:

1. I was the founder of EO in 1989 and its chairman when I retired in 1997. Simon Mann and Tony Buckingham were never part of the company.
2. Contrary to what one of your previous visitors claimed, EO never tried to take over any country. We were always invited by the governments to assist them. We responded to some of those calls but not to all of them.
3. EO never closed down due to any government law. EO was involved in the drafting of the law as there were so many jerks trying to pass themselves off as EO. In fact, EO had – and still has, despite the company being dormant – a government licence to operate.

That said, Darfur is just one of the many places where chaos reigns and allows the UN-planners to justify their salaries by calling for ‘peace’ and ‘peacekeepers’. How on earth can peace be kept when it doesn’t even exist?

As in all wars being fought, decisions need to be taken. Sometimes those decisions need to be tough ones that call for drastic action. Unfortunately, by colouring a war as ‘religious’ is not an answer. Good and bad is found in all religions. However, those that use war to further their religious – or other beliefs, need to be studied very carefully in order to counter them.

The difference between EO and the UN – at the time we were operating – had to do with efficiency and in particular cost efficiency and the application of manpower at the correct time and space. Angola, Sierra Leone and Irian Jaya are points in case. EO was expected to yield results within a certain time at a certain cost to enable the governments to govern in an atmosphere of relative stability. The UN and their so-called peacekeepers don’t have this restriction imposed on them. The end result: the longer they are there, the more money is made.

Further to that, sound planning based on a well-defined strategy and complimented with good tactics will allow one to end these wars that are tearing Africa apart. However, one also needs to take a deep long look at who is really behind these wars.

From experience, I can assure you that EO was more than just a threat to those enemies of governments we were called on to help. We became a threat to those people in South Africa who felt we needed to be stopped in order for them to:

• Establish their own similar companies
• Continue with their illegal activities without EO being there to stop them.

Of course, the South African media played its faithful role in vilifying EO and presenting disinformation on the company as fact. This was picked up by the foreign media and made its way back to SA as blow-back, thus confirming their original lies.

As long as the UN and others sit back and twiddle their thumbs, these wars will continue. The danger becomes even more when these wars spill over into other areas and containment strategies become even more problematic. This then becomes a threat to all of us – including those ‘peacekeeping specialists’ at the UN.

Regards,

EB