The increased use of private military companies to wage covert warfare is here to stay. Valère Llobet takes a look at a sector that's not affected by the crisis.

While mercenary work is arguably the second oldest profession in the world, the emergence of private military companies (PMCs) is more recent.

It's a sector that inspires a lot of fantasy. It boasts real professionals and more "marginal" players, such as the Comya Group of a certain Alexandre Benalla, who rushed to enter into a partnership with the Ukrainian SMP. Omega Consulting Group, which recruits widely from neo-Nazi circles...

Valère Llobet is a research fellow at Center Français de Recherche sur le Renseignement (CF2R) and doctoral student at the University of Grenoble Alpes. His work, "Private wars: military companies take on the world» has just been published by Editions du cerf. In this interview, he offers us a tour of this highly controversial and rapidly expanding sector.

The Scout: Let's start by discussing the history of private military companies (PMCs). This isn't a phenomenon that started with Blackwater. And more importantly, what's the difference between mercenaries and private military companies?

Valère Llobet: The history of the SMP begins just before the Second World War, with what would later be called the Flying Tigers. It's a group of pilots that's going to be put together by the U.S. military, at least by the United States. They're going to create a private company that's going to hire U.S. military pilots who are going to officially leave active duty to go defend China against the Japanese military.

This is the first society that will appear and which, later, will transform itself, since the Americans will keep this model to give birth to the famous society AirAmerica.

The Scout: Then it gave Southern Air Transport – American airline used for arms trafficking operations in the Iran-Contra affair…

Valère Llobet: That's exactly it. In reality, they are similar structures. Moreover, the CIA, from its inception, began buying up airlines, particularly in Taiwan to create Air America.

Very shortly after the end of the Second World War, the English found themselves in a rather complex situation. Their colonial empire was collapsing. They had lost India. They had just suffered the failure (along with France and Israel, editor's note) of the Suez Canal.

In particular, the civil war in Yemen arrives. Or rather, in North Yemen, when loyalists to the Yemeni monarchy, which had just been deposed by the pro-Egyptian regime, rebelled. The British find themselves tied hand and foot. They must intervene, but they cannot send their army. They come up with the idea of ​​bringing someone out of retirement. This person is the famous David Stirling, the father of the SAS.

David Stirling set up the first PMC in the modern sense, which would be called Watchguard International Limited. This company would be sent to Yemen. It would recruit quite a few people, including a certain Bob Denard, who had just returned from Africa and was looking for work with some of his friends.

Bob Denard won't be around for long, because the Anglo-Saxon model, the commercial model, where you don't go directly into combat with the enemy, isn't really his thing. But Watchguard will lay all the foundations for what we find today in most private military companies, that is, the rather high salaries, this link between the world of intelligence, the military world, the commercial side, the sale of equipment, etc.

Watchguard won't last forever; it will shut down eventually. We'll see a whole bunch of companies develop. David Stirling himself will later re-establish a few, including Kilo Alpha Service, which will operate in southern Africa.

So, companies will emerge, including groups like MPRI. A whole host of structures will multiply, following the United States' post-Cold War policy. With the fall of the Wall and the end of the Cold War, a legendary company will be founded: Executive outcomes, a South African company, which will become the first SMP that will really make people talk about it.

The Americans, seeing that the South Africans had an interesting model, that what the English had done was working well, created their own small and medium-sized companies. They developed this business until 2003, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Blackwater.

There is another key character called Tim Spicer, founder of the Aegis company. Spicer was the precursor to Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater, who had set up a whole bunch of companies. He was very close to Margaret Thatcher's government, especially to her son.

The Scout: There was the famous story of the failed coup in Guinea...

Valère Llobet: Exactly, the famous failed coup, where Spicer's former associate, Simon Mann, was involved with his accomplices.

The Scout: They were all arrested, by the way, including Margaret Thatcher's son, weren't they?

Valère Llobet: Yes, of course, they were arrested, but ultimately They were lightly condemned, especially because Margaret Thatcher intervened.

In 2003, we will not have an explosion of PMCs, because there had already been a huge number of them for years, but a public awareness of their existence, notably with the Abu Ghraib scandal – contractors US military personnel and CIA agents were accused of human rights violations against prisoners between 2003 and 2004 – or the Nisour Square scandal with BlackwaterThis is going to blow up for everyone to see.

The whole nuance with mercenaries, to answer the second part of your question, is the example we were using earlier with David Stirling and Bob Denard. The mercenary group, on the other hand, goes above all to fight, often for very ideological motivations. These are groups of individuals who put themselves at the service of a state, a company, or others.

The private military company is, above all, a commercial structure. It is legally registered. It has obligations, it pays contributions. It may be very reductive when viewed like that, but these companies have a commercial objective. A private military company is a private organization that provides military-related services. This could be guarding, training, escorting ships, driving vehicles in hazardous areas, maintenance, etc. In fact, all the support missions that were previously the responsibility of the armed forces.

Most private military companies will tell you, “We provide useful services; there are private markets opened by states. Unlike a mercenary group that goes to the front lines to fire for one side or another in a civil war, PMCs provide legitimate services based on contracts, expense reports, and invoices. Everything is tracked.».

There are, of course, limits: some private military companies go to the front lines and fight, sometimes outside the legal framework. This is part of the famous shadow war.

So, you have the legitimate activities promoted by these companies, and then sometimes... Blackwater, for example, has conducted offensive actions on behalf of the CIA. There, we're completely going beyond the law. That's why some people talk about "neo-mercenaries." The name is changed, but the facade doesn't always hide the reality behind it.

The Scout: Support functions are somewhat the stock-in-trade of these companies, but we also see very powerful players, like Dyncorp, for example, whose role in Afghanistan and Iraq was enormous. Without them, the US military and even NATO can no longer function.

Valère Llobet: It's always the question of privatization. There's a form of dependence. Dyncorp is a good example, especially since it has been involved in American politics for a long time. We already saw it under Bill Clinton. It's not a company born out of the Iraq War. Like MPRI, it has close ties with the American authorities.

This link between these private and public actors is central. In Iraq, we can also talk about the British company Aegis. Aegis had set up a completely crazy system: private military companies protecting other private military companies.

Following the deaths of Blackwater personnel in Fallujah, Iraq, Aegis designed an alert system, with centers spread across the areas where American PMCs operated, so that in case of danger, the latter could call for reinforcements. The contract was colossal.

Some PMCs fully comply with international law. But in the Aegis example, the primary motivation was financial. And for contracts to train Afghan forces or the Afghan police, one might wonder: sometimes the companies had an interest in ensuring the training never stopped.

Some countries have a tradition of making greater use of SMPs, particularly the Anglo-Saxons.

Speaking of the privatization of the intelligence sector, I will cite a somewhat old but extremely revealing example: the famous Office of Special PlansIt was an agency of the United States Department of Defense. It was the source of the report presented by Colin Powell to the United Nations in 2003.

Today, there are a huge number of private military companies working in the intelligence field. This can range from very basic things, such as monitoring open information, to full-fledged intelligence subcontracting missions, as we are currently seeing in Ukraine. For example, there is the CACI Group, which was already present at Abu Ghraib – some of its employees were recently convicted by the US courts. Today, they work as subcontractors for the US Special Forces headquarters and are active in Ukraine.

THEOffice of Special Plans was used to circumvent official services like the CIA, which already doubted at the time that there was no active nuclear program in Iraq or weapons of mass destruction. American authorities were sometimes very hostile towards officials who questioned their narrative. Some were even sanctioned, their families put under pressure.

We remember the affair of the Yellow cake, curve ball , a German BND agent, who turned out to be an intelligence crook – as in the book "The Tailor of Panama» by John Le Carré. Reports that were not favorable were blocked. Valerie Plame, a CIA officer, had her identity exposed because her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had publicly expressed his opposition to the invasion of Iraq. All of this illustrates how the use of private actors made it possible to circumvent official channels.

The relationship between private and public intelligence in the United States is ancient. Already during the Civil War, the North relied on the Pinkerton agency for its intelligence. Even today, private military companies provide intelligence: some large groups, such as CACI Group, subcontract directly to the military leadership. Others are smaller, sometimes non-American, but offer the same services.

Faced with increasingly complex issues and a growing number of subjects, intelligence services have become generalists. Like a doctor, they must sometimes call on specialists, particularly in the field of cybersecurity, where private actors play a leading role.

In France, it's different. First of all, we don't like the term SMP. We talk more about ESSD: Security and Defense Services Companies. You mentioned Amarante and Geos, but there are others, smaller and larger. SMPs and intelligence services are, of course, linked. And generally speaking, an SMP that worked without the approval of its government would be in big trouble.

To my knowledge, only one French company has claimed to be an SMP in France: Secopex. Its director was assassinated in Libya in a case that was never truly solved. Today, you have plenty of ESSDs in France. A more recent one, for example, is Chiron Solutions, whose director is well-known, publishes books, etc. They offered services in Ukraine, including exfiltrations at the beginning of the war.

Control of ESSDs in France is very strict. As a result, some create companies abroad, such as in England or the United States, where the laws are more flexible. An example: the company Comya GroupIt was founded in the United Kingdom by a certain Alexandre Benalla. This company can be found in Africa, in Sudan, and in Ukraine. Recently, it also entered into a partnership with a Ukrainian private military company.

This Ukrainian company is called Omega Consulting Group. Without exaggerating, these are people who openly display neo-Nazi symbols. They don't hide. When you look at their communications, you find the NATO flag, the European Union flag, and underneath, people with heavy tattoos meaning "death to the Jews," Totenkopf (badges used by various armed, military, or paramilitary components throughout German history, particularly by the SS in charge of the concentration camp system, editor's note) or Black Suns (a symbol of Nazi mysticism created by Karl Maria Wiligut, editor's note). This is where we get into the really dark part of the subject.

The Scout: Ukraine is a textbook case. We know very well that most Western weapons, at least the technologically advanced weapons supplied to Ukraine, are not operated by Ukrainians. For two reasons: the first is that they don't know. The second is that we're not going to give them the codes, so to speak.

So we need trained armorers, people capable of guiding and gathering intelligence. The Ukrainians don't have them. Is this done by NATO troops? Active-duty military personnel? Or by PMCs? Or are we in a hybrid configuration, where people drop their uniforms, move to other services, and do this?

Valère Llobet: What we need to understand is that today there are these ESSDs that provide services that States, French companies, French societies need and that are very regulated. There is the Law 2003 (relating to the repression of mercenary activity, editor's note) which is very clear. You have the new military programming law with its famous 42 article, passed last year, which regulates the work of former military personnel. It's very straightforward. All of this, and we can welcome it from a moral point of view, hinders the development of these companies.

Conversely, today you have the case of former members of the armed forces, including former legionnaires, who go to work to train Chinese PMCs, or others who end up in private military companies, particularly in Yemen. A trial is underway targeting individuals accused of having participated in the activities of a PMC in Yemen with the aim of assassinating Yemeni officials on behalf of the United Arab Emirates.

In Ukraine, there are Russian SMPs, Ukrainian SMPs like Omega Consulting Group, but also Western SMPs. One that has generated a lot of buzz is The Mozart Group. This is no coincidence: the name is a response to Wagner. They have more or less killed each other—figuratively speaking—since they are suing each other for embezzlement, etc.

The Mozart Group was an American SMP that boasted of being a philanthropic organization, engaged in humanitarian work. It was clear that this wasn't the case. They were doing crowdfunding, calling for donations online. Their communication was very specific: they had understood the codes of the Internet and social networks. They played on pathos: frightened women and children, crying children, little dogs, little cats... In fact, they were registered as a commercial company in the United States, an LLC.

And yet, the founder half-admitted in an interview that he was in contact with the CIA.

It's a kind of hypocrisy, a fool's game. But in fact, it's still this famous shadow war. It allows states to exonerate themselves. This is one of the great advantages of private military companies: it's political. Thanks to plausible deniability, you'll always have the argument to say: "It's not our state, it's not us."

A concrete example from the Russian side: in Russia, private military companies are illegal. Yet, Wagner and others exist. One of Wagner's founders previously participated in a company called Slavonic Corp. When they returned from Syria and set foot at the airport, they were arrested by the FSB, under the Russian Constitution and the Criminal Code.

Wagner is not legal in Russia, but it is very useful. Here we are touching on the limit, the famous reason of state. Of course, states with interests to defend will ignore legal considerations, even those of their own jurisdiction. As Giraudoux said, "Law is the most powerful school of imagination».

This raises the question of the control of any organization, even one's own state, that might act illegally. This is why in many countries, you now have parliamentary control over intelligence services. This was the problem with the CIA until Gerald Ford. The CIA carried out a huge number of assassination and regime destabilization operations. Ford put a stop to that.

They've evolved their techniques. Today, they prioritize influence. Through USAID, through NGOs... We've seen it in all the color revolutions, notably Maidan. It's always the same process. And if you're cynical, it's a very effective technique. Supporting a general like Pinochet to overthrow a president like Allende in Chile makes a lot of noise. It's obvious.

Using an influence operation, or "covert political action" as they say in the jargon, is much more discreet, and it works very well. In an era of mass communication and media, a group of mercenaries sent to do dirty work somewhere in the world ends up getting out.

Today, everyone has a camera, a microphone on them. It's much more complicated. Whereas an influence operation is harder to attribute. And then, you can always say, "People have the right to have opinions." It's another way of acting. It's the famous raison d'état. And there, we could go back to Antigone: the myth of Antigone is already raison d'état.

The Scout: Isn't there also a French company, a state-owned company, that provides training services, coaching, etc.? I forget its name...

Valère Llobet: Yes, you're talking about DCI, indeed. It's not really a private military company. It was an Epic—a public industrial and commercial establishment, an offshoot of the Ministry of Defense. DCI was recently sold to the ADIT group, a business intelligence firm. So they privatized DCI, transferring its shares to ADIT. The latter retains a portion of public capital.

Regarding the operation of sophisticated weapons systems, we hear a lot. I don't have a specific company name, and I think we're in the fog of war. There are probably intelligence services, special forces, and possibly private actors training Ukrainians and assisting in the use of sophisticated equipment.

For now, we don't have enough information to say precisely who, what, where, or how. That will come.

This is the famous plausible deniability. It's even one of the great advantages of PMCs. Plausible deniability is a concept in American law that allows an administration or a manager to say that they were not aware of the actions of their subordinates. The example I like to cite is Impossible mission : At the end of the message, it always says that if you or one of your agents is captured, the State Department will deny any knowledge of your activities. This means: you will do something for us, but if you get caught, we don't know you.

It's always the principle: to use private actors, to be able to say "it's not us." Yes, it's a company from our country, but we have no connection with them. The Russians did the same thing with Wagner, the Americans too. And in Ukraine, The Mozart Group said: "No, we act on our own. We are people shocked by the situation, so we intervene.».

The Scout: And outside the Western sphere?

Valère Llobet: The PMC sector, the privatization sector in general of sovereign defense, security, and intelligence activities, is extremely promising. That's why there are so many companies. After the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, many countries around the world realized that it was a very interesting system. Many states wanted to create their own private military companies.

Moreover, private military companies recruited on an extremely broad scale. For example, in Latin America, for years, it was Anglo-Saxon companies, mainly American, that had complete control of the market. They hired in droves in these countries, often people from the armies and intelligence services. We found people who were known to have served in South American dictatorships within PMCs.

Russia is often discussed, but Turkey also has its Sadat Group, which, despite its claims, is not the only one. There is also a Turkish competitor called Ekol Grup, which competes with Sadat. These companies are part of Erdogan's neo-Ottoman vision of becoming the beacon of the Muslim world. They even publish official brochures and world maps showing the Muslim countries where they want to establish themselves.

China has also become a giant in the field. One of the founders of their SMP is Eric Prince, who helped create the Frontier Services GroupToday, there are many Chinese private military companies.

There is now a real market, with competition on services and prices. A Chinese SMP costs much less than an Anglo-Saxon one.

The Scout: But there, their clients are mainly private companies, I suppose?

Valère Llobet: The Chinese are following the logic of the new Silk Road. China has a long tradition of military non-interference. The Chinese army almost never leaves its borders and has not waged a conventional war since 1979, against Vietnam. To avoid damaging its international relations, China is reluctant to send its army to protect its investments and citizens abroad.

This is why it has established SMPs along the new Silk Roads, both maritime and land. As soon as there is a Chinese investment in Africa—be it a mine or a railway line—there is a Chinese SMP. Today, they are present in 32 African countries.

source: The Pathfinder

https://en.reseauinternational.net/lavenement-des-neo-mercenaires/

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.