America's Dirty War

The the US are now looking again to utilize certain dirty assets

In Hungary, legal proceedings are usually a dull and mundane affair. Last week, however, was more than a little different. "Little Bundi", as he is commonly referred to in the press, was a leading Hungarian underworld figure. He was extradited from Florida by the FBI and was put on trial in Hungary for countless crimes. Not surprisingly, he was found guilty.

The interesting part followed next, during his last hearing prior to sentencing. In a move that shocked and surprised everyone -- including the defense attorney -- was the request of the prosecutor to immediately set free the convicted felon. What was even more astounding was the judge's adherence to the request. Even Little Bundi stood dumbfounded as the handcuffs were at once removed from his wrists in the courtroom.

No doubt, Hungary is a country where the odd thing now and then happens. What was perhaps a little unusual about this particular episode was the lack of media interest. What makes this story even more interesting is when it is put against the background of world events. Only days before the Little Bundi episode, American media began to concentrate rather heavily on the issue of "dirty assets". One can't help but wonder whether the case if Little Bundi had anything to do with the US now looking to utilize certain dirty assets.

In short, "dirty assets" is a term used to describe individuals and groups of ill repute -- many of them could be called terrorists -- usedby the state in order to achieve covert objectives. While American mainstream media is now full of pundits claiming all sorts horrific actions to avenge for the September 11th attacks in New York and Washington (cf. the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) report of September 24, 2001 entitled "Media Pundits Advocate Civilian Targets"), what is alarming is the candid talk on the use of dirty assets which were featured on such shows as The McLaughlin Group and Meet the Press. Such shows supposedly represent the more informed and "intellectual" branch of the American news media.

The fact that the issue of dirty assets has been raised publicly is revealing. Until now, it has never been fully acknowledged that the US reverts to using such people or groups, although alternative media and those outside of the US have frequently documented the fact. The candid way in which this is now talked about merely attests to the ignominy of American foreign policy. Furthermore, and what is even more ignominious, is that no-one sees anything wrong in using dirty assets. Indeed, all agree that it's necessary, and some even go so far as to comment that the more restrained approach toward the use of dirty assets during the Clinton era was perhaps the reason why terrorism is such a problem today.

It's incredible to believe in this day and age that Orwell's process of doublethink can be so firmly entrenched within the American psyche. The paradoxes of what is being said with regard to dirty assets are so apparent one can't help but wonder how comatose such pundits really are. This is made all the more worse by the fact that they supposedly represent the ranks of informed; it's frightening to think that such warped logic is being fed to the American people.

One doesn't have to dig deep to see the fallacy behind America's use of dirty assets: Marcos in the Philippines, Pinochet in Chile, Noreiga in Panama, Hussein in Iraq, and bin Laden in Afghanistan all were at one point in time dirty assets for the US. Indeed, it is here which lies the very heart of the problem: if it wasn't for America's use of dirty assets, these individuals or groups would not have gained the leverage they needed to engage in wholesale terror -- at home and abroad.

The use of dirty assets is a dangerous game to play, and have so far shown that it does more harm than good. Many of these assets soon become liabilities, as interests ultimately clash. This is because the likes employed as dirty assets are opportunists; they have no stake in any government or system, and frequently see themselves as a law unto themselves.

Thus, the idea of employing a dirty asset now to get rid of a former ally (i.e., bin Laden) is to ensure that the problem of terrorism will remain. Indeed, bin Laden is a perfect example of what happens when you court terrorism to further your own agenda.

If the US is serious in tackling the root causes in its war on terrorism, then it would do better to look inward at its own policies rather than adopt measures based on fear and prejudice. The ends don't justify the means, and the use of terrorism to fight terrorism is a contradiction of what the supposed war on terrorism is about. Adding words like "freedom" and "democracy" to any action is not enough; ultimately, the moral high ground will be lost and less and less people will be willing to join future crusades. Indeed, the history of the crusaders is instructive here.