Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

Italians Release Video of Phosphorous Attack on Fallujah

The Italian television network RAI has released a video that includes an interview with an ex-Marine and footage of the use of phosphorous bombs at Fallujah in November of 2004.

The issue is being discussed at Daily Kos.

White phosphorus is a form of incendiary bomb.

The Italian press is calling the phosphorus bombs "chemical weapons" and alleging that they were used indiscriminately and against civilian populations.

The use of incendiary bombs against civilian targets or concentrations of civilians with no military function is forbidden by Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. Although the US ratified Protocols I and II of the Convention, it does not appear to have adopted Protocol III into US law.

There also exists a Convention on the prohibition of the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons and on their destruction, Paris 13 January 1993, which went into effect in 1997 and which the United States signed.

The 1997 convention, however, does not appear to refer to incendiary bombs:


' ARTICLE II

DEFINITIONS AND CRITERIA

For the purposes of this Convention:

1. "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:

(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;

(b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;

(c) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in subparagraph (b).

2. "Toxic Chemical" means:

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. '


As a historian, I feel it important to point out that the use of phosphorus bombs or massive bombing in Iraq is not a new thing. The British used incendiary bombs to control the rebellious Iraqi tribes. (The British also used mustard gas in Iraq, long before Saddam.) Of course, the difference between kinds of munitions can be exaggerated. It is no fun to have "conventional" arms rain down on your family from the sky.

I wrote in a review last year for The Nation:

'The airplane also allowed a close surveillance of the population in a manner that the supposedly despotic predecessors of the British, the Ottomans, could never have dreamed of achieving. This aspect of British rule in Iraq has long been understood by, among others, the eminent historian of Iraq Peter Sluglett. In his 1976 study, Britain in Iraq, Sluglett quotes Member of Parliament Leopold Amery as saying, "If the writ of King Faisal runs effectively through his kingdom, it is entirely due to the British airplanes."

Yet, as [Toby] Dodge points out, the airplane quickly demonstrated its limits, in large part because it depended on raw power and fear rather than on legitimate authority. The British used night bombing and incendiary explosives to destroy villages around Samawah in 1923 as a means of forcing the population to surrender its rifles and submit. While the destruction of six villages and the killing of 100 men, women and children terrified the peasants, they simply dispersed from the area and took their rifles with them. The Royal Air Force high command considered following the fleeing Iraqis, but concluded that further bombing would only be a slaughter. According to Dodge, the high command feared that the British public would discover exactly how they were ruling Iraq. '


Indeed, Sir Arthur Harris, who planned large numbers of British bombing raids in Iraq in the 1920s, went on to become the architect of the fire-bombing of Dresden during World War II, which killed at least 25,000.

The lessons of British Iraq were mostly unknown to the American politicians who planned out and executed the 2003 Iraq War. One of them is that the military occupation of a conquered population is a barbaric business and can easily draw the colonizer into the use of horrific means to control the rebellious occupied. The Americans' moral fibre is being destroyed from within by things like Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, and other atrocities. In the end, America may not any longer be America. The country that began by forbidding cruel and unusual punishment is ending by formally authorizing torture on a grand scale, and by burning small town Iraqis down to the bone with white phosphorus.

14 Comments:

At 5:02 AM, Blogger Fabrice said...

Juan,

you write today that "In the end, America may not any longer be America. The country that began by forbidding cruel and unusual punishment is ending by formally authorizing torture on a grand scale, and by burning small town Iraqis down to the bone with white phosphorus."

I don't agree with this, and I would like to express a different view that, sadly, is based on a certain degree of cynicism but, happily, turns out to be more optimist.

I don't believe that America can be thoroughly described as "The country that began by forbidding cruel and unusual punishment"; things are not black and white, with America being a white clean country. The reality includes lots of grey shades, and America is also a country that was built on slavery and the genocide of the native americans; if you look at the history of America (cf Howard Zinn), you will find other wars that were fought savagely, such as the invasion of the Philippines at the end of the nineteenth century. And by the way, America is the only country that ever used nuclear weapons. And nevertheless, America is also the country of the Marshall Plan, maybe the most generous idea in the history of foreign relations, and one that we europeans do remember !

The truth is that, as all countries, America always had its bright sides and its dark sides.

I am a frenchman, and a proud one, which does not mean that I am proud of everything my country ever did; when it comes to torture, what happened in Algeria between 1954 and 1962 was deeply wrong, it had serious consequences on the french moral fibre, as you say, but it did not destroy it : first, because the french moral fibre was never perfect (torture was not something new), second because the bright side of France always co-existed with its dark sides and will continue to do so.

I think the same will be true with America and the consequences of the Irak war.

In fact, I am amazed by how similar our experience in Algeria and your experience in Irak are, and I believe the major reason why our countries disagreed about the invasion of Irak is because we already had this experience.

In any case, and to conclude, the bright sides have to fight against the dark sides, and you are doing it very well. Don't lose faith !

 
At 10:18 AM, Blogger petrysl said...

Oh. My. God.

The horror. The HORROR.

What have we done? Could Cheney and company have possibly had this in their minds when they pulled out of the ICC?

How can we possibly ever recover from this? Looks like Saddam's rape rooms and torture chambers are still open, just under new management.

There must be a way to source this to the top of the Cheney administration. Is it possible to find out which corporate contractor is responsible for the manufacture of this atrocity?

 
At 10:29 AM, Blogger CaptainJack said...

Thank you for your informed comment and historical perspective. What I am curious about at the moment is which faction is most likely killing off Sadam's associates attornies? Simple revenge or something larger at work?

 
At 12:56 PM, Blogger Jay said...

Although I was once a Lutheran minister, I have become something of a Buddhist in the last couple of years. Buddhism teaches the very simple truths that most of our suffering comes from our own actions as we struggle against the reality of our own nature and environment and that the consequences of what we do, good and bad, come back to us.

We are in this war because we wanted to control other people and take what we needed to support our lifestyle which is addicted to oil, instead of changing our own behavior. As we have struggled in this war we have become more angry and desperate and our reason, the seat of moral decison, has gone to sleep. We have allowed the darkest seeds of anger and violence to grow, and with each act of brutality we have damaged ourselves as much as we have inflicted pain on "the enemy".

What will happen to us when the people we have allowed and encouraged to do these things come home? What darkness will they bring home to their families and communities?

We will find that what we have done to them, we have done to ourselves.

We have to stop it. Of course we cannot just leave and disclaim our responsibilities for the damage we have done, but that is not the same as saying we have to continue the war. We have to stop building war and start building peace. This will require a lot of understanding and creativity, and will have to begin with an admission of our mistake in starting the war and a commitment to justice in making up for the damage we have done.

 
At 3:25 PM, Blogger Rafael said...

I find that he descriptions given here and in Daily Kos are contradictory. The two types of weapoms, White Phospurus and MK77 napalm cannisters, do not burn flesh while leaving clothing intact. Both burn at intense temperatures, enough to melt metals (in the case of White Phosporus). These can not be chemical weapons alledged, although their effects would be horrific (third degree burns, intense pain, suffocation do to nouxios gases and internal bleeding, etc.)

The melting of the flesh appears to be closer to mustard gas or the equivalent, as seen in the casulaty picture here http://www.iranvision.com/iraqchemicaluse.html
Notice the damage done to the flesh by the chemical burns, burns that by their nature would ignore clothing or other non organic materials.

Could it be that the U.S. is testing new weapons in Iraq as it did in Vietnam (Agent Orange and Explosive Gas mixtures)? Could it be that something was lost in traslantion from Arabic to Italian to English? Or that, not having experts with first hand experience of the events/casulaties, the effects were associated with the wrong weapons?

Whatever the answers maybe, the posibility of the use of inciendiary agents against civilian populations centers once againg raise the twin specters of Dresden and Tokyo.

 
At 4:38 PM, Blogger Postman said...

The BBC Online now have (quote good story)about the RAI show, and now it leads the Middle East World News page.

Otherwise this has had no traction in the UK MSM at all - and not a lot in the UK blogosphere.

It is some time since I read the sluglet book but I think that the use of mustard gas was never undertaken in live action, the pilots objected because of the danger to themselves.

The nasty device they perfected was the delayed action fuse. The villagers would be warned of the planes arrival by the noise and flee, return after the bombing and then be blown up - there wre few survivors to spread the word.

Interestingly Sykes (of the Sykes Picot agreement) whom I have been researching for some time now, died of the post war influenza - as perhaps say Mr John Bolton or Mr Cheney might, in the looming pandemic appears.

Sykes saw himself as a Christian Crusader and had as his memorial a tablet engraved with a glamourous fully armoured Crusader.

Plum Sykes of Bergdorf Blondes is a direct descendant of the family - who have now sold the family house at Sledmere to a Dutchman who entertains Russian shooting parties in slaughtering semi-domesticated pheasants for fun... at least it gives modes seasonal employment to the rustics who frighten the birds into the air to meet their nemesis.

 
At 5:28 PM, Blogger BC said...

"A country that began by outlawing "cruel and unusual punishment is ending by formally authorizing torture on a grand scale"

The saddest truth in this comment is contained in the simple clause, "is ending".

 
At 6:27 PM, Blogger Juan said...

Guest comment by Michael Pollack

I am posting this on behalf of Michael - Juan.



Michael Pollack writes:

"There is a lot to be said for the idea that fighting evil can make us evil.
But when it comes to torture, recent events suggest a more direct mechanism:
torture is the indispensable basis of fake intelligence. It is how you
create irrefutable evidence for what your ideology says should exist, which
allows you to override all contrary evidence.

Recently you discussed crucially false intelligence given to us by the
al-Qaeda leader
http://www.juancole.com/2005/
11/al-libi-tagged-as-liar-
by-us.html

It now turns out that there seems to be a very simple explanation for why
Libi told the interrogators what they wanted to hear: he was tortured.

Now, since Libi ranked high in al-Qaeda, the fact that we tortured him isn't
a surprise in itself. But what makes it an interesting subject for
reflection is that he seems to have been the subject of a battle. His was
the first case where torture won out. And the surprise is that this was all
prominent news more than 3 years ago in
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id
/5197853/site/newsweek/
in the wake of Abu Ghraib.

This might well be part of why the DIA suspected he was lying. Although
"lying" doesn't seem to exactly capture the speech act of "telling torturers
what they want to hear.
http://atrios.blogspot.com/
2005_10_30_atrios_archive.
html#11312508568
3083680 Atrios seems to have been the first to make this suggestion.

This seems like another fine exhibit of how torture can be counted on to
produce the worst kind of intelligence -- the kind that makes us positive
that our fantasies are reality by "confirming" them.

And it's by no means the first. I would argue that it is often the essence
of a countrywide torture operation such as we used to run in Latin America.
You capture people, torture them, and they tell you want you want to hear as
well as the names of people. You torture the people they named, and these
"confirm" the original confessions for the same reason: they are also
telling you what you want to hear in order to get the torture to stop. The
end result is to create a cascade of confirming "facts" -- and with them an
ultimate truth that seems to stand on them irrefutably: that these people
you are torturing are evil and deserve it. And this is of paramount
importance: torture, by creating evidence, justifies torture: it becomes
literally the only means to obtain the crucially confirming information --
because that crucial information is made up. And by this means it hid under
the cloak of a search for truth the real means by which systemic torture
"worked" in fighting guerrilla war in Latin America and other countries: it
made clear to everyone in the population that any opposition could get you
tortured by getting you caught up in these concentric circles of being
named. The "truths" created by torture rationalized a system of rule by
terrorization. It was exactly the mechanism by which Saddam ruled Iraq. But
the crucial difference was we believed the truth that our system created.
And that made it seem like something other than the incarnation of evil.
Without that belief, there would be nothing to cover that reality.

So for such a system, the "truths" that torture creates are indispensable.
But even when torture is not being used as a means of countrywide oppression
it still always produces the truths we want to hear. Or so it seems based
on the little evidence that escapes its secrecy (which is the second reason
its truths are irrefutable: its evidence is by nature unexaminable except by
those who believe).

The great example in Iraq is the infamous journal posted on the internet by
the contract interrogator Joe Ryan. (Remember the great contract
interrogator scandal? It seems so long ago.) There we learned that his
interrogatees confirmed every ignorant thing he thought about Iraq -- and
above all the dominant line that the Iraqi insurgency had been gotten up and
run by foreigners:

http://www.juancole.com/2004
/05/interrogator-diary-
bilmon-has-via.html

http://www.juancole.com/2004
/05/reader-comment-on-
torture.html

So there is a kind of perfect fit when we now learn that the ultimate force
pushing for torture by the US -- the one party willing to defend it even in
the light of day, even against the opposition of 90% of the Senate -- is the
office of Richard Cheney, who the Washington Post, in an October 26
editorial, recently and famously called
http://www.washingtonpost.com
/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/
10/25/AR200
5102501388.html

It's no accident that Cheney's office is also the ground zero for the faked
intelligence that led to the war (which has recently been churned up by the
Fitzgerald investigation and the indictment of the other Libby). People like
Richard Cheney need torture because they need distorted intelligence. They
need irrefutable objective proof that their distorted ideas are true. And
they need to torture reality to do it. Their ideas and their policy can't
survive without it.

The lies of torture contributed to the last war. And if unchecked, it will
lead to the next."

 
At 6:13 PM, Blogger bushmeister0 said...

I wrote Dahr Jamail back in April that the death of Afafat would knock what was going on in Fallujah right off the front pages and he told me, "Just give it some time. And there will be outrage."

At my blog at the time I did some looking into the Willy Pete issue and found some very interesting information and quotes from soldiers who witnessed these chemical attacks.

Well, Dahr, I quess you were right about giving it some time, I just didn't expect it to take so damn long.

Info on Willy Pete from last April:

http://imnotworthy.blogspot.com/2005/04/meet-willy-pete.html

my other blog:

http://bushmeister0.tripod.com/bushmeister0

 
At 6:51 PM, Blogger Michael Pollak said...

There is a lot to be said for the idea that fighting evil can make us evil. But when it comes to torture, recent events suggest a more direct mechanism: torture is the indispensable basis of fake intelligence. It is how you create irrefutable evidence for what your ideology says should exist, which allows you to override all contrary evidence.

Recently you discussed crucially false intelligence given to us by the al-Qaeda leader al-Libi:

http://tinyurl.com/aha9r

It now turns out that there seems to be a very simple explanation for why Libi told the interrogators what they wanted to hear: he was tortured.

Now, since Libi ranked high in al-Qaeda, the fact that we tortured him isn't a surprise in itself. But what makes it an interesting subject for reflection is that he seems to have been the subject of a battle. His was the first case where torture won out. And the surprise is that this was all prominent news more than 3 years ago in Newsweek in the wake of Abu Ghraib:

http://tinyurl.com/yt5j5

This might well be part of why the DIA suspected he was lying. Although "lying" doesn't seem to exactly capture the speech act of "telling torturers what they want to hear."

Atrios seems to have been the first to make this suggestion:

http://tinyurl.com/b3ysu

This seems like another fine exhibit of how torture can be counted on to produce the worst kind of intelligence -- the kind that makes us positive that our fantasies are reality by "confirming" them.

And it's by no means the first. I would argue that it is often the essence of a countrywide torture operation such as we used to run in Latin America. You capture people, torture them, and they tell you want you want to hear as well as the names of people. You torture the people they named, and these "confirm" the original confessions for the same reason: they are also telling you what you want to hear in order to get the torture to stop. The end result is to create a cascade of confirming "facts" -- and with them an ultimate truth that seems to stand on them irrefutably: that these people you are torturing are evil and deserve it. And this is of paramount importance: torture, by creating evidence, justifies torture: it becomes literally the only means to obtain the crucially confirming information -- because that crucial information is made up. And by this means it hid under the cloak of a search for truth the real means by which systemic torture "worked" in fighting guerrilla war in Latin America and other countries: it made clear to everyone in the population that any opposition could get you tortured by getting you caught up in these concentric circles of being named. The "truths" created by torture rationalized a system of rule by terrorization. It was exactly the mechanism by which Saddam ruled Iraq. But the crucial difference was we believed the truth that our system created. And that made it seem like something other than the incarnation of evil. Without that belief, there would be nothing to cover that reality.

So for such a system, the "truths" that torture creates are indispensable. But even when torture is not being used as a means of countrywide oppression it still always produces the truths we want to hear. Or so it seems based on the little evidence that escapes its secrecy (which is the second reason its truths are irrefutable: its evidence is by nature unexaminable except by those who believe).

The great example in Iraq is the infamous journal posted on the internet by the contract interrogator Joe Ryan. (Remember the great contract interrogator scandal? It seems so long ago.) There we learned that his interrogatees confirmed every ignorant thing he thought about Iraq -- and above all the dominant line that the Iraqi insurgency had been gotten up and run by foreigners:

http://tinyurl.com/7lwnm

http://tinyurl.com/e2hjl

So there is a kind of perfect fit when we now learn that the ultimate force pushing for torture by the US -- the one party willing to defend it even in the light of day, even against the opposition of 90% of the Senate -- is the office of Richard Cheney, who the Washington Post, in an October 26 editorial, recently and famously called The Vice President for Torture:

http://tinyurl.com/9cqwz

It's no accident that Cheney's office is also the ground zero for the faked intelligence that led to the war (which has recently been churned up by the Fitzgerald investigation and the indictment of the other Libby). People like Richard Cheney need torture because they need distorted intelligence. They need irrefutable objective proof that their distorted ideas are true. And they need to torture reality to do it. Their ideas and their policy can't survive without it.

The lies of torture contributed to the last war. And if unchecked, it will lead to the next.

 
At 9:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am very disappointed that a factual error has been committed and is being repeated across the media spectrum. Perhaps this is due to a possible superficial perusal of the application of the relevant conventions. Or falling into the trap of accepting purposeful military euphemisms and intentional obsfucation.

Excerpts:

Chemical Weapons Convention

Under this Convention, any toxic chemical, regardless of its origin, is considered as a chemical weapon unless it is used for purposes that are not prohibited (an important legal definition, known as the General Purpose Criterion).

9. "Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention" means:

(c) Military purposes not connected with the use of chemical weapons and not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare.


Hence the use of an otherwise conventional weapon, White Phosphorous, as a method of warfare (i.e. to kill, incapacitate or maim) as is the explicit intent of 'Shake and Bake' fire missions is in breach of the actual intent of the CCW and specifically Para 9 (c).

As an 'incendiary weapon' it is also in breach re use when noncombatants (civilians) are in the target or affected target area, which they evidently have been re Fallujah, and this being demonstrably known by the belligerent, .i.e. the US Army & Marine Corps troops, ground and air.

Certain 'well known', widely used, 'chemical weapons' are specifically identified in three definitions schedules of the CCW convention. However, the convention explicitly details that they are not exclusive of any form of toxic chemical re warfare/combat usage.

However, the CCW also applies to any weapon that would otherwise be considered 'conventional' when it meets the definitions re 'toxic chemical' and actual employment (method of warfare) by utilization of its chemical properties.


Further in response to a specific question seeking to clarify whether WP is a chemical weapon covered by the CCW :

“any chemical that is used against humans or animals that causes harm... [is] considered chemical weapons... prohibited behavior”
- Peter Kaiser, spokesman for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons

The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is an agency of the United Nations. It is located in The Hague, The Netherlands. Its mission is to promote membership of the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty and to check, by inspections, that members are adhering to the provisions of the convention. It was established in 1997. In August 2005 one hundred and seventy states had ratified or acceded to the convention.

The following is the english translation from the relevant section at RAI:

Q. Is the battlefield use of white phosphorous legitimate?

We report the opinion of Peter Kaiser, spokesman for the UN agency on the prohibition of the use, production, and storage of chemical weapons who was asked by Maurizio Torrealta if White Phosphorous is a prohibited substance...

A. "No, white phosphorous is not prohibited by the convention on chemical weapons in the context of war operations, provided that use is not made of that substance for its toxic properties. For example, white phosphorous is normally used to produce smoke bombs that hide troop movements, and this is considered a legitimate use with respect to the conventions. But IF THE TOXIC OR CAUSTIC PROPERTIES OF WHITE PHOSPHOROUS are used as a weapon, then it is prohibited. Indeed, the convention is structured so that every chemical element that is used against men or animals and which provokes damage or death because of its toxic properties is considered a chemical weapon. Therefore it doesn't matter what substance is in question, but rather
whether or not the aim of its use is to wound via its toxic properties, which is prohibited behavior.

More dicussion and explanatory background http://www.moonofalabama.org

Outraged

 
At 2:28 PM, Blogger Anonymous Conservative said...

This is nonsense. If it were the case that American soldiers were knowingly employing chemical weapons in large quantities there would have been no shortage of people waiting to tell the story, not out of the goodness of their hearts so much as out of the desire for either fifteen minutes of fame or money. No doubt small-scale covert actions could be and have been covered up, but to drop any quantity of chemical weaponry would require the acquiescence of logistical personnel, air force and/or artillery, and nearby ground units. A few dozen might be able to keep a secret, but several hundred if not several thousand emphatically cannot. In the process of trying to villify this Administration the fringe has slandered the men and women of our armed forces and undermined what has the ability to be, on the moral balance sheet, a very noble cause.

 
At 11:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You may want to share this with your readers. This is not a professional work, but just an informal analysis.

I had this conversation yesterday regarding this news story about WP being used as a chemical weapon.

I am a former fire support officer, who was trained to travel with infantry and armor units and be the eyes of the artillery to call for fire.
I read the article from the Italian news source, and let me state unequivocally that what it claims is physically impossible. A white phosphorous round used for illumination is a base ejecting projectile that "opens" in the air and floats down under a parachute. The projectile casing does continue down range, but fire direction officers and fire support officers along with the maneuver commanders clear this impact area as part of the calculations. The projectile casing itself could kill a person, as any bullet would, but it is not possible to use it as a chemical warfare attack.
The flare itself floats down and you would pretty much have to chase after it and position yourself under where you project it will land to even get burned. It is possible although very unlikely that this flare could hit a building and could cause a fire, but the injury wouldn’t be a chemical burn, but a burn from the building fire. I have never seen anything close to this happen.
The flares come down slowly and usually burn out first, but since they are the brightest thing in the sky, it would be easy to avoid one if it landed while burning. I have seen a few flares land on the ground while burning, but this is much different than a chemical attack.
The only way you could purposely harm anyone with this is if you direct fired at a short range. The projectile most likely wouldn't eject the flare (it has a timed fuse) and it really wouldn't matter if you fired Cheetohs at someone at that range, the concussion would kill them.
An artillery unit wouldn't use direct fire unless it was being attacked. And even then it would use their organic direct fire weapons and if necessary, another type of projectile. To use a WP for direct fire would be entirely counterproductive to the security of the battery even in self defense.

This Italian news story is nothing but a lie.

After being asked repeatedly to analyze the “Italian News Story” (gag), I analyzed the video, here are my thoughts

I analyzed the video and am pleased to announce that it is junk. There are many things I could point out, but here is what sticks out.
1. The “fire raining down from the helicopter” was the part that concerned me. I had to watch it repeatedly to figure it out. At first I thought it was the backblast from a missile being fired the other direction. After a more thorough analysis, I realize it was an air burst of WP artillery rounds. Those are basically small rags that looked like balls of fire. This is because it is night and it is hard to get perspective at night, with or without night vision equipment. Taken out of context, it is easy to make it look like fire raining down on the city. The rag would certainly burn, but it would be like a cigarette and you would just need to brush it off, maybe take off clothes, and get away from it.
2. The voice over states "contrary to the claim by the state department that WP was used in open fields, this was not true because tracer rounds were used to illuminate the enemy" Nothing could have spelled out liar any bigger than that one statement. Tracy rounds are never used to illuminate the enemy. The glow from a tracer round lasts tenths of a second and travels hundreds of miles an hour; it could not possibly be used for this function, again a claim that defies all practicality. Tracer rounds are used to see where your bullets are going so your fire can be adjusted, flat out. And quoting the State Department about a military function?

3. The pictures of dead bodies while hideous provide no analytical value. Contrast the opening from Vietnam, with the burned little girl, running from a napalmed village. That is conclusive evidence. Nothing about these dead bodies looked any different to the many dead bodies I have seen analyzing other videos (of dead bodies) that were all made that way (dead) by Saddam’s regime and then by Jihadists. There is no way to determine what killed these people by looking at pictures, except maybe by a forensics expert.

4. The soldiers, this is more complicated:
I find the taller guy, I think his name was Garret, credible. His story rang true and is tragically repeated. But this is not a war crime or a chemical attack, but bad target identification and a complete human tragedy, assuming the "civilians" were indeed non combatants, it is very hard for the soldiers to tell. Although I do question his motives that is irrelevant to this analysis since he provides no “evidence” of chemical weapons.
The other guy Jeff was a liar, to the point I would need to see his orders to believe he was in Iraq. He states, (paraphrasing) "the orders unequivocally came from the pentagon to wait until after the election".
How does he know this? Was he CENTCOM commander at the time? Did the CENTCOM commander call him up and tell him that? Even if it was true, that fact in itself is not nefarious.
The re-election of Bush would be a crushing blow to the Jihadists in Fallujah, and let me tell you, I have seen their own videos recovered from there and the place was crawling with them. It would make tactical sense to wait, if you were pretty confident that Bush would win. They call this tactical patience.
Also, the timing of the attack was heavily influenced by the Iraqi Provisional Authority. The U.S. had just helped them form and wanted to get them involved with running their country as soon as possible. That is why the first battle of Fallujah was ended, because the new Iraqi government wanted more time to talk with the Jihadists. That is until the new Iraqi government officials figured out that they were now the primary target of the Jihadists and told the U.S. effectively, go get them (the Jihadists in Fallujah) as soon as you can.
Jeff states (paraphrasing), that the U.S. was using chemical weapons because we used WP. Hogwash. The video itself showed the flares floating slowly to the ground and the ground itself gave perspective. Now I am not saying I would want WP on my skin, but I wouldn't want Drano on my skin either and I am not declaring chemical warfare on my home. Now a person could make the argument that you could take that Drano and throw it on your neighbor and that would be a chemical attack. True, but, you can not spew WP from a deployed flare because if it is burning, it is burning the WP. You wouldn’t want to put your mouth over it, of course, and you wouldn’t want to purposely hold it to your skin, but you would have to go out of the way to hurt yourself with a flare.

c. He states (paraphrasing) when they used the stuff (WP) they would come over the net and say the WP is coming or "commence bombing" or something.
Commence bombing? Who was on the net giving this sitrep, Clark Gable? That’s about the last time anybody used this term. This guy is a clown. And notice he makes claims and then says, oh, I didn't see it, but I heard about it.

5. The real tip off about the credibility of this “news story” is the pictures of dead animals.
The voice over said, paraphrasing: that several animals were found dead with no visible sign of trauma.
First off, did they examine the animals? If so, they didn’t show it. Sure something is not visible, if you don’t look! Animals die everyday from natural causes, hunger, disease, or even getting hit by cars or possibly by conventional weapons.
And get this, they show people who appear burned and claim this to be a sign of a chemical weapon, then they show animals with no injuries in the context of this discussion to imply they died of a mysterious chemical weapon. Their “facts” not only fail to support each other, but they directly conflict with each other. Yet they choose to throw them at the viewer with full understanding of the emotional impact of these images.

6. A human rights group based in Fallujah? For crying out loud, that was Saddam's power base. That is were the people burned four contractors and hung them from a bridge.

By introducing these “facts” in the context of a chemical weapons discussion, yet not having any supporting evidence, I can only conclude that not only are these charges false, but this was done with the documentary creator’s full knowledge that they were baseless charges. In other words, they purposely lied, which goes to their credibility.


After I wrote this, I was informed of more “supporting evidence” linked on the www.Dailykos.com:


“"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."
-- Field Artillery Magazine, via Steven D

My analysis:

I don’t mean to speak for the author, but this is evident

""WP [i.e., white phosphorus rounds] proved to be an effective and versatile munition."

Very true and widely known among redlegs (artillerymen). Nothing interesting here.

"We used it for screening missions at two breeches ..."

The kind of projectile they are speaking about here creates smoke. It is widely, commonly, and legally used by every army to conceal their men. Usually, if an obstacle needs to be breeched, the smoke is delivered by artillery in between the obstacle and the enemy observer. It can also be placed on the enemy to confuse and scare them. The smoke itself is uncomfortable, but not dangerous, unless you want to sit on top of the projectile and breathe it. I know because I have experienced it.

"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."

Notice he said psychological weapon and not chemical weapon. This is because the smoke would confuse the enemy and conceal our movements and would indeed, scare them.

"We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents"

A poor choice of phrasing because it is not technically accurate and does give the wrong impression, but this is a soldier and not a politician or a marketing strategist. (After further consideration, I think if the reference is to the projectile itself and not to the effect on flesh, it could be accurate. The HE would shake the ground and the material that creates smoke does so by burning (baking) but you would pretty much have to try to set yourself on fire by rolling around in it.)

"using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."

This takes a little bit of imagination. Imagine you are in a fighting position and the enemy is dropping smoke near your position. You ask yourself "why are they dropping smoke here?" the answer "because they are coming right through here." So, you haul butt out of your defensive position and expose yourself to HE.

This statement has absolutely nothing to do with the “dual use” of smoke (WP) as a chemical weapon. It is stating that WP can have a psychological effect as well as a tactical use. That is the only “dual use” here.



-Ray Robison is a Sr. Military Operations Research Analyst with Scientific Applications International Corporation at the Aviation and Missile, Research, Development, Engineering Command in Huntsville Alabama. His background includes over ten years of military service as an officer and enlisted soldier in the Medical Branch, Field Artillery and Signal Corp including the Gulf War and Kosovo operations. Most recently he worked as a contractor for DIA with the Iraqi Survey Group.

 
At 1:21 PM, Blogger Peer said...

The discussion about what weapon was used itself is digusting.
Using a weapon so cruel (Light a match and press it on your arm if you want a 0,0001% experience)against anyone, anything alive is immoral.
If it is legal the law is immoral.
There is no way to justify anything so horrible against anything alive.
Is there nobody in America sane enough to stand up and blast this idiot Bush from his throne?
Is there nobody sane anymore on that side of the pond??
When will you people stand up, claim your sanity and kick this berserkers ass?
1984 has long passed folks but who realises it?
How long will you dream?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home