The Rise of The Mercenary State - #BritainInBahrain

mer·ce·nar·y: 1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain. 2. Hired for service in a foreign army. So says the 'Free Dictionary'. Merriam-Webster defines the word as, 'a soldier who is paid by a foreign country to fight in its army : a soldier who will fight for any group or country that hires him.'

“Being a mercenary, though... Hey, we just go wherever there's a mixture of money and trouble, and everyone in the galaxy is a potential customer.

Even the people you're paid to shoot at?

Well, yeah. There are customers we serve, and customers we service.
-Captain Kevyn Andreyasn & General Tagon”
―Howard Tayler, Resident Mad Scientist

What I contend in this post is the 'mercenarism' of entire states, taking the example of Britain's ￡15 million deal to establish a permanent military base at the Mina Salman port in Bahrain, paid for by the Monarchy.

The following snippets from the various personalities involved in formulating and executing the deal should help clarify how the 'mercenary' definition may be applied to Britain, in terms of its latest military real-(e)statesmanship abroad.

According to Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, "In a globalized world, our domestic security and prosperity depends on developments beyond our shores." He adds, "Your security concerns are our security concerns."

I think he meant "Your security (largely domestic) concerns are our opportunities". After a look at the political map of the Middle-East, I am of the opinion that if 'IS' was the main issue, Britain's existing bases (Qty 02) in Cyprus could have been the ideal solution. For one, Britain enjoys an established military presence there. More importantly, it is closer to the real action. And speaking of real action, 4 mine-hunter warships that Britain currently has in Bahrain makes me wonder if the Americans (who presently fly the the Pax-Americana flag across the world's oceans) looked at their siblings and decided to let them 'mind the house and look useful' while Uncle Sam took care of the serious business.

Far from trying to belittle the international community's efforts to rein in the latest terror scourge emanating from the region, my point is simply to point out that Britain, under the garb of enhancing global security and domestic pressures at home, may actually be turning into a 'mercenary state' - motivated by material/monetary gains into serving a foreign power/military (which is only too happy to enhance its tottering international legitimacy) - as the definition above states.

The reversal of British strategic intention with respect to its Middle-Eastern interests need to be seen in light of this. Britain pulled its military out of the Gulf in 1971, a decision that "..led to 40 years of short-termist thinking about its policy in the Middle East", according to Defence Secretary Michael Fallon. He continues, "This new base is a permanent expansion of the Royal Navy's footprint and will enable Britain to send more and larger ships to reinforce stability in the Gulf (.) We will now be based again in the Gulf for the long term." Rather than inspire hope, history reminds us about the manner in which Britain severed its long-term ties with Palestine in 1947. The past makes me seriously question the credibility of their proposed long-termist engagement.

Bahrain's foreign minister Sheikh Khalid, from the other side of the table, says that the deal "reaffirms our joint determination to maintain regional security and stability in the face of challenging circumstances". It is easy to comprehend what he is referring to - and its not too far away from downtown Manama. To refresh your memory, in 2011 the monarchy had violently repressed a pro-democracy opposition movement led by the country’s Shia majority, and continues to jail human rights campaigners. And Britain has been turning a blind eye to this while winking with the other one. In fact, the House of Commons foreign affairs select committee criticised Britain’s attitude to Bahrain in a report last month. “We see little or no evidence that Bahrain has made enough progress in implementing political reform and safeguarding human rights and we believe that the FCO (Foreign & Commonwealth Office) should have bitten the bullet and designated Bahrain as a country of concern,” it concluded.

According to BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner, "...the new facility would be one of the most important Royal Navy bases in the world and would be used for a "whole host of things" including supporting UK operations in Iraq, where RAF jets have been attacking targets as part of a US-led coalition against Islamic State (IS) militants. The base would also be used for operations against piracy and for aerial surveillance." Truth be told, its a worthy cause, but the geography is flawed - in fact, sorties flown towards addressing the IS threat have originated from Cyprus (remember the two existing bases which happen to be geographically better positioned?). Economy of Effort, an important principle of War mandates the use of existing bases for this effort, which are also closer to the target in question.

And as far as piracy is concerned, a 'coalition/team' effort is what is mandated, in times when fast boats and GPS technology permit adequate flexibility and planning for criminal groups that patrol the high seas. Even the US, which has its entire 5th fleet based in Bahrain, cannot afford to do it alone, in spite of their considerable economic interests in the region (certainly more than that of Britain). Also, if it is about piracy, why not base the fleet in Qatar ? After all, its a noble endeavour that Qatar would participate in, or so I would think? Then again, for patrolling and anti-piracy missions, keeping in mind its coalition-centric nature, why not utilise berthing facilities provided by partners in the region, rather than relying on going it alone? Can Britain really afford to employ carriers in a region where at best, it is a part stakeholder?

Britain's plans to comprehensively up the ante vis-a-vis its military buildup in Bahrain can be deduced a statement by Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond who says, "Britain would have to take up a greater role in helping Middle East states remain stable as the United States “pivoted” towards the Asia-Pacific region." All this talk of pivots by the USA imply a huge commitment on the part of Britain towards its so called interests in the Gulf. Six months to a year should be enough to indicate how much of this posturing is real and what is pure rhetoric - the propaganda that has been employed to cover up its mercenarial zeal.

In my opinion, the latter of the above two choices seems to be the saner option for Britain considering its global stature today. It also promises to be in line with a succession of 'mercenarial missions' that Britain has successfully executed since the days of 'White Company' in 14th Century Italy, under the helm of Sir John Hawkwood. (at least that is the earliest notable example I remember).

With military 'expansionism' not an option, State mercenarialism may be the new 'conflict externalisation' compact between long-suffering economies (with strong citizen-state contracts that obviate any large-scale internal disturbances) and rich but socially hollow states that are in desperate need of international legitimacy.

Britain has traditionally been sticking its foot in, when and where the opportunity arose. Unfortunately, the romance of Pax-Brittanica seems a distant memory in light of its Britain's diminutive stature, contemporary security-related vagaries and the potential blow-back these entail for the citizens back home. There are far many ways to remain relevant in the world today, without taking recourse of the slippery slope.

“Looters become looted, while time and tide make us mercenaries all.”
― Patrick Rothfuss, The Wise Man's Fear