Posted on 11/26/2005 3:12:03 AM PST by F14 Pilot
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 justice and 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 returned 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 focussing on implementing US foreign policy in central America. I was part of a rapid deployment team designed to go in and suppress forces working for social justice in places such as Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala.
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 the Republican 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 for war against Fidel Castro. President Kennedy rejected the plan. So we shouldn’t just assume any future attack on our soil is the work of al-Qaida.
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. Kindness begets 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 goes well 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 Taliban and 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 with such precise timing.
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.
What was the US role in that war?
By 1982, Iran had recaptured lost territory and Saddam asked the US for help. So President Reagan signed a National Security Decision Directive - NSDD 114 - to provide all means of support to Saddam Hussein. Donald Rumsfeld then went on a very sensitive mission to deliver satellite intelligence, other forms of intelligence and weapons 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.
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? Bin Ladin 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’s very 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.
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 in 1999 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 Bush administration’s lies and hyped-up warnings about WMD in places such as Iraq.
Is Iran really a threat to the US? An alliance between 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 the States) 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.
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 after 9/11: “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 friends and drained support for our enemies.
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 Secretary of State) Henry Kissinger for crimes such as the illegal bombing of Cambodia, it would have sent a powerful message to future leaders. The Bush 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.
Amen to bombing Al-Jazeera. This creep could have pointed out that Bush is accused of planning THAT, too.
Meanwhile, kidnap his a$$ and send HIM to Guantanamo.
This nauseating creep WANTS America to be attacked!
"This nauseating creep WANTS America to be attacked!"
Of course if he doesn't support such stand he wouldn't be able to work for al-Jazeera in the first place!
"Of course if he doesn't support such stand he wouldn't be able to work for al-Jazeera in the first place!"
He doesn't work for al-Jazeera.
Hey Moron Leftists, explain 9-11 if it is all about "unjust" American policies. How come after 8 years of your "enlighten" rule under BJ Clinton did the Islamic Fascists decide to attack us on 9-11? You might want to reconsider serving as the propaganda mouthpieces for the Islamists mass murders Lefties. If there IS a nuclear 9-11, the people we ARE going to hold accountable are the SAME Hysteric Leftist like this author who are spending all their time whining about the USA.
All I can say is these people better pray that America doesn't have a nuclear attack on its soil.
If they think we're weak now, that our armed services are at their limits, they have no idea what we would be capable of doing. No one, and I mean no one would stand in our way after that. Not Russia, not China and not the EU.
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.
Another bit of Leftists historic revision. By 1960, the extreme Left in Germany, France, and Japan organized massive anti-American protests against our presence in those countries. The Left hoped, of course, that a quick pull-out of U.S. military would allow those countries to easily fall under Soviet or Red Chinese control.
Nothing changes. Fifty years later, the Left is still hoping for defeat of the U.S..
this sounds like a warning to me
Ok John Lennon, then what should America do after the death cult attacks the "next" time. Sorry John, global jihad is winner take all.
Is this guy wearing Pampers or are they around his head?
Definately growing older hasn't made him wiser!
More Hate America propaganda. No WMDS were supplied to the Iraqs by the USA. Look at all the UN Inspections. All WMDs came from Russia or Europe, none from us. This is one of the "Big Lies" of the Hate America crowd. They tell a lie and just scream it over and over until it become " a known fact".
What communist crap. Might as well hang yourself before implementing this:
It's always a pleasure to see leftists relying on the strategies that are currently failing.
The significance of Bush acknowledging anything regarding his predecessors would be as important as this guy acknowledging his responsibility for suppressing the forces of social justice in Central America... i.e. none at all. What it would do is provide a concession people like this would attempt to parlay into a "admission of guilt."
This is all a philosophical shell-game ignoring countries have interests, and those interests change.
How this guy got to be a billionaire peddling asininities as vapid as "Well you married her in the first place. How can you want to divorce her now" I'll never know.
This man is an example of why I have come to theorize the existence of what I think of as "the crusading coward."
There seems to be a certain type of personality that desperately wishes to see themselves as fearless warriors for "good," yet they lack the intestinal fortitude to oppose any group or individual that may actually do them harm. As a consequence of this internal conflict, they sublimate these drives into a contrivance whereby they may discover "evil" in fairly harmless places.
Aside from such a theorized personality type, I can't understand why such people would insist on becoming involved, but always seem to get involved as apologists for those who practice violence as a policy tool.
It is not inconceivable that America practices some sort of Machiavellian policy game, but if we do, why do the accusers never have any more compelling evidence than slogans like "Bush lied" or nebulous accusations that require a trip to the library to verify?
Looks like this sicko underwent a "David Brock" type of epiphany.
Wow, I know several of that exact personality. You just nailed it.
Saddam was the power behing the throne in Iraq since 1968. He seized direct power in 1979. How did RR and Bush 1 "create" Saddam 12 years prior to their 1980 electoral victory?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.