Burning Issue

The Internet is burning up with stories about chemical weapons -- white phosphorus and Napalm  -- used by American forces on civilians last year in the attack on Fallujah. These are based on a shocking documentary which aired this week on Italy's state broadcaster, RAI. (More images here and be warned, they're not pretty.) The piece includes interviews with U.S. soldiers who witnessed the damage.

"I heard the order being issued to be careful because white phosphorus was being used on Fallujah. In military slang this is known as Willy Pete. Phosphorus burns bodies, melting the flesh right down to the bone," says one former U.S. solider, interviewed by the documentary's director, Sigfrido Ranucci.

"I saw the burned bodies of women and children. The phosphorus explodes and forms a plume. Who ever is within a 150 metre radius has no hope," the former soldier adds.

Other media abroad have picked up on the story, including the BBC and and The Independent. So far, the only mainstream U.S. news organizations that have given the story any play -- and only to question its veracity -- are the Christian Science Monitor,
and papers that have reprinted a Reuters story containing a military denial.

The U.S. Marines in Baghdad described white phosphorus as a ''conventional munition" used primarily for smoke screens and target marking. It denied using it against civilians.

''Suggestions that U.S. forces targeted civilians with these weapons are simply wrong," U.S. Marine Maj. Tim Keefe said in an e-mail message. ''Had the producers of the documentary bothered to ask us for comment, we would have certainly told them that the premise of the program was erroneous."

Meanwhile, there seems to be little question that white phosphorus was dumped on Fallujah.

WP [i.e., white phosphorus rounds] proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out.

The role of the media is to investigate these issues, to report on their findings and not let them spread like wildfire, unchecked, on the Internet. Which is why the Columbia Journalism Review's blog rightly asks

Even though the film seems suspiciously like another piece of European anti-American propaganda (the documentary features a soundtrack of a woman wailing in Arabic), can the press really ignore those strangely dissolved bodies? They hardly seem like natural deaths, or the corpses of people caught in crossfire. It's hard to look at the melted forms of women and children and not wonder if there isn't some truth to the claim that, even if accidentally, white phosphorus was indeed dropped on the city.

And that's why this story demands a closer look from the American press. We deserve to know whether or not the allegations have any merit -- and whether or not the military has been misleading us about the weapons it's using in Iraq.

Not that the military has ever misled Americans about anything before, of course.

Comments

[steevej]

Here's a suggestion for Canadian journalists: Once you have finished investigating how much money the Liberal Party of Canada has stolen from taxpayers for elections you can start worrying about the Americans. Not that the Liberals have ever misled Canadians about anything before, of course.

[T.R.Y.]

Poignant reporting on the devastating effects of white phosphorous bombs can be found in Robert Fisk's description of their unconscionable use on Beirut's civilian population during Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon. The impression the reader takes away from the relevant passages in Fisk's Pity the Nation (Andre Deutsch: London, 1990, pp. 282-285) is of a weapon intended to slowly and relentlessly torture its victims to death.

Here is Fisk, on 29 July 1982, quoting Dr Amal Shamaa of the Barbir hospital, after Israeli phosphorus shells had been fired into West Beirut:

"I had to take the babies and put them in buckets of water to put out the flames. When I took them out half an hour later, they were still burning.
Even in the mortuary, they smouldered for hours."

The man largely responsible for the use of white phosphorous bombs on civilians was Ariel Sharon, now Israel's prime minister, described by fellow warmonger, George W. Bush, as "a man of peace."

[DF Milstone]

Of course the U.S. military has misled in the past. But so has the media. Does the word Jenin mean anything? To be fair, we must wait until all the facts come in.

[mike]

i love the denial - "Suggestions that U.S. forces targeted civilians with these weapons are simply wrong." Of course they don't target civilians. They target insurgents. And it just so happens that civilians get caught in the middle, and they don't seem to care about that.

[20/20]

Remember My Lai? Dig around to find some supremely nasty large scale stuff in Panama. No atrocity is too much for the US military if it can be accomplished in secret!

[Hockey Fan]

So let me get this straight.

We're actually supposed to believe that all those decomposed bodies were caused by the Americans using chemical weapons in Fallujah?

My first reaction was to laugh out loud at anyone credulous enough to believe this. My second reaction was disbelief that anyone could still believe this after 2 minutes of research.

Only a Leftist true-believer, tenaciously impervious to reason and logic, could give this story any credibility.

But just in case it's true I have one piece of advice. If the Americans used chemical weapons on civilians in Fallujah, what's stopping them from using them on us? Right? The best protection against white phosphorus is to construct a protective suit out of tinfoil. A hat won't quite do it - you will need a whole suit.

Get your supply of tinfoil quick! There could be a shortage coming up.

[Adam in Whitby]

Hm. I've no doubt antiwar people won't be too bothered by the distinction, but a day spent looking up the various descriptions and applications of white phosphorous leads me to think WP isn't a "chemical weapon." It certainly isn't banned by the CW Convention.

WP has applications well beyond that of the military, which is one of the ways the CW convention defines "chemical weapons," something for which the main (often only) use is as a weapon. It also states that a weapon is considered chemical because of its toxic effect on the intended victim, i.e. a poison, which kills you because of its toxic effect on your bloodstream. As Colby Cosh and others have pointed out, WP doesn't kill with a toxic effect, the victim's death is a "byproduct" of its burning properties. As do bombs, artillery, etc.. It may seem like hairsplitting, but the distinction is what makes the CW Convention possible -- otherwise, there can be no difference between mustard gas and a hand grenade, really.

So from an objective information standpoint, as far as I can tell, WP isn't a "chemical weapon," isn't banned by the Convention, and its use, while maybe controversial and "bad optics," isn't illegal in the sense many are using that term. It's like saying suicide bombers who use fertilizer are breaking the prohibition on chemical weapons.

Yes, it would be nice if some bigger media outlets explained this as well. But look at the reports that are out -- even though, from my reading, it seems pretty clear that WP is NOT a chemical weapon, you have Jeff Engleheart and countless others saying it is, simply by describing its effects. Will the media talk to an actual scientist or one of the people who drafted the CW Convetion? Or will they leave off with whomever conforms to their prejudice? Engleheart on Democracy Now!, some Neocon hack on Reilly, and on and on.

If nothing else, this story is a good example of why the media has become more polarized and less trusted than ever before.

[Antonia Z.]

Okay, so maybe WP is allowed and is not, strictly speaking, a ''chemical weapon'' even if it made of chemicals. (Lord knows, I don't have enough split ends in my expensively and overly chemically processed blonde tresses. How about some more??)
That said, this story is out there about American troops and yet, to my knowledge, American mainstream media have not investigated it. Is that too much to ask?

[Bill-Muskoka]

Willie Peter rounds were used as anti-personnel rounds. It works by the process of rapid oxidation. The white phosphorus ignites on exposure to air and continues to burn until submerged in water which isolates the particles from the air, or it oxidizes away.

It is a chemical substance, but not a chemical weapon, per se. I am surprised they are still using them?

The use of such weapons for 'insurgent' (and surrounding non-combatants) suppression is the mark of a 'who cares' attitude on the part of the commander. Urban insurgent combat does not warrant the use of such weapons.

There are far better choices including concussion grenades, tear gas, Acid Rock music would do it well too! No, Acid Rock is NOT a chemical weapon, just a major irritant! LOL

Here is the 'official' EPA MSDS on the substance. It is classified as a hazardous air pollutant. Yeah, righton EPA!

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts103.pdf

I guess the EPA will be citing the military for using it? Big fine, years of litigation, more millions wasted to be sure.

The denial will continue, as usual.

I wonder what would be said by the pro-war gang if a foreign nation invaded their country to establish 'democracy'?

[Non Partisan Neil]

"That said, this story is out there about American troops and yet, to my knowledge, American mainstream media have not investigated it. Is that too much to ask?"

Nope, not at all. Look at what Seymour Hersh had to do to get the My Lai-4 carnage. It happened in March 1968 yet it was December 5/69 when Life finally published the pictures in the inside pages because of the efforts of Hersh through the Dispatch News Services a small alternative news outlet - Why, because the mainstream media wouldn't touch it, sounds quite familiar doesn't it. Actually during the investigation of Lt. William Cally, it was determined that 50 American officers up to and including Generals had significant knowledge and many supported a cover-up.For first hand documentary read Patriots - The Vietnam War Remembered From All Sides by Christian G. Appy page 346-353).

So please spare me the BS from the posts above on the bias leftist media - what crap, do these ding-dongs read history or do any research, not bloody likely.

Neil Shea
Riverview, NB

[lrC]

Phosphorus is a "chemical" in the same way that oxygen is a "chemical". It's sufficiently simple to have its own entry on the periodic table.

Phosphorus as a chemical is in fact toxic, but people who die where phosphorus weapons are used generally succumb to the effect of conventional shrapnel and bullets because bits of phosphorus tend to make one break cover and expose oneself to fire. Phosphorus grenades and shells produce particles which burn the small area with which they make contact. The idea that everyone within 150 metres "has no hope" is laughable.

Got any outrage left for people who are torn apart and burned by plain old-fashioned high explosives?

[Gerhard]

This is claptrap:

"The phosphorus explodes and forms a plume. Who ever is within a 150 metre radius has no hope," the former soldier adds."

150 metre LETHAL radius? What delivery system are they using for the WP? War is nasty, brutal business even if the war is necessary. This illusion that there are "good" and 'bad" ways to kill in war has no purpose besides finding another reason to dislike country X. Real chemical weapons are banned because they are uncontrollable and unpredictable, not because they are especially nasty.

[Dana]

The most important thing in this story of the use of white phosphorous, now essentially corroborated by US military people, is absolutely and beyond a shadow of a doubt the distinction that melting the flesh off people by dropping Willie Pete on or near them is not chemical warfare.

That's comforting to know.

Plus it has the added benefit of clearing the way for napalm to be used again since horror over melted people can be so easily muted by the reassurance that they didn't melt from the use of chemical weaponry.

[wonderdog]

Adam in Whitby: you're right that WP is not a chemical weapon as defined by the CW convention. Some people are playing with definitions in an effort to confuse the distinction.

However, the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons does ban its use against civilians, or in areas where civilians are likely to be. Using it against enemy troops in civilian areas is banned. And Fallujah, quite obviously, is a civilian area, being a city and all.

50 nations are signatories to that convention.

The United States is not one of them.

So ... is using WP in Fallujah a war crime, or not? Well, that depends which side you're on. Ain't international law fun?

The real question is whether Americans would support using this weapon in an area filled with civilians, if anybody told them about it.

On which note, the NYT and the Washington Post did report this last year, but the WP wasn't the story and they didn't dwell on what it does.

[lrC]

Dana:

1) Phosphorus doesn't "melt" flesh. If flesh is being melted, some other agent is responsible - decay, for example.

2) Is there a moral quality in the manner of death? How much more horrible is it to have one's head essentially removed by a 0.50 bullet than to die of burns?

wonderdog:

Urban areas aren't necessarily civilian areas. During a battle one typically finds very few civilians present in areas of active hostilities; they have a tendency to flee. Regarding conventions of war: it isn't the area that's to be protected, it's the civilians. A thrown grenade, depending on weight, has a maximum range of maybe 30 metres. Does that sound like a weapon that's easy to lob without knowledge into clusters of civilians?

[Dana]

IrC, I'm just going by this para,"Some artillery guns fired white phosphorous rounds that create a screen of fire that cannot be extinguished with water. Insurgents reported being attacked with a substance that melted their skin, a reaction consistent with white phosphorous burns." from this WaPo story from last year http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35979-2004Nov9.html

On the moral matter, I offer you your choice of death; a shot in the head or burnt to death with napalm or white phosphorous. I suspect one is over quite a bit faster and less painfully than the other. But you still get to choose. Civilians in Iraq don't.

Let's imagine for a moment, if we can anymore, that this Iraq engagement was worth it's salt for the reasons originally given for it, all of them.

Exactly how does the destruction of Fallujah and so many of it's inhabitants further any part of the cause? That's according to multiple eye witness accounts during and after. And Fallujah is the only city we know of that's been more or less razed, there could be more, just as eventually it was quietly understood that My Lai wasn't all that much of an aberration.

Endeavours begun and executed so horrifically badly rarely if ever proceed any better or end at all well.

[wonderdog]

We aren't talking about grenades. We're talking about 155 mm artillery shells fired from beyond the horizon by guns with a range more like 30 kilometres than 30 metres.

The convention is quite clear: you may not used incendiary weapons against concentrations of troops where civilians are present. Large numbers of civilians were known to be present in Fallujah. Reuters reported on Nov 11 2004, after the attack had begun, that the US estimated that only half the civilian population had fled the city. That was the US military's own estimate.

It was widely reported that civilian casualties were likely to be high before the battle even began. Some of those who failed to flee early were subsequently prevented from leaving. The US actually prevented men between 15 and 50 from leaving the city of Falluja, as was reported on Nov. 8 2004 by Agence France Press. Not all of them, obviously, were combatants.

On Nov 10, 2004, the NYT ran a front page photo with a caption explaining that the marines in the photo were taking cover from a white phosphorus round that dropped short. The Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, and the San Francisco chronicle reported that WP was used in Fallujah that same day. On Nov 9, NBC reported that WP was being used in Fallujah, and notably, the report said it was being used to attack insurgent positions, to burn bunkers -- i.e. it was not for the purposes of illumination, obscuration and target marking as the US military now claims.

In short, none of the facts here are really up for debate, and the story is old news. What's new is that people are now asking whether it was legal, or legitimate, to use WP in Fallujah.

Frankly, that's not really up for debate, either.

See how much fun it is when you come to the party equipped with a fact?

[Antonia Z.]

This is via Bill Doskoch, who linked to this posting in the trackbacks. It's a panel discussion on this issue the other day on Democracy Now

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/08/1516232

[tombo]

mark kraft - http://insomnia.livejournal.com - has shots of 'wp' over fallujah - bombardment viz. offensively..

he has access to a March/05 publication by the US Army which confirms that US soldiers used wp offensively in the Battle of Fallujah. Which directly contradicts US DoD and the State Dept.

Tombo

[Bill-Muskoka]

Today is Rememberance Day. As a veteran myself I think I can say that given the choice , most vets would say the greatest tribute to remembering their efforts would be the end of a need to remember for future wars and that peace, not war, is the legacy left from our blood and angst!

May mankind learn to live in understanding and respect for life.

[Adam in Whitby]

So, if I understand this correctly, then the issue here is not whether CW were used (they weren't), or if the US can legally use WP as an incendiary device (it didn't sign Article III), but whether or not they made indiscriminate attacks on military targets without regard for the civillian population. Which is prohibited whether you're using WP or a BB gun.

This is def. worth reporting on if it starts a needed debate on how to handle urban warfare -- it's all well and good to say you can't attack military targets situated right beside civilians, but it's also prohibited to place military targets within the civilian population. It's also illegal to not distinguish yourself from the civilian population, to hide arms and to attack from civillian areas. All these things were being done by the insurgents of Fallujah, as are the ongoing indiscriminate attacks on civillians, executions, etc.

So how does a regular army, in an urban environment, deal with an irregular force that shows absolutely no intention of abiding by the laws of war? The Geneva Convetion, as far as I know, says the regular army must still abide by the rules, but realistically this is a problem, and can actually extend or worsen the conflict -- Fallujah was a massive problem that festered BECAUSE the US was wary of going in too fast too hard.

If the UN wasn't, in its current composition, such a revolting group of do-nothings, perhaps they might start the debate. Barring that, here's where the mainstream media might be useful.

[lrC]

"And the clothes are intact, untouched."

Great source. Highly unimpeachable.

wonderdog:

"none of the facts here are really up for debate"

Then the question of chemical weapons should not have arisen, and the allegations that incendiary weapons were used "against civilians or combatants intermixed with civilians", as opposed to just "in built-up areas" still needs to be proven.

Those of you clinging to the words of a handful of soldiers speaking out should perhaps consider the weight of evidence of other soldiers on the internet who have been prompted to write - again - about the nature and use of WP and the associated international law.

[The Mark of Zorro]

Breaking news:

The Imperial Army of the Evil Bush empire has killed people.

Now that my tongue is out of my cheek...By the same rationale three separate chemical weapons were used simultaneously in Jordan the other day. Ostensibly with the goal of preventing people from getting married.

Chemicals were mixed together to form a highly unstable polyglot. This substance was prone to explode with great force and horrific results were anticipated. The saintly perpetrators of this supremely holy act surrounded their concoction with a more stable grouping of elements which were formed into very hard round pellets.(kind of like ballbearings)

Upon the divorce of the first polyglot the second more stable elements were propelled with great force and achieved an accelleration necessary to puncture the bodies of carbon based bi-peds. Thus terminating the life of said bi-peds.

Reports coming from the area seem to indicate that no soldiers or non-uniformed combatants were expected to be present when the blast occured. (unfortunately omar khadr did not have an invite to this wedding)

In Fallujah enemy combatants tried to embed themselves in the civilian population probably hoping that this would ensure their safety while they waged their insurgency. I guess the mosques were full that day.

I issue this challenge to Zerb and friends. Both sides put down their weapons and agree to meet for a hand to hand battle to be fought away from the civilian population. If your insurgent friends agree to this proposition contact the Allied commander in the area. I am quite sure he would agree to this solution to the problem.

Until then things will go boom in the night and people will die. Get over it.

[wonderdog]

lrC, don't be silly.

The chemical weapons issue is a red herring. Since I, and most others, have not argued that WP is a chemical weapon, using that error by the Italian film makers to discredit our argument is clearly invalid.

I'm fully familiar with the nature and use of WP and the associated international law. That's precisely the position I'm arguing from.

Independent reports from several embedded journalists said, at the time, that WP was in use. The US military estimated that only half of the civilian population had departed.

There's clearly a reason for concern here. And the half-truths in the State Department denial of December 2004 hardly bolster the credibility of the US.

[Antonia Z.]

Thanks Wonder Dog.

I find it fascinating that, after two-plus years of utter bloody disaster in Iraq, ''some'' people prefer to argue semantics rather than look at the ugly reality in the face.

Chemical, shmemical. So I got it wrong.

Point is, the Geneval Conventions, not to mention common decency, dictate that civilians be accorded immunity from ''murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture.'' They should also not be targeted by combatants.

But they were. Are.

Gosh, doesn't it seem so long ago when old Rummy and his Talking Points TV Army were screaming ''Geneva Conventions!!'' when Al Jazeera and western networks showed those images of captured US troops?

One quick note to Mark of Zorro (and hey! That's what I would carve into the couch and the walls when I was a kid!) Can we please distinguish between the terrorists (ie. al-Zarqawi) and the insurgents? It's very easy to always lump them together, and it serves the Bushies' propaganda push, but it's often wrong.