This is a question concerning Executive Outcomes and UNITA. I concede this question is slightly Tom Clancy-esque, but I think now that these events have been largely declassified all these decades later, the time for speculating is over and now it's time to have a serious political analysis. Here is a quote from Simon Mann:

The weird thing was that most of the South Africans with us [EO], had it been literally years or even months before, would have been fighting on the other side [UNITA]. Because they would have been South African soldiers backed by America.


What political circumstances/conditions made it appealing for South African soldiers to choose EO? I understand Mann's logic up until a point, but I feel that I need to see the larger political landscape to put it into context.

On a side note, if you disagree with Mann's premise, feel free to answer through whatever lens you see fit.

  • 1
    Surely it has to do with the fall of apartheid? I guess you're talking about Mann's actions in Angola. If those were in 1993, wouldn't that have been during the beginning of the process of dismantling apartheid?
    – Obie 2.0
    Mar 9, 2019 at 6:25
  • Simon Mann comments on it in this video. Apr 8, 2020 at 16:13
  • Well, were they even South African soldiers? I thought they were former soldiers. And weren't there South African mercenaries on both sides? Apr 8, 2020 at 17:32
  • What do you mean by "choose"? As in join an indigenous insurgent force?
    – user14430
    Apr 8, 2020 at 23:25
  • 1
    I understand the sentence as "As SA soldiers, the SA government did order them to fight as allies of UNITA; once they were no longer SA soldiers but mercenaries they (or some of them) did chose to fight in EO (perhaps for the money?)" Not an answer as I lack knowledge of the issues of the region, but that is as I read the sentence.
    – SJuan76
    Apr 9, 2020 at 9:24


You must log in to answer this question.