I suppose your perception that the piece was slanted means you didn't read it, but it outlines very clearly a number of illegal or unethical actions Mr. Prince

I suppose your perception that the piece was slanted means you didn't read it, but it outlines very clearly a number of illegal or unethical actions Mr. Prince and others took including - hiding his agenda from FSG which included violating U.S. defense export regulations, culminating in being stripped of control over operations at FSG - failing to disclose to FSG that he had an ownership stake in Airborne while negotiating contracts with them as a representative of FSG - as a part-owner of Airborne, actively encouraging the company to violate Austrian statutes on production and export of military-grade aircraft ...and more I'm probably missing, and that doesn't even take into account his failure to actually deliver to his "clients" as outlined in the piece. Now if you have legitimate counterpoints in response to the items raised in the article, I'd love to hear them, but your comment is the textbook definition of a strawman. As far as I can tell this piece is just exposing the truth about who Erik Prince is, and you're right that he's not a Christian zealot out to wage a holy war: he is actually an opportunistic parasite who takes advantage of power imbalances in areas in crisis, manipulates organizations to further his own personal profit without any sense of right or wrong informing his decisions, and actively skirts legal restrictions around the world as he sees fit. He certainly doesn't come off as competent in any way. If anything, the right-wing should be more concerned than the left that someone as ethically challenged as Prince is engaging in the activities he's engaging in--it makes them look even worse. Why are you being an apologist for this kind of scumbag?