TELLING IT LIKE IT IS

Several “experts” on Executive Outcomes (EO) have again recently surfaced and are working hard at continuing their disinformation campaign against the company – despite the company having closed its doors many years ago.

I am still amazed at how those who call so loudly for peace work so hard at trying to prevent it. But I also know the aim is a feeble attempt to discredit me in the hopes that African governments will cease talking to me. As mentioned before, war is bad for business and the longer the flames can be fuelled in Africa, the more money is to be made by some who claim they want a “peaceful Africa”. Their way of achieving this “peaceful Africa” is by dispensing bad advice, selling obsolete and/or irrelevant equipment and by supporting both sides of a conflict.

When it became known that STTEP had been contracted to train a Special Operations Group (SOG) for the Ugandan armed forces (UPDF), all hell seemed to break loose again. Back were those who felt that I and whatever company I was now part of had to be stopped. To achieve this, the lines had to be blurred between EO and STTEP and create the perception that it is the same company.

Tweets were generated and sent forth, articles appeared condemning both the Texas philanthropist and the UPDF along with the journalist who wrote the story. Shock and horror was expressed that the truth was written and those who wanted to stop the LRA’s slaughter were visited by the FBI. STTEP and myself became the ”bad guys” and again it seemed a repeat of EO days. STTEP must be stopped and it appears the instructions went forth: do not let the truth get in the way of a good lie.

So it was that a blog posting penned by Assistant Professor Chris Blattman appeared condemning efforts to stop the LRA. (See my postings on this matter as well as his posting http://chrisblattman.com/2013/10/30/is-the-newyorker-publishing-puff-profiles-of-mercenaries-executive-outcomes-now-its-joseph-kony-related) I entered into correspondence with Blattman who admitted he did not do any research. We agreed to disagree on stopping conflicts and the senseless slaughter of civilians in African war zones. 

Those we trained in the SOG went on to prove beyond any doubt that they were stopping the LRA. This was, however, to be short-lived as soon after STTEP was forced to leave Uganda, the SOG was sent to Mogadishu. What an absolute waste of money: Men trained in jungle warfare with donor funds were sent to conduct urban operations!

Then, one of the blog readers (Mike Da Silva) pointed me back to Blattman’s blog and in particular to a response on his condemnation of EO/STTEP/the philanthropist and the journalist.

The comment to Blattman’s post by Kambale Mawa reads as follows:

You sir, have no idea what you are talking about.

For goodness sake,  ….. You have as much life experience as a potatoe. You have seen nothing of the world but HBO and MTV, and heard of your cohort’s accolade.

You sir killed my family. You came and cut my father’s hands off, smashed his foot with a truck, and laughed about it. Then while he we were tied to posts my sisters and mother was raped repeated till they bled to death. Then they were burned alive.

You did that sir. I was there and watched you do it. Maybe you had a different face, and skin color – but might as well been you. It was your and your buddies’ words that let the beasts loose. You think you know better.

I will never forget those years I spent in slavery because of you and your ilk. Every day I wake up and do not look into the mirror. I scare little children on the street. You did that to me.

When EO was here, we were safe. They came through; they were real *gentlemen*. You sir, do not have the right to even mention their names without prostrating. Narcissism is an illness. You should have that looked at as it spreads.

I recall many letters written to me/EO in days past by the victims caught in the conflicts thanking us and writing about their plight, the torture they had to endure, the hunger, the constant smell of death and fear, the boiling and eating of new-born babies and the many, many harrowing experiences they had to live through. I shall never forget when I showed this to some local and foreign journalists how they told me that such letters were “not in the public interest”! The truth was of no consequence – their lies, however, were.

Despite Kambale Mawa’s comment being written years after the fact, it is encouraging to know that people we tried to help still remember those few who turned the tide in Angola and Sierra Leone. Many countries I travel to have heard about EO and STTEP. I am warmly welcomed and constantly thanked for the work the men of EO did – and what STTEP is doing - for Africa.

Those who are so keen to condemn EO, STTEP and myself ought to visit the areas we have worked in and discover the truth for themselves – not make it up to suit the agendas of those who pay them.

Maybe then they will tell it like it is. 

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR CHRIS BLATTMAN EXPLAINS HIS RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

I took exception to Prof Blattman’s blog entry on EO where he lied three times in two sentences. I also sent him a copy of my blog posting challenging him to prove his allegations and to give him an opportunity to clarify his lies – despite him not giving me an opportunity to comment on his false and slanderous claims.  This resulted in an email debate between Blattman and I and I simply followed the old adage – if you give a man enough rope, he will hang himself.

Ironically, it was Prof Blattman who wrote about “sloppy journalism” and the lack of research…

Given the recent upsurge in articles aimed at increasing the disinformation already out there on EO, I have decided that enough is enough. Whereas the company was in no way perfect and also made many mistakes (as its founder and chairman I must take the blame), I cannot sit by while armchair journalists and suspected disinformation agents apparently acting on behalf of African terror groups openly lie about good men who did what they did to end conflicts in Africa and elsewhere. I cannot allow people to tarnish the name of good men who sacrificed so much to bring about an end to conflicts by those who never set foot there and are too lazy to conduct decent research.

My thanks to the many that sent me mails attacking and criticising Prof Blattman. However, this is not about attacking the man but rather about showing how he abused his position of trust to lie to achieve someone else’s goals.

I leave it to the readers of this blog to decide on the validity of Prof Blattman’s answers to my three basic questions.

Rgds,

On Dec 2, 2013, at 6:58 AM, Eeben Barlow wrote:

 

Dear Prof Blattman,

I read your blog entry on Executive Outcomes with much interest.

I have decided to respond with a posting questioning your "facts" regarding EO.

Perhaps you would care to enlighten me on your "facts" as obviously you seem to know things we do not know.

I have attached my posting hereto for your attention and response.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

Eeben Barlow

 

On 2013/12/02 04:17 PM, Chris Blattman wrote:

 

Thanks. If you have an HTML for the attachment I'd be happy to link to it. Or I can just post the PDF.

Chris

On Dec 2, 2013, at 11:06 AM, Eeben Barlow wrote:

Simply posting it on your blog is really no response to some serious allegations you made.

It appears you choose not to respond to my questions?

 

On 2013/12/02 06:31 PM, Chris Blattman wrote:

 

Hi Eeben

I do think it’s important that anything I blog is held accountable to critics, especially any who are being criticized, and so posting your objection would be the minimum I could do. Moreover, in order to respond, or have my readers respond or comment, I’d prefer to be able to link to your full comment. I could simply upload the PDF to my site but I thought you might have a website of your own you’d prefer me to link to. I don’t have a strong preference.

I’ll do my best to respond to the comments on the blog, and hopefully it could lead to a discussion from me and the readers that provides a more comprehensive response. My first impression is the following: The main point of my blog post was to say that there there is quite a bit of controversy surrounding EO—you describe it quite clearly in your comment--and that it’s reasonable to expect a publication of the caliber of the New Yorker to discuss this and provide the best evidence for or against. If the case against acts being “dodgy” is a strong one, this would serve you well. But casual observers like me are not in a position to do this research themselves, and it’s hard to judge if journalists or state organizations who have critiqued you are discredited as you say. This is what we rely on the specialized journalists and academics to do. The New Yorker author failed here, in my opinion. If quality investigation would vindicate you, then they also failed you and EO as well, since the half-informed like me are unconvinced.

In light of this, I should have written “allegations of dodgy acts” rather than “dodgy acts” since I don’t have expertise or knowledge here. I did balk at your point that acting on behalf of a sitting African government by definition makes an act not dodgy. In my opinion, few African governments had a strong claim to legitimacy in the 1980s and 1990s, whatever that might mean. Even if they were legitimate, however, the actions of a legitimate government and their agents can easily be questionable, wrong or illegal (and often are). The job of journalism and academics is a democracy is to ask and debate these hard questions, and ultimately that’s what disappointed me about the New Yorker article. I wasn’t looking for them to string up EO (indeed, as I mentioned, I think that some of the EO record is quite commendable) but rather to discuss rather than obscure important controversies.

Your thoughts welcome.

Best

Chris

 

On Dec 2, 2013, at 11:57 AM, Eeben Barlow wrote:

 

Hi Chris,

Thank you for responding.

Surely you can do better than that!

My rebuttal to your posting is posted on my blog for all to see and comment on. I have no problem with fair criticism but your comments on EO were so off the mark that it was amazing that an intellectual will simply state lies as fact and perpetuate what has been acknowledged to have been a massive disinformation campaign against EO. I suppose to use your model of research, that makes you a disinformation agent.

I would suggest that you go back and investigate where the controversy came from.

I asked you three questions – all three of which you want to avoid. To now claim that you are merely a “casual observer” is basically passing the buck, isn’t it?

The journalists and organisations I wrote about in my book were all entitled to sue me. None did. Those journalists have now been so discredited that they are seldom able to practice their “craft”. The Star newspaper in SA published a full page apology to me and admitted they had been misled re EO. Basic internet research would have indicated that to you.

As you blog about EO and appear to want to come across as a knowledgeable person on the company, how can you now claim to be “half-informed”? Surely, research is exactly that – an investigation for the truth.

It was you that brought up the “dodgy” acts – I merely elaborated on them. If a government anywhere in the world is recognised as “the government”, regardless of where they are or what political system they adhere to, are they then actually not legit? After all, the USA recognised all the governments that contracted us as the legitimate governments of those countries – and note – they contracted us to help them. We didn’t invade them – and we still remain friends years after we left. But are you also telling me that these governments are therefore, in your opinion, not legitimate?

I am still waiting for the “outlawed” and “disbanded” explanation.

I appreciate your comment on EO’s commendable acts but I take umbrage to three lies you stated as “fact”.

To tell me that you “don’t have expertise or knowledge” on the matter is really poor especially coming from someone who is entrusted to teach facts to your students.

Rgds,

Eeben

 

On 2013/12/02 07:04 PM, Chris Blattman wrote:

 

Hi Eeben

I’ll do my best to post something in the next day or so. But I am definitely passing the buck. In part because there just aren’t enough hours in the day, and the blog is most definitely a sloppy personal exercise. As I remind my readers often: I ain’t the New York Times. But passing the buck in academia means deferring to the experts, and expecting them (including New Yorker journalists) to do this job for us. That’s the nature of specialization—not all of us can do the detailed research. I imagine it would take me months to do what you propose. So should I be more cautious in some of my comments? Sure. And I’ll make that point. But was I erroneous to raise concerns about the controversy and the opaque dismantling of EO, and hope for more. Surely the answer is yes, and that is the serious and main point of the post. Wouldn’t you agree?

 

On 2013/12/02 07:17 PM, Eeben Barlow wrote

 

Hi Chris,

I don’t think it is necessary to post anything on your blog as the damage you intended to do has been done, wouldn’t you say? The article you referred to happened to portray the old EO in a positive light and you took exception to that – without much effort at thinking or doing research.  Instead, you chose to mislead your readers whilst attacking a lady who does not just talk the talk but is willing to put her money where her mouth is. There certainly aren’t many like her around and whether you believe it or not, she went out and DID something instead of simply criticising all and sundry. Had she contracted an American or British company, I am sure there would have been no complaints.

Like you, I too have too few hours in the day, but if I write something, I will stand – and die by it. And, by the way, my blog writing is also a sloppy personal exercise. But, I never pass the buck and blame someone else for my mistakes.

I am not too sure I understand your last sentence so I shan’t comment on it.

The bottom line, regardless, is I do not agree with you.

Thanks for your time.

Rgds,

Eeben

A CHALLENGE TO ASSISTANT PROFESSOR CHRIS BLATTMAN, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, USA

Executive Outcomes (EO) has again come under attack despite the fact that the company’s doors have been closed for more than a decade and a half. The premise is the more you repeat a lie, despite it being easily disproved, the more people will want to believe it. This principle of successful disinformation is particularly true when it comes to Africa – and EO.

A piece recently written by Assistant Professor Chris Blattman (Columbia University, USA) stated that “Whatever acts EO have on the positive side of their ledger (there are several), there are a great many dodgy ones to balance it out. I might also mention they were outlawed and disbanded…” (          http://chrisblattman.com/2013/10/30/is-the-newyorker-publishing-puff-profiles-of-mercenaries-executive-outcomes-now-its-joseph-kony-related/)

Although Blattman gives EO some credit, he refers to a “great many dodgy” things EO did and also that the company was “outlawed” and “disbanded”. Why doesn’t he list these “great many” dodgy acts? And why does he not say when EO was “outlawed” – and by whom and for what reason? As for being “disbanded”, his inference is very clear. Sadly, he appears to have lost himself in his own plot as in two sentences, he lied three times – a disgraceful act for a so-called intellectual. Unless, of course, he knows something we don’t…

Neither EO - nor later STTEP - ever engaged in any criminal activities nor smuggled drugs to embassy personnel anywhere, sexually assaulted foreign nationals where we worked, simultaneously supported governments and those who oppose them, interfered in the internal politics of African governments, killed innocent civilians under the guise of “collateral damage” and invaded countries, to list but a few. We were invited by governments to assist them and those men of EO who broke the host government’s laws were swiftly dealt with when such knowledge came to our attention.

In terms of “dodgy acts” – this inference and innuendo was started by the old SA Military Intelligence and certain old-SA government officials and their advisors in an attempt to discredit EO whilst saving the rebel forces they were supporting.  This was fed to and propagated by numerous now-exposed and discredited journalists who were working under control as agents and propagandists - and was later grasped by all who wanted EO stopped lest we expose their multiple agendas, duplicity and criminality.

If being contracted by legitimate African governments falls within the ambit of “dodgy acts” then EO must plead guilty and so too STTEP. If we ended the conflicts and wars decisively and as swiftly as possible then we are guilty of that too. If we saved thousands of innocent African lives and stabilised legitimate African governments whilst destroying or disrupting criminal, rebel and proxy forces then we are definitely guilty. However, does that make the African (and other) governments that contracted us equally complicit in these “dodgy” deeds?

Truth is, EO was never “outlawed” as the professor falsely claims. But we know the US DoS placed – and still places - enormous pressure on African governments not to speak to us as they remain very concerned that we might upset their agendas in Africa. Even African governments have now acknowledged this deception with some dismay – a deception that is aimed at ensuring that these conflicts simply continue.

Nevertheless, if Blattman has any proof of what he alleges to be true, why not list it? Why keep his readers in such suspense? If his intentions are honourable, why the concern about a company that no longer exists? And why purposely lie about it? Even more pertinent, why hide his deception behind the façade of being both intellectually concerned and principled?

Strangely enough, Blattman did not mention that EO warned Uganda in 1996 that the LRA would rise again – something western governments scoffed at. But, I forget, he studied this for six years – our lifetime on the continent has no measure against his studies. What did the six years of his study of Kony achieve and at what cost?

However, if the purpose is to mislead students, citizens and governments and discredit people and companies with false accusations, one must resort to innuendo and create false and misleading perceptions to appease your paymasters – especially if part of your covert aim is to discredit a defunct company. To work at achieving this aim, you need to exploit those journalists and their handlers who were and are too lazy to do research and intelligence gathering as they will believe and publish whatever rubbish is fed them.

Anyone who can expose this agenda must be discredited as rapidly as possible lest the truth be revealed. They must become “persons of interest” and be "blacklisted” to add credibility to the deception.

It is apparent that the truth about EO and STTEP must be prevented from becoming known at all costs. Apparently, deception and lies must prevail.

Ultimately though, it is about creating “bogeymen” and then acting according to the so-called Global War on Terror to neutralise these bogeymen – often creations of their own making and sponsorship.

I am truly grateful that I was never under the tutelage of Assistant Professor Blattman, a man who appears to have little to no clue on a subject he apparently considers himself to be quite knowledgeable on. Perhaps he would care to enlighten me on his “facts” and sources.

I look forward to his exposé on EO.

Note: I have emailed this posting directly to Assistant Professor Blattman and will publish his responses when I receive them.