The Godfather of mercenaries arms the UAE, wants South Africans

Erik Prince, the 41-year-old former Navy Seal billionaire who years ago created the controversial private security firm Blackwater Worldwide, has started a new venture in the desert outside Abu Dhabi. With millions in cash from the emirates, Prince is building an army for the oil-soaked sheikhs. In the process, he’s hiring South Africans who know their way around a dirty war. By RICHARD POPLAK.

When Erik Prince leaves this earthly realm, Hell is going to have to pull out all the stops. Where, precisely, does one eternally house a man who built a private army that has shot unarmed civilians, fled prosecution in several war-torn countries and generally behaved like the planet is one big free-for-all? The saddest thing about Prince, though, is not that he’s a really, really bad guy. It’s that he so perfectly fits the post 9/11 zeitgeist, the us-vs-them, win-at-any-cost mentality prosecuted so enthusiastically by the Bush administration.

“We are trying to do for the military service what Fed Ex once did for the postal service,” Prince said when founding Blackwater (since renamed Xe Services LLC) in North Carolina, in 1997. His ice-cold pragmatism—let’s call it Cheney-ism—is exactly what made Iraq, after the invasion, one of the darkest moments in American history.

The men and women who hired Prince and his Blackwater mercenaries to guard pipelines, man outposts and shoot children in the wilds of Afghanistan and Iraq—all to keep up the Rumsfeldian fiction that “only” so-and-so number of troops were needed to engineer regime change in these restive lands—have now turned on their janissaries. In 2004 four Blackwater contractors were gruesomely slain and hung from bridges in Fallujah, which prompted the battles in that city, twin gong shows that will one day be regarded as critical in America’s downward imperial trajectory. The moment that proved Blackwater’s tipping point, however, was the shooting of 17 citizens of Baghdad in September 2007, while the company’s guards were escorting US state department officials to a meeting. Blackwater’s license to operate in Iraq was revoked. The name was changed to the inscrutable Xe Services, and a dark star was placed alongside Erik Prince’s name on the CIA’s list of dodgy no-bid contractors.

Prince has proved beyond a shadow of doubt what should have been perfectly obvious in the first place: Fed Ex and the contracting out of military services have slightly different moral implications. And very different outcomes. That’s not to say the process has stopped. Far from it. Indeed, mercenary armies are as old as the art of war. And in the deserts of the United Arab Emirates, where paranoid oil sheikhs stare out into the Persian Gulf and see an encroaching, metastasizing Iranian menace, Erik Prince has come to embody a solution. His new employers are not squeamish. They do not have to answer to their polity. They want a blue chip army to go with their new Louvre museum and their flagship Louis Vuitton megastore, and they want it now.

So, on a sweltering night last November, tens of Colombian soldiers set down in a new facility built nearby the oilopolis of Abu Dhabi, juiced by $529 million in funding. The barracks keeps prying eyes out and the soldiers in. They train, entirely sheltered from the rest of the population, and have a very specific mandate: Answer only to Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, owner—sorry!—crown prince of the UAE. The al-Nahyans are, of course, terrified of Iran, and not necessarily in the conventional sense of the term. Iranian proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah have proved remarkably resilient in other parts of the Middle East. Hezbollah is by any measure the most successful proxy army in the region, having been painstakingly built by Iranian support over the course of the past three decades. The sheikhs are nervous of the destabilising threat posed by Iranian (read: Shiite) interests in the emirates.

They are no less afraid of the tens of thousands of Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and others being radicalised in the cheap labour camps that have powered the region’s growth for so long. When push comes to shove, the al-Nahyan will need a private force to fire upon those skinny, underfed men and put down any nascent rebellions that flare up. (The rancid fruits of economic exploitation and ideological differences have overthrown a couple of regimes of late, have they not?) The al-Nahyans aren’t looking for a repeat performance. Only about 10% of the emirates’ population is indigenous - almost all the labour in the region, skilled and unskilled, is performed by foreigners. That is a brewing desert dust storm the sheikhs are looking to quell.

Prince’s “new model army” will eventually be 800 strong, has a strict “no Muslim” hiring policy, and is meant as a stopgap for a conventional military viewed as woefully inadequate. Unsurprisingly, a breakdown of nationalities is not publicly advertised, but it is thought many of Prince’s troops are South African military veterans, which doesn’t bode well for the emirates enemies, whoever they turn out to be. Our local mercenary class is notoriously trigger-happy, and certainly not averse to a little shoot-up every now and again. We should be proud.

That said, this caper might not be strictly legal, at least from the US state department’s point of view. Last year, Xe Services paid more than $42 million in fines for training foreign troops in Jordan and elsewhere—such activity is “verboten” without a licence. No one is entirely sure whether this army has any tacit state department or CIA backing, but it stands to reason the US administration is only too happy to see the Emirati sheikhs shelling out for stability. Trouble-free oil is a dwindling commodity these days. Abu Dhabi drills some of the last of it.

Erik Prince, and his new company Reflex Responses, will see billions of dollars in contracts when all is said and done. The emirates will cough up more and more to ensure their pipelines and cyber-networks are secure, and Prince’s own expanding desert empire will be there in the breach. Which suggests an intriguing possibility: Prince could one day turn on his employers, shoot up their palaces, and stand astride their glittering towers as lord of all he surveys. And a South African mercenary with a pencil moustache could run the Emirati justice ministry, conjuring up memories of a regime we assumed was long dead. Stranger things have happened. One hopes, for the al-Nayhan’s sake, they have a good contract in place, and a new New Model Army to counter their New Model Army. Erik Prince might turn out to be their most dangerous high-end acquisition. DM


Read more:

Photo: Blackwater Chief Executive Erik Prince holds a photograph of the remains of a blown up vehicle in Iraq while testifying before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on security contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan on Capitol Hill in Washington, October 2, 2007. Blackwater, under investigation over deadly incidents in Iraq, defended its role, but lawmakers took aim at the company's actions in a shooting in which 11 Iraqis were killed. REUTERS/Larry Downing

Tuesday 17 May, 2011
 
Top Stories

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Please login or sign up.
I would argue that the "paranoid oil sheikhs stare out...and see an encroaching, metastasizing...menace" of their disgruntled subjects!
Iran largely is to the gulf sheiks what the Brotherhood was/is to Ben Ali, Mubarak, Assad etc. A handy excuse to keep the locals form forgetting their place. After all, realistically, what can Prince and his 800-odd mercenaries really do, apart from shooting locals?
I don't think the UAE is worried about the locals forgetting their place, rather about the imported foreign labourers forgetting theirs.
Oh, and Poplak, the country is Colombia. Columbia is the university, the federal district or more relevant for you, British Columbia in Canada.
Fixed, thank you.
I agree with some of the moral issues raised in terms of where private military companies have operated in the past and continues to operate.

But, there are also very good practical, logistical and strategic reasons for employing them in certain contexts, especially in support roles for national military operations.

http://experts.foreignpolicy.com/node/15019
http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/01/17/un_embraces_private_military_contractors

That being said, they are often used in areas where the legal enforcement regime is fairly weak.

As a side note those immigrant workers are not forced to move to the Gulf States - they are escaping even more desperate conditions in their home countries (no employment prospects).

Sure, the labour regime in the Gulf States are pretty bad, but then again look at China. Some Western manufacturers are beginning to move out of China to areas with cheaper labour. Point being that eventually through providing opportunities and transferring skills the average "sweatshop" worker in China is getting more skilled and valuable - therefore demanding higher wages and moving into more skilled jobs. You got to start somewhere...
Private military contractors! Pah!
Your whole argument presupposes that Blackwater is bad and it did wrong in Iraq.
A nation should only care abouts its own citizens, and only care about other countries citizens inasmuch as there could be fallout on ones own citizens.
Yeah, no mercy for the gooks, right? And the word you're looking for is "blowback".

Every emperor needs his Cossacks.
I'm not sure I follow. Massacring some (military-) weaker nations would be good for stronger nations. Invade a country, massacre everyone, take over the resources. Are you proposing that this is right and justified because it is in the interest of the aggressor's citizens?
From that countries perspective? Damn right.
Sucks to be on the receiving end though
In Joel's mind empires have faired so well through history...
I'd say.

Where do you draw the line though? What about Israel/Palestine, or Sudan? Somalia? Spain? Ireland? It's a slippery slope to the point where I could kill my neighbour for whatever reason and measured on your values it is justified, as long as it is in my interest. Sucks to be my dead neighbour though.
This piece contains a few errors. Had the author read past page 2 of the original and far better piece in the NY Times, he would have noted that the size of the private army has been reduced to 580.

I'd also like to see evidence of the 'thousands of Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and others being radicalised in the cheap labour camps'. These guest workers do often live in abhorrent conditions, this is true. However, they're guest workers and any sign of unrest will result in their deportation - en masse if needs be, there are many more who would be happy to take their place.

Regarding regional security, the UAE is crucial to counterbalance Iran, which is a superpower whether we like it or not. Most in the West don't like that much. The Emirates are thus an important strategic ally to the US and the rest of the world - protecting the Hormuz to allow the safe passage of oil exports - and they're also active fighting the war on terror.

These observations seem at odds with Poplak's assertion in a previous piece that Arabs are 'schizophrenic' with 'apertures that are too small'.

The Emiratis are far from 'schizophrenic' - they see a threat in Iran and they want to plan contingenices to mitigate for that.

"... Fed Ex and the contracting out of military services have slightly different moral implications..."

Leaving aside the specifics of what Prince and his mercenaries may or may not have done (I'm not overly familiar with Blackwater's record myself), I'd be inclined to argue that a mercenary army has certain positive "moral implications" too. Starting with the premise that war is unfortunately sometimes necessary it is arguable that, given the necessity of a war, it is preferable to fight the war with the best possible army available. Experienced, skilled soldiers can make the difference between a quick, decisive, relatively clean war and for example the long, drawn out dog's breakfast of a civil war we now see in Libya due to the disorganised incompetence of the rebels that has led to many civilian casualties and all the other general trauma and disruption associated with life in war time.

Further, there is the jingoistic sentiment that fighting for your country is different to fighting for money but to me, the soldiers don't pick the fight, whether mercenaries or conscripts, and if a war is going to happen, those who did pick the fight will find themselves soldiers to fight with by whatever means necessary, so why not use those who are both willing to do the job and are good at it?

This is another Richard Poplak article that has an ugly smell to it; it feels like the absolute moral certainty of the worst kind of religious zealot, with an added derisive sneer at those who are clearly morally inferior. Maybe it's just me...

DM, count me out as a Poplak reader thanks...
I am sure our arms manufacturer, Dudnel, must be smiling as they see a new market opening up. They will have to get arms and ammo from somewhere and this is when we will see who is backing whom.
The problem with the mercenary business is this: to be a good mercenary, you have to be cold blooded, operate without principle (or a principal), be friendless but also have a good head, not be impulsive ands have a and have a stong sense of self preservation. The trouble is that if you have these qualities, the financial system provides much better career opportunities :-)