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.

  • 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 '19 at 6:25

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .