B552 incident followup

Panel Cites Drop in U.S. Attention to Nuclear Arsenal

B-52's 2007 Flight With Warheads Prompted Review

By Walter Pincus

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 13, 2008; Page A02

The Defense Department is displaying a "precipitous decrease in attention" to the security and control of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, according to a Defense Science Board task force that examined the broader causes behind the U.S. flight in August of a B-52 bomber that inadvertently carried six cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads.

"The decline in DoD focus has been more pronounced than realized and too extreme to be acceptable," the task force said in a report released yesterday by its chairman, retired Air Force Gen. Larry D. Welch, at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

Welch, who served in the 1980s as head of the Strategic Air Command and later as Air Force chief of staff, told the senators about his concern that "the nation and its leadership do not value the nuclear mission and the people who perform that mission."

The six cruise missiles, which were mistakenly believed to be carrying dummy warheads, were loaded on an Air Force B-52 and flown 1,400 miles from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.

"No one knew where they were, or even missed them, for over 36 hours," said Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate committee. "This entire episode really is a wake-up call."

The Welch panel pointed out that Air Force colonels, Navy captains and mid-level civilians are now responsible for managing the Pentagon's nuclear programs -- a task that during the Cold War was handled by senior flag officers or senior civilians. One of the panel's recommendations is the appointment of an assistant secretary of defense for nuclear enterprise reporting directly to the defense secretary, as well as the naming of flag officers in each of the services who would focus solely on nuclear weapons.

The task force's findings were reflected in a statement made before the committee by three senior Air Force officers who had supervised two other inquiries after the B-52 flight. They said the Air Force's once-central focus on its nuclear mission "has diminished since 1991," after the end of the Cold War. At the same time, they said, "the Air Force began 17 years of continuous combat including conventional air power commitments" using aircraft, such as B-52s, once reserved for nuclear operations.

The Defense Science Board is made up of experts from the private sector and from research groups who are assigned by the defense secretary to study complex technology and research problems facing the Pentagon. It found that almost the entire B-52 bomber force is focused on conventional missions "as the accepted permanent or semi-permanent state of affairs." There is a "widespread perception in both the Navy and Air Force that a nuclear forces career is not the highly promising opportunity of the past era," the panel of experts said.

In the wake of the August incident, seven officers, including the wing commander at Minot and two group commanders, were removed from their positions; 90 airmen were decertified, some temporarily, from working on nuclear-related jobs.

The Air Force is also reviewing its inspection process for units charged with nuclear weapons maintenance; the unit at Minot Air Force base had received a favorable inspection rating shortly before the incident. Air Force Lt. Gen. Daniel J. Darnell, deputy chief of staff for operations, told the Senate committee that the Air Force is considering reducing the advance notice that units receive before inspections.

Air Force Maj. Gen. Polly A. Peyer, director of resource integrations, said that nuclear safeguards were restored after the incident but that more funding will be sought in the fiscal 2010 budget.

The Buck stops at Dick Cheney's door - but let's just ignore that. Move along. Nothing to see here. Let's point fingers at Pakistan instead shall we??

What the NIE and BuZh/Hadley DIDN"T TELL YOU ..

Bin Laden Attempting to Strip U.S. Allies from Anti-Terrorism Coalition

12/06/2007 - By Michael Scheuer (from Terrorism Focus, December 5) - Even before the full text of Osama bin Laden’s 29 November 2007 statement “To the European Peoples” [1] was available, Western officials and pundits were dismissing it as an “old tactic,” “ridiculous,” and as “Osama’s new nonsense” [2].

While such conclusions probably are comforting to those making them, they are wrong.

Bin Laden’s message sounded a pitch-perfect note to the Europeans he addressed, was clearly and ominously threatening to those listeners and fortuitously coincided with a fresh reminder that Europe and America are vulnerable to radiological attacks by non-nation-state actors. As always, bin Laden’s statement cannot be understood and assessed unless examined in the light of earlier statements and their impact. In this case, bin Laden’s November 29 statement is part of the media-operations doctrine al-Qaeda put in place after the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and augmented after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The doctrine has multiple goals, but the goal bin Laden was aiming for on November 29 is that of stripping away allies from the United States, particularly the nations involved in the occupations of Iraq or Afghanistan.

On November 21, 2002, bin Laden launched al-Qaeda’s ally-stripping campaign by starkly telling

“countries allied to the U.S.” that “reciprocity [in war] is only fair.”

Appealing then, as now, over the heads of governments allied to the United States, bin Laden asked, “

Why do your governments ally themselves to the criminal gang in the White House against the Muslims? Why did your governments ally themselves to the United States in this attack on Afghanistan, and I mention in particular Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Germany, and Australia?”

Ending his message, bin Laden stressed to the “allied peoples” that their fate was in their own hands,

“Just as you kill you are killed. Just as you bombard you are bombarded. Rejoice at the harm that is coming to you” [3].

Then, in April 2004, bin Laden narrowed this message to “our neighbors, north of the Mediterranean,” offering the Europeans “a reconciliation initiative” because of “their positive reactions” - bin Laden was referring here to the Spanish voters’ defeat of Prime Minister José Maria Aznar’s government after the March 2004 train bombings in Madrid. In the 2004 statement, bin Laden offered the European people a truce, saying that

“it is in both sides’ interest to check the plans of those [European political leaders] who shed the blood of peoples for their narrow personal interest and subservience to the White House gang.”

Bin Laden told the Europeans:

I also offer a peace initiative … whose essence is our commitment to stopping operations against every country that commits itself to not attacking Muslims or interfering in their affairs – including the U.S. conspiracy on the greater Islamic world. This peace can be renewed once the period signed by the first government expires, and a second government is formed, with the consent of both parties. The peace will start with the departure of its last soldier from our country. The door of peace is open for three months [from] the date of announcing this statement [4].

Not surprisingly, bin Laden’s offer was denounced by the United States and harshly rejected by all European governments. The rejection was followed by two attacks on the London transportation system; the disruption of a plot in the UK to destroy ten passenger airliners over the Atlantic; the dismantling of al Qaeda related or inspired cells in Spain, Italy, the UK, Germany, and Denmark; the so-called “Doctors’ plot” attacks against a popular London nightclub and Glasgow airport; and remarks by senior government officials in Britain, Germany, and Denmark that al-Qaeda is related in one way or another to Islamist terrorist networks and operational activities in their countries [5].

Current Environment

Against this background, bin Laden’s new message is another appeal “to the peoples of the states allied to America in the invasion of Afghanistan, and I mention specifically Europe.” He again asks why European citizens have allowed Afghanistan to be “invaded without right by your unjust governments,” who joined the U.S. led invasion and occupation. Bin Laden lays great stress on the number of Afghan civilians who have been killed by NATO and U.S. forces, thereby underscoring a growing criticism of the Afghan war by the European public, media and some politicians. He also mocks the Europeans as “vassals” of the United States, noting that their politicians are lackeys who “are thronging the steps of the White House” and preventing U.S. soldiers from “being held to account by European courts.” Whatever the West thinks about bin Laden’s words – especially his pot-calling-the-kettle-black condemnation of civilian casualties – there is no doubt that he has made a finely gauged assessment of Europe’s rampant anti-American sentiment, as well as its decreasing official support for U.S. policies in the Muslim world.

The continuing threat present in bin Laden’s 29 November statement seems obvious, but, as noted above, several Western commentators have argued the message contains no threat. Bin Laden told Europeans “it is better for you to restrain your politicians” from supporting the United States and to instead have them “work diligently to remove oppression from the oppressed.” The un-ally-yourselves-from-the-U.S.-or-else nature of these words is apparent, especially given the rising tide of Islamism – rhetorical, politically active, and violent – that has occurred in Europe since bin Laden’s 2004 truce offer was rejected. Indeed, bin Laden’s November 29 statement is also meant to inform Muslims that he is – as per the Prophet Muhammad’s directions - giving the Europeans a second chance to avoid being attacked. Professor John Kelsay has recently written that according to Sharia law, one warning to an enemy is sufficient, but the

“renewal of the invitation would be a good thing but is not required. Commanders in the field have discretion in this matter.”

For his Muslim audience, bin Laden chose to do the “good thing” [6].

The unease in Europe caused by bin Laden’s clear threat was augmented by last week’s fortuitous – for al-Qaeda and its allies – reminder to Europeans that they live under a terrorist radiological/nuclear threat, primarily because nuclear materials and weapons in the Former Soviet Union have not been fully secured. On November 29, 2007, Slovak authorities arrested a Slovak, two Hungarians, and a Ukrainian for attempting to sell about a pound of uranium that apparently was acquired in Russia and which had been enriched sufficiently to be considered “weapons grade.” While there was not enough material to make a nuclear device, there was plenty to build a radiological or “dirty” bomb [7].

Doing the Math

When all is said and done, are Western politicians and commentators correct in suggesting bin Laden’s most recent statement is really just “nonsense” and “ridiculous”? Looked at as an isolated statement this conclusion might be plausible. But in the overall context of the ally-stripping thrust of al-Qaeda’s media doctrine, one must imagine that bin Laden and his lieutenants are well pleased with matters as they stand today, especially in Europe.

Since 2002, President Bush’s circle of foreign-leader supporters has thinned considerably; the UK’s Blair, Italy’s Berlusconi, Italy’s Aznar, and, most recently, Australia’s Howard have left the scene via election defeats or party leadership changes, all of which had much to do with the support of those gentlemen for U.S. policy in Afghanistan and Iraq.

More troubling for the United States, the list of either long-gone or bound-for-home coalition members departing from Iraq and Afghanistan is even lengthier: Italy, Spain, South Korea, the Philippines, Japan, Australia, Poland, Thailand, Portugal, Norway, Singapore, Nicaragua, Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Moldova, Ukraine, and New Zealand [8]. Given this withering of the U.S.-led coalitions in Afghanistan and Iraq - an obvious success for al-Qaeda’s ally-stripping campaign (even if that effort is only one of several causative factors) - one wonders how a senior U.S. official could have said last week that: “I think our NATO allies understand quite clearly what is at stake in Afghanistan as well as elsewhere around the world in fighting terrorism… and I see no diminution in that level of commitment” [9].

Clearly, bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and their allies have seen what the senior U.S. official missed.

Michael Scheuer served in the CIA for 22 years before resigning in 2004. He served as the Chief of the bin Laden Unit at the Counterterrorist Center from 1996 to 1999. He is the once anonymous author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror and Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America. Dr. Scheuer is a Senior Fellow with The Jamestown Foundation.

Notes

1. All quotes from bin Laden’s November 29 statement in this article are from: “Osama bin Laden: ‘To the European Peoples: A message from Sheikh Osama bin Laden’,” IntelCenter, Threat and Claim Monitor, November 30, 2007. The statement first appeared on al-Jazeera, November 29.

2. “Bin Laden’s call ‘ridiculous’: Afghan president,” AFP, November 30, 2007; “Osama’s new nonsense,” New York Post, November 30, 2007; U.S. State Department Press Briefing, November 30, 2007, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2007/nov/95899.htm

3. Osama bin Laden, “To the Peoples allied to the tyrannical U.S. Government,” www.alneda.com, November 21, 2002.

4. “Statement by Osama bin Laden,” al-Arabiyah Television, April 14, 2004.

5. For a discussion of the terrorist situation in the UK and Europe see “Full text of the speech of MI-5 Director Jonathan Evans to the Society of Editors in Manchester,” Daily Telegraph Online, November 6, 2007

6. John Kelsay, Arguing the Just War in Islam Cambridge, MA, Harvard University press, 2007, p. 105.

7. AP, November 29, 2007

8. “Iraq: Non-U.S. Forces,” http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/Iraq_obat_coalition.htm

9. U.S. State Department Press Briefing, November 30, 2007

Books note David Dionisi,

Interview with Author David Dionisi: American Hiroshima – the next 9/11?

by Shaheen Chughtai in London
Friday 25 November 2005 10:55 PM GMT

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D99265B2-4402-46FE-A905-1F086F513A3D.htm

Author David Dionisi says the US faces a nuclear threat

When Australian police announced recently that eight men arrested on terrorism charges were planning a bomb attack against a nuclear reactor near Sydney, many security observers elsewhere were not surprised.

Officials and analysts in the United States have been warning that al-Qaida or associated groups are planning such attacks on American soil.

Dubbed American Hiroshima, the plan apparently targets New York, Miami, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Chicago, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Boston and Washington, DC.

Former US Defence Secretary William Perry says there is an even chance of a nuclear attack on the US this decade. Renowned investor Warren Buffet has predicted "a nuclear terrorist attack ... is inevitable".

David Dionisi, a former US army intelligence officer, is convinced that plans for a nuclear attack are under way.

Once a conservative Republican, Dionisi enjoyed success as a Fortune 500 business executive after leaving the army. But he later rejected his political beliefs and now advocates peace, social justiceand humanitarianism.

In his new book, American Hiroshima, Dionisi argues decades of unjust US foreign policies will be largely to blame for sowing the seeds of hostility and vengeance which could lead to a nuclear catastrophe.

Aljazeera's Shaheen Chughtai caught up with Dionisi in London.

Dionisi had just flown from Liberia where he helps run a Catholic orphanage.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Aljazeera.net: You were once a conservative Republican. What made you change your beliefs?

Dionisi: The transformation was a discovery process. When I joined the military, I had a very limited view of what the US was doing around the world. Through my experiences as a military intelligence officer and later as a business executive doing international volunteer work, I started to see our foreign policies were often hurting people and making the world more dangerous.

One of the more dramatic moments in this process was when I was assigned to a unit focusing on implementing US foreign policy in central America. I was part of a rapid deployment team designed to goin and suppress forces working for social justice in places such as Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala.>

Aljazeera.net: You describe the US public as uninformed - why?

The major media outlets are owned by a handful of corporations interested in promoting advertising and pro-government messages.

Anything that challenges the existing power structure very often fails to receive air time. I highlight Fox as an extreme example of theRepublican propaganda machine.

But when your country is fighting a war, you have an obligation to understand what's really going on. If you don't, you can become an agent of injustice. If people can find the time to watch baseball or soccer etc, they can make an effort to read, travel, talk and not be limited to the messages of fear.

They also need to understand their history. In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff presented a plan called Operation Northwood, which is now declassified. It proposed conducting mass casualty attacks on American targets and blaming it on Cuba to rally public support forwar against Fidel Castro. President Kennedy rejected the plan. So we shouldn't just assume any future attack on our soil is the work ofal-Qaida.

Aljazeera.net: Your book condemns alliances with repressive regimes. Can't these be justified if they serve a greater cause?

History teaches us that when you form alliances that promote injustice, you can only expect injustice in the future. Kindnessbegets kindness and the inverse is also true.

The US fought the largest secret war in its history during the 1980s in Afghanistan - over $6bn was funnelled into that war. As a result, US collaboration with and responsibility for al-Qaida goeswell beyond what most even informed Americans understand.

If you consider that there are over 500 prisoners in Guantanamo Bay from over 40 countries - though not a single one is from Iraq -and that the CIA recruited thousands of people from over 40 countries to be part of that war - none from Iraq - you can better understand how the US played a direct role in creating what became the Talibanand al-Qaida.

Bush supporters argue the removal of Saddam and the Taliban was beneficial and therefore justified military action.

That starts from an artificial premise. When the Bush administration says, "Well, it's great that Saddam's gone," it fails to acknowledge that Bush's father and President Ronald Reagan were key forces that helped create Saddam Hussein.

Looking at what happened in 1979 it can put a lot of this in perspective. As Reagan came into office, the US embassy hostages in Iran were released after 444 days in captivity. Americans don't know this wasn't a coincidence. The US had agreed in writing not to attack Iran and also paid Tehran $8bn. That's why that media event (of the hostages' release during Reagan's inauguration ceremony) occurred withsuch precise timing.

Aljazeera.net: How do you know this?

These are facts that were subsequently published. The agreement with Iran was submitted for review by the current administration to see if it would be binding and prevent an attack in the near future.

Bush administration attorneys concluded it was signed under duress and therefore not binding. I know this from a former senior member of the Bush administration, a seasoned CIA officer named Ray Flynn.

The US felt humiliated; the Reagan administration wanted to hurt the Iranians but its hands were tied. So Saddam Hussein was used as the agent for that. He ended up invading Iran ... and you had this brutal war from 1980 to 1988 that killed over a million people.

Aljazeera.net: What was the US role in that war?

By 1982, Iran had recaptured lost territory and Saddam asked theUS for help. So President Reagan signed a National Security Decision Directive - NSDD 114 - to provide all means of support to SaddamHussein. Donald Rumsfeld then went on a very sensitive mission to deliver satellite intelligence, other forms of intelligence andweapons of mass destruction (WMD).

That's why the current Bush administration was so confident Saddam had chemical and biological weapons; they knew the US had supplied the ingredients in the 1980s.

Saddam broke with the US, however, when he found out we were selling weapons to Iran in the mid-1980s - the Iran-Contra affair. All this puts the invasion of Kuwait into perspective. Saddam got clear messages from the US saying he could invade; plus he felt the US owed him one after betraying him over Iran.

All these wars form a continuum of injustice. Look at the UN economic sanctions in the 1990s that the US and UK refused to lift: over a million Iraqis died, including 500,000 children. That's more than the number who died from the Nagasaki and Hiroshima atomic bombings.

Aljazeera.net: You list numerous "unjust" actions that led to attacks on US targets - isn't that justifying terrorism?

I talked to the CIA's Michael Scheuer, head of the "find Bin Ladin" team, and he stresses that people in the Muslim world are not fighting us because of our freedoms or elections but our foreign policy. This is something the Bush administration constantly twists.

The basic principle is: if you hurt someone, they're going to want to hurt you. We need to ask questions like: Why did 9/11 happen? BinLadin has a very clear articulation of why he's at war with the US,Britain, Israel and others. If Americans read it, they'll see it'svery clear about things such as US forces on Arab land.

And it's not just an Arab or Muslim issue. I learnt this in South Korea where the US has had troops since 1950. When you're there that long, it sends a powerful message that you're not there to liberate,you're there to occupy

Aljazeera.net: You describe the US as the biggest WMD proliferator. Why?

The US has spent $5 trillion on 70,000 nuclear weapons since 1945- more than the rest of the world combined. A Congressional report in1999 found the designs for every deployed nuclear warhead - and for some not built yet - had been stolen and passed to China. Israel acquired its programme from the US too.

Despite this, ordinary Americans are more concerned about the Bushadministration's lies and hyped-up warnings about WMD in places suchas Iraq.

Aljazeera.net: Is Iran really a threat to the US? An alliancebetween Shia Iran and Sunni-led al-Qaida seems far fetched.

Iran will not attack the US if the US does not attack Iran.

Congressman Curt Weldon (who accuses Tehran of plotting to attack theStates) talks about attacking Iran but such talk makes the world more dangerous. If we were Iran, we'd develop nuclear weapons simply because Israel has them. So the US should facilitate a process whereby Israel eliminates its nuclear weapons.

As for the religious differences between Iran and al-Qaida, yes,that's been true - but Bush's War on Terror has been pushing the sects together. Intelligence reports indicate Bin Ladin's son Saad has been based in Iran. No, we can't be certain they're helping each other. But in any case, the Bush administration does not want peace with Iran.

Aljazeera.net: You say "kindness begets kindness". What's your evidence?

After the first world war, the Treaty of Versailles punished Germany harshly, producing hardship and hostility that the Nazis exploited. But after the second world war, when the Marshall Plan helped rebuild Germany and Japan, the US did more to promote democracy than at any time during the Cold war.

To make the world a safer place, we must aggressively attack the causes of suffering and hostility. Imagine if Bush had said after9/11: "People are capitalising on our mistakes in the Middle East. So, let's ensure there is no hunger, lack of clean water, lack of education etc in the Muslim world." We would have made more friendsand drained support for our enemies.

Aljazeera.net: If we can't expect US foreign policy to change soon, isn't it too late to stop an American Hiroshima?

It's not too late although your point is realistic. But we can still influence the US response. Far more people will die in the retaliation and the counter-retaliation.

If the US had the wisdom, we could make the world safer. The US military budget was over $420 billion in 2005. We could split that three ways: a third on economic development in the Middle East, especially Iraq; a third on tackling injustice at home, such as providing universal healthcare - and that would still leave us with the world's biggest military budget.

People have to become more involved. The anti-Vietnam war movement is an example - but it failed to hold government to account. If we had tried (former Defence Secretary) Robert McNamara or (former Secretaryof State) Henry Kissinger for crimes such as the illegal bombing of Cambodia, it would have sent a powerful message to future leaders. TheBush government today wouldn't have been so bold.

Ultimately, Americans need to understand many of them will die and parts of their country will become uninhabitable unless they hold their government to account.

Aljazeera
By Shaheen Chughtai in London

You can find this article at:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D99265B2-4402-46FE-A905-1F086F513A3D.htm

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Read Book: American Hiroshima: By David Dionisi ~ Peace Activist & Educator

Websource: http://www.americanhiroshima.info/>

Email: ddionisi@s...

American Hiroshima is a book designed to help save lives both inthe United States and around the world. This Internet site providesadditional content to reinforce the author's message of hope.

Essential Resources For Readers & Teachers

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Article by David Barton, Bee Staff Writer on August 3, 2005
Davis man's book criticizes U.S. Policies
http://www.americanhiroshima.info/sacbeeaug3.htm

Book Review by Elisabeth Sherwin of the Davis Enterprise and
published on May 9, 2005

Author: Helping poor can prevent `American Hiroshima' http://www.americanhiroshima.info/newspaperreview.htm

The Sunday Times May 01, 2005: The secret Downing Street memo
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

List of Supporting Information
http://www.americanhiroshima.info/listofsupporting.htm

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Free Lesson Plans For Teachers
http://www.americanhiroshima.info/lessonplan.htm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++