US defends use of white phosphorus against Iraq insurgents

[BigBearJohn]

WASHINGTON (AFX) - The US today defended the use of white phosphorus munitions against insurgents in Iraq last year but denied civilians were targeted.

The toxic agent was used during what a US army journal called 'shake and bake' missions against insurgents in the battle for Fallujah last year.

'It's part of our conventional weapons inventory. We use it like we use any other conventional weapon,' said Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman.

Whitman said he had no knowledge of any civilian victims of attacks with white phosphorus.

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2005/11/16/afx2341690.html

"Shake & Bake?" How disgusting can you get?

[Briar]

1. If it is so conventional

why lie about it?

[NanceGreggs]

2. Why indeed?

What this administration needs is some PROFESSIONAL LIARS -- these amateurs can't keep their stories straight.

[Nordmadr]

3. When I was in the Navy I was a Gunners Mate.

We had WP rounds for our 5" gun system. It was always made very clear to us that these were illumination rounds only and not to be used as anti-personnel, becasue their use would constitute use of a chemical weapons in violation of international treaty. We called them "Willy Pete".

Olaf

[RaulGroom]

4. You were slightly misinformed

The relevant treaty is Protocol III of Geneva, dealing with incendiary weapons. WP is not a chemical weapon. It is illegal to use it in a civilian area, though.

[mrfrapp]

5. That's Wrong

The relevant treaty is the Chemical Weapons Convention, which the US has signed. The treaty defines a chemical weapon thus:

Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.

http://www.cwc.gov/treaty/articles/art-02_html

on edit: to clarify, this defintion permits the use of White Phosphorus for "illumnitation" purposes as olafvikingr states but prohibits use against personnel, civilian or otherwise.

[Nordmadr]

7. I just did a look up of the Geneva Protocol and found this info:

PROTOCOL ON PROHIBITIONS OR RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF
INCENDIARY WEAPONS (PROTOCOL III)

Article 1

Definitions

For the purpose of this Protocol:

1. "Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily
designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons
through the action of flame, heat, or a combination thereof, produced by
a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target.

(a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame
throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other
containers of incendiary substances.

(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:

(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such
as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;



http://fletcher.tufts.edu/multi/texts/BH790.txt


This appears to match what you say, and I do appear to have been misinformed. At least at the time I was in the Navy it appears to have not been the POLICY of the U.S. Navy to use these as weapons. Looks like that changed in the military since I left. Go figure.

Olaf

[realFedUp]

20. the use of it is probably not changing hearts or minds for the better

:eyes:

I wonder how this administration would like
their habeas corpus rights taken away, right
after they've been sprayed with "Willy Pete"...

[TomClash]

24. The US opted out of Protocol III

[Nordmadr]

34. Do you have a source for that please? Thanks. N/T

[TomClash]

38. Here you go - Straight from the Horse's . . . . ass

"States Parties/signatories: 98 states have adhered to the Convention, 80 states have ratified Amended Protocol II, and 79 states have ratified Protocol IV; the United States has not ratified Protocol III or IV"

http://dtirp.dtra.mil/tic/tic_tag.htm#CCW

[Nordmadr]

9. Also found this little tid-bit.

...The Battle of Fallujah was conducted from 8 to 20 November 2004 with the last fire mission on 17 November. The battle was fought by an Army, Marine and Iraqi force of about 15,000 under the I Marine Expeditionary Force (IMEF). US forces found WP to be useful in the Battle of Fallujah. "WP 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. ... We used improved WP for screening missions when HC smoke would have been more effective and saved our WP for lethal missions."

White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a signatory. Smokes and obscurants comprise a category of materials that are not used militarily as direct chemical agents. The United States retains its ability to employ incendiaries to hold high-priority military targets at risk in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality that governs the use of all weapons under existing law. The use of white phosphorus or fuel air explosives are not prohibited or restricted by Protocol II of the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (CCWC), the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects.


Above emphasis mine.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/wp.htm

Olaf

[Barrett808]

16. US Army handbook states WP use against enemy personnel is illegal

A US Army handbook published in 1999 states clearly that the use of white phosphorus burster bombs against enemy personnel is "against the law of land warfare" and the US State Department clearly denied last year that any such weapons were being deployed in Iraq.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1875057,00.html

What's that about?

[mrfrapp]

26. Misleading

That's a horribly misleading article. White Phosphorus is not *banned* by name because it has legitimate uses -- as you have said yourself, it is used for illumination purposes. However, it's use as a weapon against personnel is prohibited by the Chemical Weapons Convention. The CWC doesn't require that a weapon be listed by name for it to be prohibited. The definition is quite clear and I've provided links to the actual government website in post #5 above.

I'm getting seriously pissed off that my posts on this subject are being roundly ignored. How more authoratative do links have to be? The links to the US govenment website that I've provided state in plain Enlish that the use of White Phosphorus as an offensive weapon is violation of international treaty.

[Nordmadr]

33. Easy, I agree with you 1000%. I think it IS a chemical weapon

undoubtedly when used against personnel. I am just trying to get a feel for the legality of it. It seems there are a number of conflicting treaties and details out there, which could be exactly what the Administration wants...to create a sort of legal limbo around whether this is legal or not. Furthermore, there is strong evidence out there I believe pointing out that we used our modern day napalm in Falujah. I don't see how it could be argued that MK 77 munitions are not chemical/incendiary weapons.

How many more lies and half truths do we have to put up with? Look what they are doing to our military.

Olaf

[dmb]

WP can be used as a chemical weapon

I disagree. It is not a chemical weapon when used merely as a screen or a marker, but once it is used directly on enemy soldiers, it has crossed that line into being classified as a chemical weapon, which is defined as "Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere."

[oneighty]

10. Yes and in EOD

we never considered WP to be an anti-personnel weapon but rather for incendiary, flares and an igniter in napalm bombs fusing and firing systems.

Ex Mineman

180

[Nordmadr]

12. I joined the Navy to be EOD.

Washed out for FFI (Failure to Follow Instructions) during PT test, never got another chance. Sucked.

Olaf

Edit: P.S. Just wanted to clarify that I never actually made it into the EOD training prgram. During the PT test in Great Lakes to QUALIFY I got booted. Put my sneakers on after the swim. Guess that was a "no-no". From there it was either take a "C" school, or chance the test again. I took the "C" school and ship orders to Pearl Harbor on a new ship.

[oneighty]

15. Oh

In 56 when I entered the program one had to be E-5 or better. Underwater swimmers school was tough but fun. A few washed out there and a few more later in deep sea diving school then a few more in actual ordnance disposal methods. Nineteen of us started nine finished.

180

[Nordmadr]

35. Wasn't the EOD actually part of the UDT program back then?

Sort of a combination of what the SEALS and EOD would split up as? When i was going out for it (1992) there were three distinct programs...SEALS, EOD, and Navy Diver.

Olaf

[oneighty]

37. No

First frogmen were taken from mine disposal teams. See your PM

180

[acmejack]

11. When I was in the Navy we called them smoke.

And knew what airbursts would do to people.

[Judi Lynn]

6. Disgusting is accurate. They've lost the ability to feel shame

for barbarism and opportunism. _Bush doesn't like to be restricted by any code of conduct. From the article:

But another Defense Department spokesman highlighted that white phosphorous has been used by armies around the world for the past century.

A yellowish substance with a pungent smell similar to garlic, white phosphorous erupts spontaneously into fire when exposed to oxygen, releasing a dense white smoke.

Incandescent particles of white phosphorus can cause deep, painful chemical burns, said GlobalSecurity.Org, a Washington group that gathers information on military subjects.

A report on the battle of Fallujah published in April in the army journal Field Artillery said white phosphorous 'proved to be an effective and versatile munition' in Fallujah.
(snip/...)

[daleo]

18. Mustard gas was also used in the past century

As were nerve agents and atomic bombs. Usage in the last century by armies around the world is a non-sequitar (sp?).

[Double T]

8. There is NO EXCUSE. There is NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON.

The U.S. has used chemical weapons in Iraq and is NOW trying to put a different face on this ugly truth. This is simply more bushco lies and deception about the Iraq war. bushco should be tried along with Saddam for the use of chemical weapons. 'Shake & Bake' chemical weapons were used by the U.S. and they killed innocent civilians. This is ANOTHER NATIONAL DISGRACE by bush. This is just one more reason bush should be impeached immediately.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

32. There is NO EXCUSE. There is NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON.

which means it's official WH policy.

[Mandate My Ass]

13. ...but denied civilians were targeted

democracy is messy, right rummy, you evil bastard.:grr:

[BigBearJohn]

14. How's the saying go? "Close enough for hand grenades and A-bombs!"

[daleo]

17. They went from:

- didn't use it.
- only used it for illumination.
- also used it to instill fear.
- ok, it is used as a routine weapon.

Also went from:
- didn't use it on civilians.
- well, didn't target civilians, anyway.
- no personal knowledge of civilian deaths.

That's what happens when you get caught in lies. They back away, one step at a time.

[Briar]

21. only used it to instill fear

equals terrorise.

[Thor_MN]

27. Isn't anyone who dies from US military action in Iraq an "Insurgent"???

Seems to be the working definition... Kids blowing out candles on a birthday cake?? A group of insurgents gathered around an incendiary device... Family gathered for a meal?? Insurgents passing out rations..

[MisterP]

30. shock and awe was FAVORABLY compared to Blitzkrieg!

[stanwyck]

19. I watched BBC America's story on this

this morning. The Pentagon denied the use of white phosphorus...then U.S. soldiers told of using it. The Pentagon then admitted using the chemical...only for illumninatin. Then our soldiers told of using it as a weapon. And The Pentagon again said it might have been used but was not illegally used.
Our military is now being investigated by human rights organizations for our use of the chemical.
Why can't our leaders just be honest from the start?
They tarnish us all with their dodging and weaving.
We deserve better.

[bemildred]

22. So, Ms Sgrena was right all along? nt

[DoYouEverWonder]

42. They sure tried to kill two birds with one stone that day

yes, she was right.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

23. Thank you Bush

You've amde this country an even bigger pariah

[KamaAina]

25. Time for some serious regime change

Saddam Hussein was a Very Very Bad Person because he (is alleged to have) used chemical weapons (that U.S. companies sold him) against Iran. That's (supposedly) why we had to go barging in there like a bull in a china shop, in order to get that Very Very Bad Person out of power.

We have now established that King Dumbass** has used chemical weapons against Iraq. What, pray tell, is to become of him? A spider hole would be too damn good for him! :grr: :banghead: :nuke:

[Nordmadr]

36. You know, some countries are going to get together and regime

change us if we don't do it first.

Olaf

[tuvor]

28. "We don't torture."--bush

Yeah, tell that to any WP victim, and act indignant-yet-full-of-resolve when he incites more terrorism against his enemy.

[Tom Joad]

29. Are there Democrats in the Senate who are calling for an investigation?

I am very much doubt it, but please, prove me wrong.

Most of us agree that this amounts to a war crime, so if we were in Congress we would call for an investigation. further, we should call for an international tribunal to try Pentagon decision-makers who permitted the use of this weapon of mass destruction.

So where are the Dems? I could imagine a few in the House who would take this on, but any in the Senate?? Do I hear anything at all? Anything except a conspiracy of silence?

[OneBlueSky]

31. these people are ghouls . . .

white phosphorous . . . depleted uranium . . . napalm . . . and God knows what else . . . it's only a matter of time before they nuke somebody . . . and all without a tinge of conscience . . .

they are ghouls . . .

[Doctor_J]

39. Trying to provoke even more animus toward the US

we're doomed.

[greblc]

40. WP is a Common Weapon

Grunts carry Phosphorus Grenades. I trained with them in Combat Engineer School. Our text book use was to destroy vehicles with them by placing them on the hood over the engine. Combat Troops will use any weapon at their disposal in a combat situation. Kill or be killed. It should be no surprise.

Isn't Gun Powder a chemical compound? Let 's take that out of the arsenal too.

This whole debate is knee jerk. WP has been in the United States arsenal for decades. All of the sudden it's a problem?

What frustrates me most about this WP debate is the assumption that civilians were targeted with this weapon. Its a war... it's messy... bad things happen... there is no such thing as a war without civilian consequence.

War is grotesque.

Use your efforts to end the war. It matters little to the family of a dead or wounded child what weapon was used.

Peace.

[Nihil]

43. It's not a war, it's a (failed) imperial invasion

The problem isn't that WP grenades exist, that grunts are issued with
them or that a patrol were surprised/ambushed/outnumbered and used
"any weapon at their disposal".

The problem is that WP mortar rounds, WP artillery rounds and WP bombs
were used in planned operations with the explicit intention to burn
people out before shelling with HE.

> What frustrates me most about this WP debate is the assumption that
> civilians were targeted with this weapon.

Frustrating perhaps but no less true for all that.

Targetting areas where civilians are known to be hiding (their homes)
on the offchance that there might also be resistance fighters is wrong.
Shooting at collections of unidentified Iraqi civilians in the hope that
there might be resistance fighters is wrong.

War is indeed grotesque but allowing the continued use of indiscriminate
weapons against civilians is far more than acknowledging that the odd
stray round might hit an innocent party.

[Demeter]

41. Defending the Indefensible--Yet Again

These guys have no ethics at all. And no sense of how to conduct a war, either.

[Briar]

There is no honour in war

It comes as a result of the failure of diplomacy, or out of overwhelming hubris, or out of greed, folly, ambition or any of humanity's numerous vices. On occasions it is unavoidable (in self defence) but to recklessly and voluntarily embark on a war of choice in a spirit of arrogant self righteousness is the ultimate human crime.

And one of the many tragic consequences is that those who fight it on behalf of the arrogant and self righteous are themselves dehumanised and dishonored.

[Briar]

45. There is no honour in war

It comes as a result of the failure of diplomacy, or out of overwhelming hubris, or out of greed, folly, ambition or any of humanity's numerous vices. On occasions it is unavoidable (in self defence) but to recklessly and voluntarily embark on a war of choice in a spirit of arrogant self righteousness is the ultimate human crime.

And one of the many tragic consequences is that those who fight it on behalf of the arrogant and self righteous are themselves dehumanised and dishonored.

[antonialee839]

44. Who would have known that by merely placing the word conventional

in front of the word weapons would make it perfectly legal to
use chemicals on your own people, or those that you supposedly came to liberate.

[Disturbed]

47. Breaking News!

Dept. of Defense (War) defends War Crimes.

Amerika is sinking lower into the mire.

Abuse. Torture. War Crimes. Detention without rights.

[godai]

46. It's 'against the law of land warfare'

"A US Army handbook published in 1999 states clearly that the use of white phosphorus burster bombs against enemy personnel is "against the law of land warfare" and the US State Department clearly denied last year that any such weapons were being deployed in Iraq."

from this story:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1875057,00.html