Rolling Great Lakes region thread

A story in which the Hutu victims of the Rwandese AF were perpetrators of the genocide in Rwanda is a more morally acceptable version if you want an excuse to not do anything about it. I mean, that makes moral sense, doesn't it? The Tutsi were persecuted terribly, then chased those responsible out of Rwanda and then engaged them in some limited military operations a couple of years down the line in order to ensure the stability / security of the Rwandese state, and in any case, the Hutu's pretty much deserved it. So it seems more like the international community wanted a clear cut story where there was an obvious agressor (Hutu Interahamwe), an obvious victim (the Tutsi, led by Kagame), and thus military operations to defeat the agressor fit into an easy to understand narrative and were just. But sadly it didn't bear any relation to the messy realities on the ground.

An “African Marshall Plan” for DR Congo
The Strange Case of Laurent Nkunda
Gacaca’s End and Its Legacy
Sweden Decides to Extradite . . . And Then Changes Its Mind
Should Mere Presence in the Forum State Be Enough to Trigger Universal Jurisdiction?
The UK’s Genocide Law Amendment Proposal

-- Gregory Gordon, Opinio Juris

vimothy said:

Per Odom, this (which I didn't even notice reading) seems totally unbelievable:

Click to expand...

On government-sanctioned operations such as the Croatian offensive in the Kajina, they use what is known as “first-echelon people (i.e., former U.S. army personnel with honorable discharges). For the “black operations” (i.e., covert operations about which Congress is kept in the dark) they use second-echelon men who are also former GIs with shady records of drug offenses, theft, or sexual offenses. These men are contacted indirectly, through ‘friendly’ private companies, and can include foreigners.

Click to expand...

Mr BoShambles said:

Agreed -- and you wouldn't remember reading it unless you fastidiously refer to all footnotes.

Click to expand...

What part of this allegation do you think is 'totally unbelievable' and why?

That mercenaries with less than unblemished records were / are used in dubious covert operations? Does anyone else think this is 'totally unbelievable'?

It actually seems a rather unsurprising claim in the broader scheme of things. Is this just something you would rather not believe because it doesn't fit your preferred 'narratives'?

massrock said:

It actually seems a rather unsurprising claim in the broader scheme of things. Is this just something you would rather not believe because it doesn't fit your preferred 'narratives'?

Click to expand...

not at all. it's cause - if you've read the book - he offers it up w/zero proof. the idea that retired American generals are running a secret mercenary company out of L.A. that recruits vets w/felonies to go to The Congo isn't, I guess, impossible, but it does sound like the plotline of a Lethal Weapon movie. if he had anything even half-solid to base this on - there's even a bit where he scornfully says "American officials are still denying it to me" as if that somehow makes it true - then it might be more believable. also I'm not sure why it needs to be so secret, which adds to the air of unreality. there are all kinds of legal ways to employ dubious mercenaries these days as "security contractors" or whatever. did you ever think that maybe you find it easy to believe b/c it fits your preferred narrative?

he also makes several other wild, unfounded claims, as noted above. the one that really got me was his claim about RPA or RCD-G death squads that carried around small hammers to break the skulls of babies. I mean, alright, again it's not impossible but that's not the kind of sensationalist claim you can just toss around w/o any evidence. esp. w/Africa where Westerners are always ready to be shocked & horrified at the prospect of savages practicing cannibalism or whatever.

it's a shame really b/c 95%+ of the book is great, the analysis is top rate, clearly the man is an expert & one who cares deeply about what he's writing about. & to his credit - & also as noted above - he's mostly pretty even-handed. he has a lot of problems, including personal ones, w/the Kigali regime & specifically the RPA clique around Kagame, but it's very clear that it's not b/c he's generally pro-Hutu/anti-Tutsi. & tho he generally comes across very bitter he also seems to have a special bitterness against the Americans. which, alright, so do a lot of people & often for good reason, but it does make some of his wilder claims about us a bit hard to swallow.

It may or may not be true and there may or may not be evidence provided but I don't see how it's 'totally unbelievable'.

It says nothing there about 'secret' mercenary companies. There are numerous such operations and governments including the US government regularly contract out work to these firms, sometimes openly, sometimes less so. What do ex army people do when they want to make more money than they can in the state military? What do ex army people with dubious records have available to them as work? Is it really in any way unlikely that private mercenary firms sometimes when it suits their purposes hire people with questionable records?

It may be an unnecessary dramatic detail but I don't see how it's so 'totally unbelievable'. I think that's curious, as if it's something people just don't want to believe could be true for whatever reason.

massrock said:

It says nothing there about 'secret' mercenary companies. There are numerous such operations and governments including the US government regularly contract out work to these firms, sometimes openly, sometimes less so. What do ex army people do when they want to make more money than they can in the state military? What do ex army people with dubious records have available to them as work? Is it really in any way unlikely that private mercenary firms sometimes when it suits their purposes hire people with questionable records?

Click to expand...

look man - did you read the book? cos w/o doing so I'm not sure you understand the context. (of course, there I am up the page doing the same thing, but still) no one is disputing the existence of mercenaries, their use by numerous govts including the U.S. govt, that veterans looking to make more $ work (& are recruited as) mercenaries. Prunier claims that black American vets were privately recruited by a mercenary company run by "retired U.S. top bass" for an "unofficial government mission" (it's never made clear what the mission is, exactly). this is not OIF vets getting discharged & re-enlisting w/Blackwater. the issue isn't the lax background checks or questionable hiring practices of mercenary companies. what would the point be, in the first place, of a U.S. "black op" sending 60 African-American mercenaries w/shady criminal records to the Congo? that, coupled w/Prunier's tendency to make outrageous claims on little or no evidence, is the issue - it's the specific claim, not the general idea that elements of the U.S. govt would tacitly support mercenaries in an African conflict.

tbc - I've no idea whether this actually happened or not. what I mostly object to is your would-be truth to power bit about how the only reason we find it dubious is b/c it doesn't fit our "narrative". which is esp. ironic given the contempt that Prunier clearly holds for Western narratives (including leftist narratives) about Africa.

padraig (u.s.) said:

there's even a bit where he scornfully says "American officials are still denying it to me" as if that somehow makes it true

Click to expand...

Or he says that because he knows with some certainty to be true. Of course just claiming it to be so means nothing.

padraig (u.s.) said:

also I'm not sure why it needs to be so secret, which adds to the air of unreality. there are all kinds of legal ways to employ dubious mercenaries these days as "security contractors" or whatever.

Click to expand...

Well we agree, kind of.

But which aspect of it is supposedly 'secret'? Presumably there are two reasons why this would be 'officially denied'. One is that covert ops are supposed to be, you know, covert. But the other reason, if the allegation is at all true, would be that it is actually not legal, or at least not in line with stated guidelines, to hire personnel with such records for these jobs, whether you call them security contractors or not.

padraig (u.s.) said:

did you ever think that maybe you find it easy to believe b/c it fits your preferred narrative?

Click to expand...

Nuts to your loaded question. And I'm not the one who brought up narratives, I mention it because the notion of 'narratives' is invoked up thread.

The allegation was described as 'totally unbelievable', that's what I disagree with. To claim that something is 'totally unbelievable' is to hold to a favoured narrative that must by its nature utterly exclude the possibility of what is claimed being true. I'm not trying to map that suggestion onto a narrative, and I don't have a political reason for thinking or wanting to think that it's true or untrue, as I said - I have no way of knowing, but I don't think the claim is so wild as to be 'totally unbelievable'. You accept yourself that such things essentially do go on!

I think it's quite simple - do you think the allegation is literally 'totally unbelievable'?

padraig (u.s.) said:

ltbc - I've no idea whether this actually happened or not. what I mostly object to is your would-be truth to power bit about how the only reason we find it dubious is b/c it doesn't fit our "narrative". which is esp. ironic given the contempt that Prunier clearly holds for Western narratives (including leftist narratives) about Africa.

Click to expand...

Would be truth-to-power? What are you talking about? I'll speak truth to whoever if I want, if that's what's necessary. But I don't see any power here to speak truth to. I asked rhetorically if it was about preferred 'narratives', a notion I did not introduce into this discussion, it's a reference to a few posts up, to a reply to something Mr. Tea said. And what's this 'we', 'our' shit? Are you a part of some hive mind now or something?

Man, your defensiveness, especially when it wasn't your statement I was addressing, is weird.

massrock said:

It actually seems a rather unsurprising claim in the broader scheme of things. Is this just something you would rather not believe because it doesn't fit your preferred 'narratives'?

Click to expand...

Definitely this.

massrock said:

What part of this allegation do you think is 'totally unbelievable' and why?

That mercenaries with less than unblemished records were / are used in dubious covert operations? Does anyone else think this is 'totally unbelievable'?

It actually seems a rather unsurprising claim in the broader scheme of things. Is this just something you would rather not believe because it doesn't fit your preferred 'narratives'?

Click to expand...

The bit I find unbelievable is the bit about the US government deliberately recruiting a unit of criminal vets to go and undertake covert and highly sensitive operations away from the glare of congress. You say, "What do ex army people with dubious records have available to them as work?" I say, they probably go on the dole (US equivalent, whatevs). Prunier says, actually they get recruited back into the AF that spat them out, and entrusted with the most serious and delicate special operations that exist, when they're not running the CIA -- the men of the legendary "second echelon". Ha!

But answer me this: what is this "broader scheme of things" in which this claim, ostensibly rather strange, is unsurprising? A world in which military and civilian high command don't realise that they could hire people without criminal records? A world in which special operations forces and civilian intelligence agencies just won't do, we need a drug-addicted retired former marine sergeant, godverdome?! Maybe I just haven’t seen enough movies.

well, predictably enough Vim's answer puts mine to shame. this made me laugh:

vimothy said:

A world in which military and civilian high command don't realise that they could hire people without criminal records? A world in which special operations forces and civilian intelligence agencies just won't do, we need a drug-addicted retired former marine sergeant, godverdome?! Maybe I just haven’t seen enough movies.

Click to expand...

what I don't get is - even if this was an illicit thing why would anyone want to entrust something so delicate to a bunch of junkies/rapists/etc? to entrust something so delicate to these guys who are, by definition, totally unreliable? especially as the U.S. could just sell weapons & equipment to its preferred side, or bring its diplomatic weight to bear (both of which it did, if in a confused & sometimes contradictory fashion), any # of things that make far more sense than hiring 60 random felons off the street to go wander around in the vastness of the Eastern Congo & shoot at people.

it does sound like a totally sweet movie tho - Taye Diggs, Omar Epps, Chiwetel Ejiofor. Djimon Hounsou of course. maybe Wesley Snipes can get some work, clear up all those tax problems. tall dude from the Wire can play Paul Kagame. there'll have to be a white protagonist of course so white people will lay down their $ to see it, maybe DiCaprio can turn up as another Rhodesian mercenary with a heart of gold.

vimothy said:

The bit I find unbelievable is the bit about the US government deliberately recruiting a unit of criminal vets to go and undertake covert and highly sensitive operations away from the glare of congress. You say, "What do ex army people with dubious records have available to them as work?" I say, they probably go on the dole (US equivalent, whatevs). Prunier says, actually they get recruited back into the AF that spat them out, and entrusted with the most serious and delicate special operations that exist, when they're not running the CIA -- the men of the legendary "second echelon". Ha!

But answer me this: what is this "broader scheme of things" in which this claim, ostensibly rather strange, is unsurprising? A world in which military and civilian high command don't realise that they could hire people without criminal records? A world in which special operations forces and civilian intelligence agencies just won't do, we need a drug-addicted retired former marine sergeant, godverdome?! Maybe I just haven’t seen enough movies.

Click to expand...

padraig (u.s.) said:

what I don't get is - even if this was an illicit thing why would anyone want to entrust something so delicate to a bunch of junkies/rapists/etc? to entrust something so delicate to these guys who are, by definition, totally unreliable? especially as the U.S. could just sell weapons & equipment to its preferred side, or bring its diplomatic weight to bear (both of which it did, if in a confused & sometimes contradictory fashion), any # of things that make far more sense than hiring 60 random felons off the street to go wander around in the vastness of the Eastern Congo & shoot at people.

it does sound like a totally sweet movie tho - Taye Diggs, Omar Epps, Chiwetel Ejiofor. Djimon Hounsou of course. maybe Wesley Snipes can get some work, clear up all those tax problems. tall dude from the Wire can play Paul Kagame. there'll have to be a white protagonist of course so white people will lay down their $ to see it, maybe DiCaprio can turn up as another Rhodesian mercenary with a heart of gold.

Click to expand...

perhaps not all of the US missions in Congo are of a "sensitive" or "delicate" nature? perhaps some of them require not caution or care, but ruthlessness and brutality?

perhaps these hired guns are not exactly "drug addicts" and "felons off the street", but rather highly competent ex-military personnel who were court martialed for illegal conduct? (exactly the kind of men who would not be hindered by any sort of moral qualms in doing whatever it takes to achieve goals in the unrestrained chaos of the Congo.)

after reading accounts of female soldiers being gang raped and tortured by members of their own platoon, after abu ghraib... i tend to think nothing is "totally unbelievable" when it comes to US military action on foreign soil, let alone secretive and covert action.

Hillary Clinton in Goma demanding some accountability for sexual violence by men with guns. which, 100% laudable of course, tho can't help but feel it's pissing into the wind absent any serious addressing of the enormous & tangled root causes of the conflicts which have dissolved social order & facilitated mass sexual assault in the first place. here's the transcript of an interview she did w/Radio Okapi which touches on, among other things, Chinese projects in the Congo. more on which here (this one really worth reading), Chinese picking up some great deals on copper & cobalt in return for building infrastructure. tho hey, if the West can't/won't do it...

&, of course, the really important news - Bill Clinton's shadow darkens Hillary's mood in the Congo. FFS.

vimothy said:

You say, "What do ex army people with dubious records have available to them as work?" I say, they probably go on the dole (US equivalent, whatevs).

Click to expand...

Well yes, precisely.

vimothy said:

Prunier says, actually they get recruited back into the AF that spat them out, and entrusted with the most serious and delicate special operations that exist, when they're not running the CIA -- the men of the legendary "second echelon". Ha!

Click to expand...

Who's running the CIA? What I read there suggests this would be hiring ex soldiers for operations that are off the record. Training is a huge investment to waste, after all.

zhao said:

perhaps these hired guns are not exactly "drug addicts" and "felons off the street", but rather highly competent ex-military personnel who were court martialed for illegal conduct?

Click to expand...

That is what the quote from the book actually says, at least.

former GIs with shady records of drug offenses, theft, or sexual offenses.

Click to expand...

Trained soldiers out on dishonorable discharges for one reason or another. Not randoms off the street.

zhao said:

perhaps not all of the US missions in Congo are of a "sensitive" or "delicate" nature? perhaps some of them require not caution or care, but ruthlessness and brutality?

Click to expand...

Indeed. And perhaps the detail that the alleged recruits were specifically African American is not entirely insignificant either. But again, who knows. Would Odom necessarily? Is he an impartial commentator?

padraig (u.s.) said:

especially as the U.S. could just sell weapons & equipment to its preferred side

Click to expand...

Possibly that's what they were doing? Troops are weapons too.

massrock said:

Who's running the CIA? What I read there suggests this would be hiring ex soldiers for operations that are off the record. Training is a huge investment to waste, after all.

Click to expand...

Hiring mercenaries who have served in the US military might indeed make sense in a variety of contexts. But specifically seeking out those who have a criminal record / are the least professional? And making them into a dedicated unit? And giving them the most sensitive missions? I don't think so. And if you follow Prunier's logic, why aren't the criminal former soldiers running the CIA, since they are apparently so well suited to covert operations?

I just don't find it believable. It sounds like a bit of speculative titillation.

2 things. the more important one first:

zhao said:

after reading accounts of female soldiers being gang raped and tortured by members of their own platoon, after abu ghraib... i tend to think nothing is "totally unbelievable" when it comes to US military action on foreign soil, let alone secretive and covert action.

Click to expand...

do you have any experience, however remote, with the military, soldiers, veterans, anything? if you don't, that would make you like most Americans (if you consider yourself an American, which tbf you may not). I reckon this to be a massive problem in this country - the ever growing disconnect between its civilian populace & its volunteer military, which leads judgments like this being passed by people who've no idea what they're talking about. the U.S. military these days has much higher standards & a hell of a lot more accountability than most of the people it's supposed to be fighting & dying for. that's not to say that American soldiers haven't done plenty of messed up stuff (& war is after all a very unpleasant business), but painting that as the rule rather than the exception is the grossest distortion.

aside - laying shit like Abu Ghraib solely at the military's feet is 100% ass backwards. tbs it was fucked & handled terribly after the fact but really, like most things, you're talking about policy, official & otherwise. which the military doesn't make. I don't like most of the policy any more than you do, but blaming Lynndie England or whoever is like blaming the kid on the corner slinging dime bags for America's drug problems.

zhao said:

perhaps not all of the US missions in Congo are of a "sensitive" or "delicate" nature? perhaps some of them require not caution or care, but ruthlessness and brutality?

Click to expand...

sensitive/delicate = not getting caught, not delicate like a tea party. Special Forces/intelligence people w/clean records can be plenty ruthless when they need to be, w/the added advantage of being competent, reliable, not apt to, yunno, wander off & get high. oh yes & they're accountable to someone. anyway, "US missions in the Congo" is exactly what's in doubt - what were these missions? what was their goal? Prunier doesn't offer up any explanations, I suspect b/c he can't, b/c there were no missions. but I may be wrong. anyway, this particular detail seems rather a dead end.

massrock said:

Trained soldiers out on dishonorable discharges for one reason or another. Not randoms off the street.

Click to expand...

still holds. neither of you guys or Prunier has put forth an even slightly convincing argument for why the CIA (or whoever else) would specifically go to the trouble of hiring a miniscule # of vets w/bad records to go do some vague undefined thing in the midst of the Congolese war. MONUC has 16,000+ soldiers & it's still ineffective. what would 60 guys do? what would be the point of sending them to the Kivus?

I have to ask again - have you read the book?

vimothy said:

And if you follow Prunier's logic, why aren't the criminal former soldiers running the CIA, since they are apparently so well suited to covert operations?

Click to expand...

Ex soldiers with nothing much to lose for operations that are somewhat less than strictly legit is the sense I get of what's being suggested there. Not that they are the best of the best.

vimothy said:

I just don't find it believable. It sounds like a bit of speculative titillation.

Click to expand...

It does mostly appear to be presented as speculation and hearsay anyway, and it's not clear which part was being denied by 'U.S. govt. officials' as late as October 2007'.

I mean the original claim is more straightforward but still apparently based on hearsay.

On page 118, Prunier writes in discussing the taking of Bukavu by RPA and Congolese rebel troops, “They were soon joined by a group of about sixty African American mercenaries. According to English-speaking Zairians who had occasion to talk with them, they had been privately recruited in the United States and flown to Uganda, from where they had been taken by road to Kigali and later to Bukavu. The way their passage from the United States had been facilitated by Customs and police suggested undeniably that they were on some kind of unofficial government mission. They were soon battling the FDD at Mwenga and Kiliba.”

Click to expand...