Project In-Class Presentation

H. Prown

32 Battalion: Loyal Soldiers and Ruthless Mercenaries in the Rainbow Nation

Description of the Topic:
• The story of 32 Battalion, or “Os Terriveis” is one of contradiction. Theirs is a tale of an unlikely partnership between white officers defending a racist government and black refugees from the war torn nation of Angola. Together, for better or worse, they became the most effective fighting force for the apartheid government, winning more medals by far than any other Battalion. That is, until it was disbanded in 1993, for, I think, understandable political reasons. 32 Battalion, though, didn't die with its disbandment, no, it survived in the individual soldier who went on to, for whatever reason, serve the almighty dollar. In the last 20 years, hired men at arms have re-emerged as prominent actors in world crises from Iraq to Haiti and many places in between. This emergence was, in a way, forged in the jungles of Angola and Botswana, Mozambique and Lesotho, and to comprehend the current state of war ravaged Sub-Saharan Africa one must explore this past. The nature of the apartheid regime and its main support, their military, can be found in the story of the soldiers, what they actually did, why they did it, and how it led to current developments around the world.
Why it is Important:
• The story of the apartheid and the forces that held it together is one that many would like to avoid, at least outside of the most basic clichés. This is particularly true, I think, in the United States, where their history is all too close to ours. After all, only 30 years separates the institutionalized racism of South Africa and America, and the all too real legitimization and support given by both the US and other western nations through the late 1980s to the apartheid regime is a shameful scar on our history. Of course, it wasn’t the first, and certainly wasn’t the last time that we had supported a dictatorial regime. South Africa, though, came to represent a special kind of hypocrisy in the West, and particularly the United States, due to their unsettling similarities.
• The Rainbow Nation, then, in many other ways, mirrors our own. They were a British colony that brought together a melting pot of peoples – European, African, and Indian, and they share the unfortunate history of segregation. They, too, have become a symbol of Democracy, despite their recent troubles. A mirror, however, turns everything on its side, and this is true for the relationship between the United States and South Africa. The oppressors in South Africa, white and wealthy like in the US, were in the minority, and the peaceful transition to “true” Democracy came after years of war and violent conflict. The challenges of integrating a poor and marginalized majority, suffering mass unemployment, poverty, and disease, are on a magnitude much beyond anything the United States faced. The point of this short history is to provide insight into why I find this topic, in a larger sense, to be so engaging, and so very relevant.
• So, to bring this back to 32 Battalion. Besides the obvious connection between the segregated military of South Africa and the United States, I think that 32 Battalion serves as an interesting microcosm for the examination of South African history and the chaos that arose from the fall of communism and apartheid. Their demographics, their success, and their mystery, made them the most unique force in the military. It also made the most celebrated, and the most hated. They are celebrated, I think, for the same reasons that Robert E. Lee is still, in many quarters, a national hero, and hated, I think, for the same reasons that Nathan Bedford Forrest is, to most, a villain. That ambiguous nature became even more ambiguous with the rise of new mercenary groups, many of which were and are headed and staffed by 32 Battalion. Mercenary groups hired by the United States, Britain, and their allies on multiple occasions. I guess what I am trying to say is that their history is important for the same reason that foreign movies are important; they both show common threads of humanity through a different light, and, in doing so, explain aspects of ourselves (and our country) that we didn’t understand before.
What I hope to Achieve:
• Always residing in the legal gray area, mercenaries are viewed by some as necessity and by others as a dangerous erosion of national sovereignty and rule of law. The goal of my research will not be to comment on the moral foundations of “private contractors”, but merely to explore their origins and motivation. What brought a ragged band of Angolan refugees, Portuguese colonialists, British and Americans, Rhodesians, and white South African officers together? Was it out of necessity, vengeance, adventurism, loyalty? How did motivates differ between each group? What made them unbeaten as a force? A year before the end of the racist regime in South Africa, the battalion was sent to a distant corner of South Africa, and, as I mentioned, disbanded. Many went on to join the new defense firms that had sprung up the wake of the fall of communism. I want to understand, ultimately, why these men, heroes to some, villains to the rest, entered the murky waters of guns for hire.

False Equivalencies and Other Observations

So, I feel the need to expand on the false equivalency I talked about in class today. By false equivalency I mean drawing a comparison between two ideas, in this case Secularism and Islamism, in such a way as to make them merely opposite sides of the same coin. It is a common tactic used by political commentators who wish to appear impartial in their judgments. Closely related is the concept of 'argumentum ad temperantiam', or argument to moderation – basically the idea that the correct interpretation of any controversy is to take the middle ground. A relevant example of this in modern American society would be the response to the recent case of a man who flew his plane into an I.R.S. Building in Texas. Talking head after talking head insisted that, while the act was certainly reprehensible, both sides of the political spectrum, with their, and here is the key phrase, 'heated rhetoric' are responsible and need to take greater caution. This is, of course, absurd, the rise in political violence has solely occurred on the right wing (see here). In fact, according to the Council on Foreign Relations, hardly a partisan group, “broad left-wing violence has been in a marked decline since the fall of the Soviet Union and a successful FBI infiltration campaign in the mid-1980s.” The point of this somewhat long digression is that this tactic is both common, and an act of intellectual cowardice.

Now, to get back to the topic at hand, I would like to start out with a few quotes of Ian Buruma's from both his book and other writings of his.


“Messianic violence can attach itself to any creed.”

“In another typical fit of exaggeration, designed to tar by association, Bruckner mentions the opening of an Islamic hospital in Rotterdam and reserved beaches for Muslim women in Italy. I fail to see why this is so much more terrible than opening kosher restaurants, Catholic hospitals, or reserved beaches for nudists.” (see here)

In reference to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, he says that there are “echoes” of “her earlier enthusiasm for the Muslim Brotherhood” in her current positions.


Alright, now to unpack these quotes, and there connections to each other. They each, in their own ways, illuminate the misguided 'impartiality' of Ian Buruma. The first statement declares, basically, that all creeds are the same in the sense that they can all lead to violence. This ignores the source of the violence, the creed itself. Republicanism has, after all, resulted in death and destruction – one only needs to look at our own revolutionary war to find that. Similarly, Salifism, the creed followed by Osama bin Ladin, has resulted in much death and destruction. Their aims, self-determination for the masses and absolute dictatorship, are quite different, however, as are their results, practically the entire First World ... and Afghanistan. Ignoring both the logical backing of different ideologies and their real world impacts with vague statements about violence muddles the issue.

The second quote comes from a response piece that Buruma wrote to Pascal Bruckner, a French philosopher. At first glance, it seems reasonable, why not have Islamic hospitals or beaches when other religions (or, in the case of nudism, ideas) have their own institutions? After all, its only fair. Except, of course, that it's not. You would have to suspend equal rights laws that we have fought so long to implement. Why? Muslim hospitals have to keep female staff and patients separated from male staff and patients. And beaches reserved for women is a polite way of saying a segregated beach for women. The equivalence, in other words, isn't there because one institution follows national and international laws, not to mention enlightened understandings of gender relationships, while the other operates on discredited, medieval, and repressive concepts of modesty and sexuality. Separate but equal didn't work on a racial basis, and to enact the same on a gender basis is patently absurd.

In this third quote, Buruma alludes to a common fallacy in the 'secular/religious' debate. He is saying that Ali's current positions, argued with force and confidence, must be just as irrational as the positions of the Muslim Brotherhood because they also argue with, yes, force and confidence. Since she doesn't rely on hedging and fake impartiality, she must be a fundamentalist. This might be called secular fundamentalism, or dogmatic atheism. Again, this seems logical in a superficial sense, but once one actual examines the two ideologies one sees the truth. Namely, that atheism isn't an ideology, but merely the lack of belief – it belies nothing beyond “I do not believe in God.” Fundamentalist religion, and religion in general, says “I believe in God,” but also adds that “God created the universe and intervenes in it regularly, he cares about the words and actions of every human being, you must obey the laws that God passed down a long time ago or you will be punished.” Now this is, no doubt, a generalization, but the point is that religion goes beyond being merely the opposite of atheism (the correct term for that would be Deism) and makes a serious of ungrounded assumptions based purely upon the faith of the follower. To take this back to the original quote, comparing Ali's worldview to that of the Muslim Brotherhood is simply a way for him to discredit her without actually dealing with her prickly arguments.

I had a couple more quotes, but I will cut them out, because this is running long and it is getting late. I want to end with a rumination on what, in my mind, serves as the primary difference between my own viewpoint and that of Ian Buruma. He attributes the problems associated with Islam (and, I would think, religion in general) with the “cultural traditions, tribal customs, historical antecedents” that surround them. Religion isn't at fault, but merely the result of human corruption. I, on the other hand, place the blame on religion itself. Religion formed these traditions and customs that he speaks of, as made evident by the excessive amount of quotes in various holy books, including the Bible and Koran, that act as the basis of these traditions and customs. Now, Buruma would surely argue that these excerpts are, again, just incorrect interpretations, and, if they are to unambiguous to argue around, then either irrelevant or simply a poor translation. This makes an all too dangerous assumption, though: it assumes that, in fact, there was some type of original source, presumably God, that formulated a pure, holy, indisputably good message. The more likely explanation, though, is that religion itself is man-made. It's contradictions, bigoted rhetoric, harsh punishments, fallacious logic, and incorrect assumptions – the tangled mess that is organized religion – come not from without, but from within humanity. Until we all realize this, the shadow of nonexistent deities will prevent us from solving our many, many, real, problems.

Executive Outcomes

Throughout my research I have come across the name 'Executive Outcomes' over and over again. Although it no longer exists, the company certainly seems to have made a lasting impact on the world of private military contractors. So, I thought that, in this post, I would examine the basics of its rise and fall. The Center for Defense Information, a Washington DC think tank, hosted a PBS television program called "America's Defense Monitor" from 1987 to 2000. Back in 1997, they brought on Admiral Jack Shanahan, a retired US navy officer, to discuss the disturbing growth of such companies.

The basic difference, he said, between the traditional idea of what a mercenary is, and what they are becoming, is that "the modern mercenary firm is increasingly corporate." This is perhaps best exemplified in the story of Executive Outcomes, a firm founded in 1989 by, funnily enough, Eeben Barlow, who was, for a time, second in command of 32 Battalion. What he did, I think, is create a new way of doing business, as it were, in relation to guns for hire . It "maintains it only works for legitimate businesses and governments, or at least those recognized by the United Nations. EO is not afraid of publicity." It truly became, then, a company, that, if its work was questionable, nonetheless felt able and willing to operate out in the open. Here is where it seems to me that Executive Outcomes connects most to 32 Battalion. The founder, Eeben Barlow, came from an environment in which constant war was the norm, a regular aspect of life. What he managed to do is merge the brutality of the bush war with the sleek modernity of contemporary western business practice. The results spoke for themselves, in the sense that, while the group was successful, they ran afoul of human rights groups that criticized their methods. Although the South African government eventually forced them to disband, they were predecessors to both American companies like Blackwater and more clandestine actions by private individuals in Equatorial Guinea.