White Phosphorus Round-up
George Monbiot of the Guardian weighs in on the current state of the debate on the US military's use of white phosphorus at Fallujah.
I think he is too categorical about many ambiguous issues. Long-time readers know that I am from a military family, and I want to be very careful about charges made against US troops, especially of behaving in ways they knew to have been illegal. Monbiot argues for the latter. I don't think he has proved his case.
By the way, Scott Peterson of CSM went back to Fallujah fairly recently and concluded that "the battle of Fallujah has yet to be won," and that the security situation there is still very chancy.
My own discussion of the white phosphorus issue when it first broke is here. I generally stand by it, though as usual, the US military shot itself in the foot by the way in which it initially denied and then had to acknowledge the story. I should be clear that I think the US ought to sign the protocol banning the use of incendiary bombs, and I oppose their use. The charge that is being made, however, is that WP use is already forbidden in US law and US military regulations by virtue of the chemical weapons ban, and that the US military knew this and employed it anyway.
I said last Friday:
"The US military is puzzled about the outcry over the use of white phosphorus at Fallujah. After all, a 500-pound bomb is also destructive. My guess? You can't go to war against Saddam on the grounds that he has stockpiles of chemical weapons, and then turn around and use incendiary bombs of a sort that much of the world regards as a form of chemical weapon. It is the hypocrisy factor. Not to mention that the international community is trying to get such weapons banned."
This analysis is borne out by the condemnation on Thursday of WP use in Iraq by the Russian Parliament. The parliamentarians said that they “consider the use, under cover of the noble aims of the fight against terrorism, of any type of weapon banned by international conventions, particularly phosphorus bombs, as absolutely unacceptable.”
This is a public relations issue, not an issue of war crimes, as Monbiot and many others apparently want to have it.
On to the article:
*Monbiot maintains that the the Battle Book, published by the US Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, says that use of white phosphorus "against personnel targets" is against the law of war. [Cole: We'd need to see the text, and know more about military procedures, here. Use of incendiary weapons against *civilian* personnel is forbidden. I do not know if the Battle Book really widened it from there, or why, or what its legal standing is to do so.]
*Monbiot argues that although white phosphorus as an incendiary weapon is covered by a protocol that the US has not signed, it does have toxic lung effects that very possibly justify its categorization as a chemical weapon. [Cole: I'm not qualified to pronounce on this subject, but I do not believe any international forum has actually held that white phosphorus is forbidden on grounds of being a chemical weapon. See my posting above for the precise protocols involved. Note that the British have also used WP in Iraq, and Col. Tim Collins defended it on Friday.]
*Monbiot says that there may have been tens of thousands of civilians left in Fallujah when the US launched its assault, which damaged 2/3s of the buildings in the city. Use of thermobaric weapons in such a context is certainly questionable and very possibly illegal. [Cole: I don't think there were as many as 60,000 civilians left in the city at the time the US launched its assault. Most observers thought it was closer to 5,000. Given the immense fire power deployed, civilian casualties would have been much higher if there had been so many civilians left. Moreover, as long as US forces did not actively target civilians with white phosphorus in the assault, they were not acting criminally in the light of US law or military regulations. White phosphorus cannot burn through concrete and wouldn't have been very useful as an assault weapon against guerrillas holed up in such places. It seems to have been used in part to spook them and get them on the run.]
*The evidence given by Italian television channel RAI as to the effects of white phosphorus in Fallujah, of photographs of decomposing bodies, is not dispositive. The bodies pictured are simply what dead bodies look like after a while. [I agree with Monbiot about this.]
*Monbiot accepts journalist and film maker Gabriele Zamparini's characterization of a US Defense Department document he discovered recording a conversation between Kurdish fighters that spoke of Saddam's own use of white phosphorus as "a chemical weapon." [Cole: As many web commentators have pointed out, this document is not a Pentagon-generated report, but simply a Pentagon record of a third-party conversation. No known Pentagon-generated document issuing from the US military characterizes white phosphorus as a chemical weapon.
A big irony: Kurdish troops took part in the Fallujah assault. If the Kurds do want to continue to charge that Saddam was deploying WP as a chemical weapon, then they made themselves open to the same charge from Sunni Arabs in 2004. This irony is also an argument against too much self-righteousness when it comes to Iraq.]
*Monbiot: All this occurs in a context of illegal warfare in general, since the US and Britain had no casus belli for their war on Iraq and it was not authorized by the UN Security Council.
[Cole: I agree that the invasion in 2003 was illegal. However, the assault on the guerrillas in Fallujah was not illegal. It had a UN Security Council resolution behind it authorizing Coalition troops to carry out such operations, and recognizing the transitional government of Iyad Allawi, which also backed the operation. What was done to Fallujah was so horrible that it is now often forgotten that there was every reason to think that the city was a base for the worst kinds of terrorism against innocent civilians in Baghdad and Karbala; there were very bad characters there. Black and white depictions of the Marines as villains and the guerrillas as good guys are silly and morally poisonous. If I had known the full extent of the damage that would be done to the city, I would have been against the Fallujah campaign; it is just terrible counter-insurgency tactics for one thing, and was a humanitarian disaster. But to say that the US military wilfully contravened its own regulations and knowingly broke US and international law on chemical weapons by deploying white phosphorus there would have to be proven from better evidence than has been presented.]
Since exactly what I am arguing seems to be hard for some readers to understand, I just have to repeat that I am challenging the narrative that the US government recognizes white phosphorus as a chemical weapon; that it is so categorized in the convention banning chemical weapons; or that US military commanders deployed it in contravention of US law despite knowing or believing that it was illegal. That is, if you actually put the officers in charge of the operation in the docket, I am saying that no conviction could be obtained. It is worth saying, because allegations to the contrary are being seriously made by serious persons.
posted by Juan Cole @ 11/25/2005 12:05:00 AM
|
Facebook
32 Comments:
Your logic escapes me. If the war is illegal (a war crime) how can a part of the war (attack of Falluja) be legal. The UN giving passing as resolution is no more valid than the Bush administations unilateral decision to go to war.
Really, what is the point of splitting a hair so many ways?
"there were very bad characters there...."
And there are very bad characters in the US military and very very bad characters in the US administration. If anyone of ordinary intellect tries to parse things as finely as you do in this post their course of action will be to turn on the TV and watch football. Yes,it is good to avoid gratuitous slander of soldiers but "seeing all sides of an argument" until you can't decide if war is a good or bad thing is self-defeating
John Stuart Blackton, who has considerable expertise as a retired Foreign Service officer and military man, has made a number of posts at TPM Cafe on the issues, which I think are probably fairly reliable on the legal aspects. He has researched the military manuals and talked with Jag officers on the issue. Here is one of his posts.
His basic contention is that there is no doubt that use of WP is not illegal, but some military procedure manuals make it against policy to use it as an incendiary against people. Therefore, one could contend that the forces in Fallujah violated standard procedure.
Other written procedures, however, contradict this position. He does not seem to find any instances where the military protocols claim that this is a violation of the laws of war.
I would be very sceptical of that assertion unless someone can cite specifics. It seems quite unlikely.
Personally, I think we should be far more concerned with the implications of massive assaults on cities, with all the attendant consequences. Such tactics are morally questionable and politically disastrous. Specific weapons like WP have horrible effects, but so do many other things we are doing, and I think this particular issue is a red herring.
"If I had known the full extent of the damage that would be done to the city, I would have been against the Fallujah campaign; it is just terrible counter-insurgency tactics for one thing, and was a humanitarian disaster."
I'm a bit confused here.
The earthquake in Pakistan has been a "humanitarian disaster." But it wasn't caused deliberately by any human agency.
The "damage that would be done to the city" of Fallujah was caused deliberately by humans (if
the US Marines are considered to be human.)
There was no need to use such extreme tactics in combating an insurgency. And they haven't worked - the net affect has been to exacerbate the insurgency.
Isn't causing an unnecessary humanitarian disaster a war crime, whatever colour explosives you use?
John
" It seems to have been used in part to spook them and get them on the run."
Nope. WP is an obscurant. It was used against holed up insurgents so that troops could advance upon their positions without getting shot.
if someone is going to argue that dependent clause in subsection x, paragraph 3, page 4 of pamphlet B doesn't specify... well, we are subject to the old warning that a person can spend so much time defining, and cataloging, alphabetizing, and labeling, that in the end you lose the meaning.
The moral point is more than public relations, it is the central spirit that will define the action of the people. If you choose to carry out questionable acts but defend your action by the action of others or perhaps obscure your actions, then one must understand that while the action in itself may in fact not be "illegal," it certainly defines the morality of the individuals who carry out such acts.
The Fallujah killings, the military tactics, represent the worst of war measures against civilians and infrastructure. Devastating a relatively defenceless city with merciless efficiency and cold blooded calculated strategy is obscene. These weapons create many mini Dresden fireballs and the residents burned. If this is not a war crime then it is time war crimes were better defined!
I appreciate most of what you write, but your all to frequent apologist nonsense is really a bit trite. I don't care who your family is (I have military in the family also), trying to say these weren't war crimes is worthy of FOX News - get back to reality and stop feeling like there's some "respectability" standard you have to cling to because you put a title before your name. What happened in Fallujah deserves nothing less than outright, unqualified condemnation and militant action towards the prevention of such atrocities. You seem to favor neither, which confuses me a bit.
"This is a public relations issue"
Everything is a public relations issue with the Bush administration. Truth is not really the issue with them. It's what they can get people to believe.
Some people in this country and around the world said The Iraqi Invasion was about oil and Bush said it's not about Oil. Now there are reports that almost $200 billion dollars of Iraqi revenues have gone to multi-national corporations. So what can we believe?
I do want the truth. I do not want to jump to conclusions that the US knowingly used chemical weapons that would burn the skin of insurgents as well as civilians. But there isn't much reason to believe anything the Bush administration would say about. In the meantime, as we debate whether the use of this incendiary weapon is legal or not and comb through army manuals, Iraq will see more battles, sieges, bombings, destruction and an ever rising death toll.
WP
The problem with everything that is going on is the degree to which the country is being forced to accept all of these battlefield tactics and weapons in support of the overall strategy. While individual weapons like WP are questioned, there is the wider use of everything from that to DU to simple fire that is destroying the Iraqi infrastructure, something from which it may never recover, either environmentally or socially. In short, the whole place is continuing to become a huge garbage pit, the receptacle for waste products from left over WP, burnt out cars, scattered human remains, and the ubiquitous rubble from buildings damaged or destroyed by any and all sides.
On top of the physical destruction is the human refuse (or refugee) element that are not encouraged to take the Americans' sides because of how much is being destroyed and left in a shambles. What is left of Fallujah may indeed be a sign of how many other P-O'd people there are who -- despite their contributions to the overall destruction -- can point to the invaders as the source of everyone's woes. Enter PR on
ALL sides.
Reconstruction demands that no further destruction -- of either the city or its residents -- occurs. As the CSM article points out, the right decisions have to be made. And this is for all the participants. Who's gonna allow the destroying of a city or a coutnry to save it? Creating an unstable population tends to not make for a basis for getting intelligent or intelligence.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/wp.htm
It's certainly ironic, or perhaps just sick, that the Russian parliamentarians who support Vladimir Putin voted for this after they essentially soaked Grozny in fuel-air explosive delivered by artillery, air and direct fire weapons. The Russian military makes more use of thermobaric s than anyone else - they even have an armoured vehicle specifically for it, with a box of rockets on top.
@TPITS: If the war was illegal it was an international crime, not a "war crime". An international crime (there is only one, aggression, which is what you are talking about) can only be committed by a State, not by individuals.
In the current legal environment, war is legimitate in two cases - authorisation by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, and self-defence pursuant to Article 51 of the UN Charter. Article 2, section 4 renders the use of force illegal in any and all other circumstances.
The invasion was arguably illegal; but the UNSC passed a resolution on Iraq covering the role of a multinational force, hence providing authorisation under Chapter VII.
Clear enough?
BTW, with regard to the remark that "the British used WP too", the reference is to Col. Tim Collins's memoir. It ought to be pointed out that the WP was in the form of hand grenades, which are, I would say, pretty discriminate so far as you do not set out to hurl them at groups of civilians.
I just wanted to highlight this:
"Use of incendiary weapons against *civilian* personnel is forbidden."
I'm not sure how to assess this, because I'm not sure exactly what you're adverting to when you say it is forbidden. The Chemical Weapons Convention makes no distinction between civilian and military targets. Now it seems that there are good grounds for considering WP a chemical weapon as well as an incendiary, since it has toxic effects as well as thermic ones. And, as Monbiot and others have pointed out, the US Department of Defense has itself considered WP a chemical weapon.
I agree with those who say that the legal nuances are less important than the effects of weapons - and the US can always devise more hideous weapons that would be strictly legal if wants to. But if Saddam is in the dock for war crimes, on the basis of universal principles of justice, then there are several US politicians and military figures who really ought to be tried too.
This is a public relations issue, not an issue of war crimes...
Maybe, but not really. For those of us who remember the Vietnam War era, we recall the horrendous photograph of the girl running down the street after an American Napalm attack. Yes, that was a PR issue. But, yes, it galvanized the anti-Vietnam War activists against the American war against Vietnam.
--raj
The issues of war crimes, doctrines of proportionality and rules of engagement are a grey morass, with few clear cleavage lines dividing the legal from illegal or moral from immoral. Legal definitions probably render the US attack into Fallujah and the conduct of forces to be perfectly legal under US and International law. Indeed, when it comes to fire and manoeuvre, I'm not sure I'd want to enter a fight without useful tools such as Willy-Pete to hand.
But that's not the point. Hair-splitting over legalities is not the object of the exercise. This is about public relations, about management of perceptions. Of course, PR machines primarily play to domestic audiences. International opinion is less vital than domestic opinion and the PR battle on WP in the US is largely won.
However, this doesn't mean that it has been won abroad. Speaking as an Englishman, fine-line definitions of legality may play well to domestic Americans audiences, who instinctively need to be assured that their government did the right thing. However, it plays less well to foreign audiences who tend to treat 'war crimes' (whatever they are) like pornography--they know it when they see it.
At the end of the day this debate is being fought on two separate and unconnected fronts. The US may win the domestic battle for hearts and minds but lose the foreign compaign. The question is whether foreign impressions really count for anything, and how?
This is as absurd as counting angels on the head of a pin. It is totally
irrelevant. The invasion of Iraq was illegal - as you admit - and thus the
war has been illegal from the start. How can a battle in an illegal war be
considered legal, regardless of who authorizes it? I don't give a damn if
the battle is blessed by the pope and all the angels, the Iraq war is still
a war of aggression by the US to gain control of the resources of a
sovereign nation that posed absolutely no threat to the US and thus is in
contravention of the Geneva conventions of which the US is a signatory.
We have no more right to attack Fallujah than we do Paris and whether certain weapons the US uses doing so are legal or illegal is totally besides the point. Fallujah is the Guernica of the 21st century. It is an outrage and an abomination and a war crime. Period.
I think the Professor's background of being from a military family clouds his otherwise excellent judgement and narrative.
That WP was a slightly different formulation than Napalm and was primarily listed for illumination should be noted. Even if there were only "5000" civilians, that is still morally reprehensible. Further, there is nothing to state definitively a) the number of residents who stayed or b) the number of civilians who were killed. This is brought into starker contrast given that males were NOT allowed to leave the city (if between the ages of 16 to 45), families were shot at trying to escape across the river, and there are plenty of stories to contradict the somewhat indiscriminate attacks on civilians in the near proximity of insurgents.
Plus, one thing neglected by the Professor is that it was also well documented by the military itself that most of the insurgents already had slipped out of Fallujah before the assault, making the likelihood of civilian casualties more likely.
The Professor has been notably silent regarding atrocities committed by US troops: posting photos of desecrated Iraqi's on a website by Navy Seals, posting similar photos on a porn site, documented instances of abuse (across different detention camps), indiscriminate returning of fire, occupation of the hospital in Fallujah and the shelling of the other, sniper fire on ambulances, ignoring the brutality of the Iraqi National Guard/Police Commandos, etc. Culpability does not only lie with the Administration but everyone who willingly takes part in the atrocities.
Finally, while the UN made the occupation legal (after the fact), it also made it imperative that the occupying forces FIRST see to the safety of the civilian population, which it clearly did not and the US is in violation of the agreement which gives them the authority to do so.
One more comment, the US is no longer a legal occupying force in charge and it does not take orders from the elected Government (or the interim council) which called off the first assault on Fallujah but this was ignored. The Brittish also ignored the sovereignity (however dubious) and busted its soldiers out of a prison. Soldiers who were undercover and operating without knowledge of local authorities.
You can't have it both ways, Professor. Either the occupation follows the letter of the law or you are involved in illegal action of even the fact "legality" bestowed by the UN.
Monbiot best sums up the issue of the illegality of WP use in his letter to UK paper The Times last week. Note the centrality of the toxic effect of the substance. Here’s the letter:
****
Sir,
Your report "'Chemical' rounds used against rebel fighters" stated that the direct use of white phosphorus against enemy fighters "remains highly controversial because UN conventions ban its use on civilian "but not military" targets." That is incorrect.
The Chemical Weapons Convention bans the use as a weapon of "Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals." It does not distinguish between military and civilian targets. It does however, allow a military deployment of substances which is "not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare." In other words, the use of phosphorus as a flare or a smokescreen is permissible. When it is fired at enemy troops to flush them out of their positions (as the US State Department admits it was used), it becomes a chemical weapon and is banned under the convention.
Yours Sincerely,
George Monbiot.
*****
Unless the toxic effect of the substance on human beings is in any doubt (and I don’t believe it is) then its use, as described by the Pentagon, appears quite clearly to be banned under the Convention. Does an “international forum” need to confirm this? In this case the International Criminal Court would be the best place to resolve the issue. Hard to avoid the suspicion that this was the sort of leeway the US government, under Bush and Clinton, wanted to retain by not ratifying the ICC treaty.
More generally, is the US prepared to break international law, the laws of warfare, and generally act with varying degrees of excessive force? I’m not sure that can be in dispute. See “Shock and Awe”, or countless eyewitness accounts of attacks on civilians during the occupation e.g. Dahr Jamail. I’m sure there are good and bad people in the US military, as there are in any other institution. But it is the nature and demands of the institution itself, particularly in terms of exertions of power on the part of the US state, that is the overriding operative factor. Whether these actions are caught under the letter of the law is certainly important. But the wider point highlighted by WP use is the undoubted violent brutality of the occupation.
David Wearing
London, UK
www.democratsdiary.co.uk
Well, it's good to know that the groteque images of fallujah victims could be results of decomposition rather than evidence of WP damage. Many were wearing civilian cloths (and some were obviously women and children) and it saddens me to think that innocents expired in such a cruel manner.
WP is not a chemical weapon. It is not WMD. But it is a wicked weapon nevertheless. I never quite understand why so much chest-beating is reserved for hiroshima victims -- they are no more dead than the victims of dresden or tokyo.
Juan, Like many, I read Informed Comment on a near daily basis. I greatly appreciate your work. However, I find your arguments regarding the U.S. use of whiskey pete in Fallujah to be naive and pedantic at best and ethically incomprehensible at worst. The question of whether the U.S. military believed w.p. to be a chemical weapon is in a way irrelevant. White phosphorous as part of the 'shake and bake' technique of deploying incendiary devices in concert with the chemical is due precisely to the fact that its flammable properties will fry anyone who is in contact with it. It's use in this fashion has already been admitted by U.S. military personnel.
To quote Colonel James Alles, commander of the US Marine Air Group II. "We napalmed both those bridge approaches (Baghdad), Unfortunately, there were people there.... you could see them in the cockpit video... It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect."
The U.S. was ALREADY using banned chemical weapons in Iraq during the battle at Baghdad, setting a precedent that was followed at Fallujah and likely dozens of times in other places we will never know about...Whether they were used on insurgents and 'accidentally' affected civilians is an ethically outrageous excuse. Again, are we to accept 'collateral damage' as part of the 'fog of war'? No.
I would also point out that your statement "it is a public relations issue not a war crimes issue" is a disappointing use of words. I suppose your personal background is again interfering with neural circuitry here. There were civilians in Fallujah, (no one one knows how many). Ergo, the use of w.p. in the assault on the city was used against those civilians. Understanding such an atrocity really is that simple.
Your question of whether U.S. soldiers consciously broke international law becomes an absurdity...If that logic holds, any international war crime committed, including those committed by the U.S. military can be written off as the old 'we didn't realise the weapon was banned' or 'are commanders made us do it'; so its use is somehow legitimated and apologized away.
I would urge you to rethink your position in light of what we already know about the so- called morality of the U.S. military and government. Your comments fall into an intellectual laziness that relies on the discredited notion of 'American exceptionalism'. This kind of argument is a disservice to not only you, but to the children that died in Fallujah.
We will never forget.
IMO, there are several pretty nasty problems with recent Monbiot's article.
-- In a guerilla war, there is no good way to tell combatants from civilians. This means that once certain weapon is used in this kind of conflict, we must assume that civilians are affected. So, Mr.Monbiot makes no sense whatsoever when he claims that "there is no hard evidence that white phosphorus was used against civilians".
-- The way thermobaric weapons work (see wiki), there is no such thing as "35% thermobaric novel explosive (NE)". The weapon is either 100.00% thermobaric - or not. So, Mr.Monbiot should simply say that thermobaric weapons were used in Falluja. In fact, technically, thermobaric weapons are highly effective in the urban guerilla war because they are designed to burn out everything inside given closed space.
-- Finally, Mr.Monbiot is not that different from Hitchens when he talks about "military crimes". His article clearly suggests that attack on Falluja was brutal, but it does not prove anything about military crimes. In fact, he does not even mention the Geneva Conventions which were likely to be violated in Falluja. This is a legal issue and it needs to be treated as such!
"The Fallujah killings, the military tactics, represent the worst of war measures against civilians and infrastructure."
Forgive me for being rude, but this is a ridiculous statement. You need to pull out some history books and aquaint yourself with the history of warfare. Cripes.
Perhaps you missed that part where the city was virtually emptied of civilians. I'm sure the inhabitants of Dresden, or Tokyo would have appreciated a chance to leave before the fire-bombing began.
Fallujah, it seems to me (someone who's ass was not on the line, BTW), was shot up more than required. I'd guess Marines fired many more rounds than insurgents, by several orders of magnitude, but it wasn't exactly the Battle of Stalingrad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad
Whether or not Fallujah was a smart (or even moral) thing to do, to charterize it as a massacre, as a wanton attack on a civilian population, is just not supported by facts. But I'm getting the impression you're way past caring about facts at this point.
"Devastating a relatively defenceless city with merciless efficiency and cold blooded calculated strategy is obscene."
Slathering heaping helpings of hyperbole all over the top of your arguments doesn't make them any more palatable, or valid.
THANKSGIVING 2005: TWO CONVERSATIONS
I spoke with a veteran of the Afghanistan war. He was a third generation military man. He said that they were taught that the only war to fight was to defend one's own territory and spoke of how horrible WW II was—“It was the worst.” You could hear the pain in that family and the reason they made serving in the military a way of life: They had been brutally invaded; they knew it could happen; and they wanted to be prepared should it happen again.
He could not say much about Afghanistan. In fact, he could not speak the name of the country and could barely admit that “he had spent some time there.” All he could say clearly is that when you see your friends die in front of you, all you can think of is revenge: It becomes very personal and nothing else matters in those moments.
This is profound evidence of the horror of war. It drives one crazy and, in the end, leads to deep remorse. Senseless violence does not restore what is lost by equally senseless violence. The brief feeling of power vanishes. Later one “knows” that one was twice overpowered, first by the loss and then by the inability to avoid causing more senseless loss. How much worse is this when you grow into an ethic that implies that the death of your friends was really justified?
When Americans will take responsibility for the actions of their government and act accordingly? The US military is primarily made up of ordinary mortals trying to do what’s right. Americans, via their government, have asked far too much of these men and women and have no right to sit in judgment unless it is to judge themselves
Someone who knew John Murtha when he was in Vietnam said that Murtha was the last man he thought would stand up and do what he did. This man who knew Murtha in time of war resigned his commission because his superiors betrayed him.
The biggest problem is not the military and its choice and use of weapons. We have a major problem with our government.
I think the attitude of the U.S. military in Iraq is summed up by a comment by a British officer that they regard Iraqis as "untermenschen". The U.S. military does not "do" body counts and as far as I can tell has not made much effort to reduce "collatoral damage" at checkpoints and elsewhere. With the exception of the Taguba report, when an attack on civilians receives publicity the military announces an investigation which does nothing.
I think this question of whether WP is a chemical weapon boils down to whether this atrocity is taken seriously. I don't think it matters much whether thousands of civilians are killed with bullets or WP or nerve gas; either way it is a problem.
More on White Phosphorus and Chemical Weapons
According to wiki, it is not clear whether WP is a chemical weapon. It appears to be close to napalm which is generally not considered as such. Anyway, usage of napalm against civilians appears to be prohibited by the UN convention.
The problem with Mr.Monbiot's articles on WP is, he simply takes WP as CW without any discussion and does not provide any references to wiki. This creates quite unfortunate confusion.
From the other side, WSJ, National Review and others use to monitor the media very closely. So, there is little doubt that they will take full advantage of these ambiguities.
There is absolutely no need to provide them with this opportunity!
1. GU 11/22/2005. George Monbiot. Behind the phosphorus clouds are war crimes within war crimes
2. Times 11/17/05. George Monbiot. Chemical warfare
The Chemical Weapons Convention bans the use as a weapon of "any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals."
When it is fired at enemy troops to flush them out of their positions (as the US State Department admits it was used), it becomes a chemical weapon and is banned under the convention.
3.GU 11/15/05. George Monbiot. The US used chemical weapons in Iraq - and then lied about it
White phosphorus is not listed in the schedules of the Chemical Weapons Convention. It can be legally used as a flare to illuminate the battlefield, or to produce smoke to hide troop movements from the enemy.
But it becomes a chemical weapon as soon as it is used directly against people. A chemical weapon can be "any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm".
4. Wiki on WP
5. Wiki on napalm
Professor Cole is to be commended for reminding readers that he comes from a military family and therefore is reluctant to charge US military personnel with «behaving in ways they knew to have been illegal». But as many commentators have already pointed out, these connexions with the US military seem to have dulled his usual analytic acuity. I don’t wish to go into the issue of possible war crimes, as that has been adequately covered here by others, but I should like to question Professor Coles assumptions regarding how many persons were left in Fallujah at the time of the fighting. The relevant passage is the following : « [Cole: I don't think there were as many as 60,000 civilians left in the city at the time the US launched its assault. Most observers thought it was closer to 5,000. Given the immense fire power deployed, civilian casualties would have been much higher if there had been so many civilians left. …]» Let us examine those figures a bit more closely. Fallujah is generally assumed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falluja) to have contained a population of between 200 000 and 350 000 prior to the November 2004 operation. According to section on Iraq contained in the CIA World Factbook (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falluja), the population in Iraq exhibited the following age structure in 2005 : 0-14 years : 40 %, 15-64 years : 57 %, 65+ : 3 %. In the middle group, the ration of males to females was 103 to 100. Assuming, for ease of calculation, there were as many men as women in the population of Fallujah, that would mean that the male population of the city prior to the assault was on the order of 100 000 – 175 000 persons. If 57 % of these were between the ages of 15 and 64, that would mean 57 000 – 100 000 persons in this category. If, again, we assume for the sake of simplification and because we have no definitive information to go on, that the age structure of this population was equally distributed over this fifty-year interval, that means that approximately 35 000 - 60 000 males of so-called fighting age, i e, those that were not permitted to leave Fallujah before the assault began, remained in the city. Even assuming that all women and younger or older men had left prior to the commencement of the attack – something we know not to be the case - still the number of city residents subject to the terrible barrage must have been much closer to the figure of 60 000 which Professor Cole disclaims, than the 5 000 to which he says «most observers» (Who were these «observers» ? Did they also have connexions to the US military ?) thought to be approximately correct. The reason that civilian casualties were not as high as would have been expected under these circumstances is perhaps simply that we don’t know how high civilian casualties were – note that the first position in the city occupied by the US military was the General Hospital, a move hardly consonant with the Geneva Conventions but which military spokesmen justified as the doctors were reportedly making «propaganda» concerning the high number of civilian casualties ! Arresting and/or killing medical personnel who report on casualties is certain one effective – but alas, hardly novel and innovative – way of keeping the number of (reported) casualties down….
You wrote:
"White phosphorus cannot burn through concrete and wouldn't have been very useful as an assault weapon against guerrillas holed up in such places. It seems to have been used in part to spook them and get them on the run."
Actually, this isn't true. It doesn't melt concrete but it sure does explode and seep around the corners of a well built bunker. In Vietnam we (the unit I served as a medic with in the 1st Infantry Division) used wp against guerrillas holed up in just such places. VC soldiers in well fortified bunkers couldn't be reached with regular grenades or small arms fire but a wp grenade would burn them to death.
Also, having done it once, my platoon leader refused to ever do it again. Whether it is technically a war crime or not, killing someone with wp is morally reprehensible (I still remember the long protracted screams of a vc soldier in a bunker as he slowly, horribly died from the wp grenade we threw into his bunker).
Were there an actual prosecutor, an actual hearing, a war crimes trial, all the quiddities proposed either by Professor Cole or the many commenters would simply evaporate; they are special pleading and nothing else.
Of course trials only happen when there is a victor, and the tribunals dispense victor's justice only.
Or does someone besides me believe in universals, believe in right and wrong?
Well, Mr. Bush does, he believes in good and evil. But believes it is good to kill "evildoers" milliard after milliard. And to gloat over it. Can't we agree it is time to dispense with Mr. Bush's leadership, and his war?
Nice peace of detective work Sherlock.
However, and I quote however as somebody with a Military background (25 years) I can assure you that the shells used by the Yanks, were smoke. The fact it contains WP on 116 felt pads seems to have missed you by.
The shells used by Saddam were pure Phosphorus, these are not designed as smoke shells but as incendiary weapons with an aim to kill. Big difference and if you should get off your Ivory tower and do a little searching you will find I talk facts and not craps.
Calling smoke shells (yes smoke shells) thermobaric weapons is a misnomer. And it’s use simply tells me that people with NO Military background are using raw emotion in which to push their political agenda.
Now if you quoted the daisy cutter then that would be such a weapon.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/thermobaric.htm
If you had said 500 pound High explosive bomb in a confined space then that is almost the same.
But a smoke shell is a smokeshell. The words used by the so called experts always contains if used, they may cause death. The photos people post show corpses still wearing their clothing which is intact. They have no burns on their bodies. (Blisters is a clue)
Now don’t get me wrong I am against war more than the next fellow. But please stick to the facts. If you lie then be prepared to be exposed for the falsehoods you state.
Errata : The page in the CIA World Book given as the source for the discussion of the age and gender structure of the population of Iraq (and by assumption, Fallujah) in my previous posting can be reached via the following (condensed) URL : http://tinyurl.com/3o1o. I regret any inconvenience caused by my error....
Saddam can just say it was a few bad apples at his war crimes trial.
Sadly, I seem to be able only to post using anonymous.
Firstly, adding WP to the list of chemical weapons seems rather extreme in the least. There is no good way to die, but a least the "impact area" of the weapon can be discerned. Compare to a real chemical weapon--a blood, blister, or choking agent--the effects of with are colorless, odorless, and perhaps even more awful. Furthermore,the effects of chemical weapons, unlike WP, can last for a long time in the area--with the same undetectability. But I suppose its easier to go with the blogosphere flow.
Not sure how a treaty is binding if you didnt sign it.
Whatever you think of the war's "legality" (whatever that means), I would wonder what the armchair generals would recommend in the case of Fallujah. Since in fact the city had been converted into a fortress, with apartment blocks and mosques used as blockhouses. I'm not sure that "negotiation" would convince such people to give up their positions--in this case only a frontal assault really can rid the city of fighters. Sadness of war.
Keep in mind also that after April, 2004, the Marines paid local former Army officers and soldiers to create a "Brigade" to patrol the city without American interference. The city became worse, and continued to be a base of terror operations in the city and also in Baghdad. At what point is the UN-created government allowed to act?
Some refresher on the law of war would be useful. Law of war does not equate "killing civilians" with "targeting civilians". There are considerations of proportionality, necessity, etc which are taken into consideration. Exploding a car bomb to kill 5 American soldiers handing out toys, and instead killing a large number of women and children, would probably be targeting civilians. Setting up defensive positions in mosques, hospitals, and homes could be considered a law of war violation? Where's Carla Del Ponte when you need her?
I love your site Prof. Cole.
I've never understood the logic of the distinction you make here: "Moreover, as long as US forces did not actively target civilians with white phosphorus in the assault, they were not acting criminally in the light of US law or military regulations."
As I understand the USA's policy, it's only illegal to target civilians if civilians are the only target. But it is perfectly OK to select a military target (say, a couple of terrorists in a building) even if the target includes the presence of numerous civilians. So, for example, if a building contains two military targets but also 30 civilians, then it's OK to bomb the building.
Yet, and this is fascinating, if a car bomber targets a couple USA soldiers and also kills some civilians, then the USA argues it is reprehensible if not criminal.
I think they both are reprehensible and should be criminalized. That’s why I believe it is moot from a moral perspective whether WP is a chemical weapon or not. The USA knew the particularly awful effects of the weapon on people, it knew there was a likelihood that civilians would be present (after all, it turned back men of military age who tried to escape the city, more below on this point) when it used WP, it knew the probable outcome, which is why it at first tried to deny the claim.
Finally, returning civilians back to a battleground is a violation of international law. Turning them back only to incinerate them makes the crime particularly reprehensible and is part of the same criminal violation of international law.
Post a Comment
<< Home