US MILITARY PRESENCE IN SYRIA COULD GO PRIVATE
▶ With Mattis gone, Erik Prince’s plan may receive a warmer welcome
American troops in Syria could be replaced with private military contractors, said Erik Prince, a former executive at security company Blackwater.
US President Donald Trump is looking to withdraw his country’s 2,000 troops from Syria, and an ISIS attack on American troops in the Syrian city of Manbij yesterday inflicted the largest loss of US life since an anti-ISIS coalition was created in 2014.
“American history is filled with public and private partnerships, of places that the private sector can fill those gaps, where a very expensive military probably shouldn’t be,” Mr Prince told Fox News on Tuesday. “The US doesn’t have a long-term strategic obligation to stay in Syria. But I also think it’s not a good idea to abandon our allies.”
The pitch is not new. Mr Prince made a similar $5 billion (Dh18.37bn) proposal in the past to privatise the war in Afghanistan. Former US secretary of defence James Mattis blocked that proposal.
But with him gone and Mr Trump itching for an exit from the land of “sand and death”, the proposal is being taken more seriously.
Mr Prince is holding meetings in Washington this week to sell his pitch to policymakers and Syria watchers.
The US would not be the first state to send mercenaries to Syria. Russia sent private military contractors to help the Syrian government recapture territory from ISIS in eastern Syria.
The most notorious of these mercenaries are from the Wagner Group, a Russian military contractor originally established to fight for Moscow in eastern Ukraine. The company is linked to businessman Yevgeny Prighozin, nicknamed “Putin’s Chef” for his catering work with the Kremlin.
Faysal Itani, a leading Syria expert at the Atlantic Council, is not the least surprised by Mr Prince’s push.
“It does tick some boxes in Washington because it avoids two things the president hates: paying for missions abroad and deploying soldiers in complex Middle East conflicts,” Mr Itani told The National.
It is not immediately clear who would pay for a private army to replace the US troops in Syria. But Mr Itani said that funding from Gulf states was possible.
“US withdrawal from Syria represents a serious strategic loss for the Gulf states, since the US presence is seen as a tactical and strategic counter to Iran,” he said.
“They would probably see a private military presence by a US firm as better than nothing, because it would indicate continued US commitment and also a potential ‘tripwire’ for US retaliation in the event these personnel come under attack from adversaries.”
Arab states have been reluctant to send troops to Syria, despite it being discussed with Washington.
But a private military force in Syria could be a recipe for more problems, not fewer, said Matt Brodsky, a senior fellow at the Security Studies group.
“US private contractors are not the same entity as US armed forces,” Mr Brodsky said, describing a complicated protection framework and possible clash of interests later on.
“Syria has been the ultimate proxy war. Russia uses ‘little green men’ [mercenaries] and Iran uses Shiite militias, but the security service Mr Prince is speaking of pertains only to protecting Kurds.”
In contrast, “the presence of US troops in Syria has contributed to promoting US goals that went far beyond the military mission of defeating ISIS, such as playing the role of a deterrent”, Mr Brodsky said.
“Private contractors will likely not achieve the same objectives.” The idea of a private force will also raise questions about who will protect this force in the event it comes under attack.
“When Russia’s ‘little green men’ and others tried to cross the Euphrates last February to attack US Kurdish allies and our nearby forces, our Air Force responded decisively,” Mr Brodsky said.
“Would they do so for private security contractors?”