The London School of Economics and Political Science Mercenaries and the State: How the hybridisation of the armed forces is changing the face of national security Caroline Varin A thesis submitted to the Department of International Relations of the London School of Economics for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, London, September 2012 ii Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. I declare that my thesis consists of <83,157> words. iii Abstract The military has been a symbol of nationhood and state control for the past two hundred years. As representatives of a society’s cultural values and political ambitions, the armed forces have traditionally been held within the confines of the modern state. Today, however, soldiers are expected to operate in the shadows of conflicts, drawing little attention to themselves and to their actions; they are physically and emotionally secluded from a civilian population whose governments, especially in the ‘West’, are proceeding to an unprecedented wave of demilitarisation and military budget cuts. Simultaneously, these same governments are increasingly opening their armies to foreign nationals and outsourcing military operations to private military and security companies. These experiments with the hybridisation of the armed forces have effectively changed the face of national security. This thesis explores the impact of hybridisation on the values, cohesion and effectiveness of the armed forces by comparing and contrasting the experiences of the French Foreign Legion, the private military companies in Angola, and the merging of private contractors and American troops in Iraq. Mercenaries have been used as a foreign policy tool to improve the strategic impact of national armies. As non-state actors, however, they are unaccountable to the hiring state and beyond the control of the military establishment. It is both timely and important to understand the experiences of soldiers and mercenaries fighting together in modern battlefields as this appears to be the trend for the future, and has a direct impact on civil-military relations, military effectiveness, and consequently on the overall security of the state. The study concludes that, although mercenaries and private security companies can contribute to the military effort and may be a useful foreign policy tool, the impact that these non-state actors have on the national army must be taken into consideration to avoid weakening the state’s armed forces. Furthermore, the differences between warriors of various nationalities and allegiances, and the difficulties in coordinating public-private partnerships in joint military operations undermine the legitimacy of the state – and by default its policies – by weakening the cohesiveness and morale of the national armed forces and by alienating the citizen iv and the soldier. Results can be used to inform national governments and the armed forces in their inevitable process of hybridising their troops with foreigners and private contractors in the quest to answer the budgetary and moral concerns of their country. v Acknowledgements First and foremost, a heartfelt Thank You to Christopher Coker, for giving me a chance and carrying me through this PhD! To Chris Alden and the team at SAIIA, for their friendship, and for generously sharing office space, contacts and experience during my field work in Johannesburg and Cape Town. To my father “sans qui rien n’eut été”, for tirelessly reading countless drafts, many thrown out and useless, and especially for supporting me, emotionally and financially, through my never-ending studies. Merci! To Calypso and Ruben, my wonderful friends and conscientious editors. To Penn and especially Brendan O’Leary, for introducing me to the world of research. And to the others, my friends and family, for encouraging me at various stages and making these three years so fun! Chris, Claire and mom, Aida, Miki and Marlen, Ian, Andrew, Rodrigo, Taty, Daniel, the Brussels and the India crowd, Jo and Phillou, Steph and little Lilly - thank you for being my inspiration in London and around the world! vi Pour Nelly vii Mercenaries and the State: How the hybridisation of the armed forces is changing the face of national security Table of Contents List of Acronyms ..................................................................................................... viii PART I: Conceptual Framework Introduction ............................................................................................................... 2 1. Mercenaries ........................................................................................................ 14 2. Soldiers ............................................................................................................... 43 PART II: Empirical Findings 3. Integration: The French Foreign Legion .............................................................. 76 4. Privatisation: Mercenaries in Africa ................................................................... 116 5. Hybridisation: Contractors in Iraq ...................................................................... 163 PART III: Synthesis and Conclusions 6. State control, Hybridisation and Accountability .................................................. 202 Concluding remarks .............................................................................................. 238 Bibliography .......................................................................................................... 245 Caroline Varin viii List of Acronyms BAPSC British Association for Private Security Companies CIA Central Intelligence Agency CEO Chief Executive Officer CPA Coalition Provisional Authority COIN Counterinsurgency DOD Department of Defense EUFOR European Union Force EO Executive Outcomes FAA Forças Armadas Angolanas REC Foreign Cavalry Regiment REI Foreign Infantry Regiment FMA Foreign Military Assistance REP Foreign Parachute Regiment FNLA Frente Nacional de Libertacao de Angola GAO Government Accountability Office IHL International Humanitarian Law IPOA International Peace Operations Association ISOA International Stability Operations Association ITAR International Traffic in Arms Regulations KBR Kellog Brown&Root MSC Military Service Contracting MSP Military Stabilisation Program Movimento Popular de Libertacao de Angola- Partido do MPLA Trabalho MAD Mutually Assured Destruction NCACC National Conventional Arms Control Committee FLN National Liberation Front (Algeria) NCO Non-Commissioned Officer NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization OAU Organisation of African Unity PCA Partido Comunista Angolano PMSC Private Military and Security Company PMC Private Military Company PSC Private Security Company PSP Private Security Provider ROCs Reconstruction Operations Centres RSLMF Republic of Sierra Leone Military Forces RUF Revolutionary United Front, Sierra Leonean rebel group SADF South African Defence Force ix SWAPO South West Africa People's Organization SAS Special Air Service UNITA Uniao Nacional para a Independecia Total de Angola UMHK Union Minière du Haut-Katanga UN United Nations UNIFIL United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon US United States USAID United States Agency for International Development SEALS United States Navy's Sea, Air, and Land WPPS Worldwide Personal Protective Services 1 PART I: Conceptual Framework 2 Introduction The military has been a symbol of nationhood and state control for the past two hundred years. As representatives of a society’s cultural values and political ambitions, the armed forces have traditionally been held within the confines of the modern state. The recent dissonance between societal expectations and foreign policy objectives, however, has led to experiments with the hybridisation of the armed forces which have changed the face of national security. Today, soldiers are expected to operate in the shadows of conflicts, drawing little attention to themselves and to their actions; they are physically and emotionally secluded from a civilian population whose governments, especially in the ‘West’, are processing to an unprecedented wave of demilitarisation and military budget cuts1. Simultaneously, these same governments are increasingly opening their armies to foreign nationals and outsourcing military operations to private military and security companies. This shift away from state-dominated defence policies is evident around the world: private contractors hired by the U.S. Department of Defence (among others) make up “the largest occupying force” in Iraq and in Afghanistan where, as of March 2009, “68,197 contractors compared to 52,300 uniformed military personnel” were supporting the U.S. military campaign2. In the past three decades, the governments of Papua New Guinea, Angola, Liberia and Sierra Leone have all turned to foreign private military companies to train their armies and supplement their