In the aftermath of 9/11, the U.S. government urged counter‐terrorism experts to think “outside of the box.” What we got instead of innovative thinking was a rather conventional response to the 9/11 atrocities — invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, followed by thousands of dead American soldiers and trillions of dollars in military spending and foreign aid. Today Iraq is, yet again, in the midst of a civil war, with large parts of Iraqi territory overrun by homicidal maniacs from ISIS. Afghanistan, if its present government is to survive, would likely require decades of American presence – something I along with millions of other Americans oppose.
Whether or not ISIS poses a threat to our homeland (and there are many doubters), the U.S. political establishment is united in believing that ISIS needs to be taken on. But, what is to be done? On the one hand, the aerial campaign does not appear to be achieving desired ends. On the other hand, the American public is understandably opposed to another ground invasion.
The rise of the nation‐state has led many people to look to their governments for solutions to problems big and small. The nation‐state, in turn, has crowded out other actors. When it comes to the application of violence, for example, why not try the time‐honored alternative to national armies — the use of mercenaries?
This morning, The Telegraph ran an interesting story about an Eton-educated former Scots Guard and SAS man, Simon Mann. Mann became famous for partaking in an attempted coup d’état against the tyrannical ruler of the oil‐rich African country of Equatorial Guinea,Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo. The coup failed, and Mann was caught and thrown in prison. Having miraculously survived 5 years in one of Obiang’s jails, he returned to Britain. Today, Mann advocates for a mercenary approach to defeat ISIS. Should he be given a serious hearing?