The US used chemical weapons in Iraq - and then lied about it

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1642832,00.html

Now we know napalm and phosphorus bombs have been dropped on Iraqis, why have the hawks failed to speak out?

George Monbiot
Tuesday November 15, 2005
The Guardian


Did US troops use chemical weapons in Falluja? The answer is yes. The proof is not to be found in the documentary broadcast on Italian TV last week, which has generated gigabytes of hype on the internet. It's a turkey, whose evidence that white phosphorus was fired at Iraqi troops is flimsy and circumstantial. But the bloggers debating it found the smoking gun.

The first account they unearthed in a magazine published by the US army. In the March 2005 edition of Field Artillery, officers from the 2nd Infantry's fire support element boast about their role in the attack on Falluja in November last year: "White Phosphorous. 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."

The second, in California's North County Times, was by a reporter embedded with the marines in the April 2004 siege of Falluja. "'Gun up!' Millikin yelled ... grabbing a white phosphorus round from a nearby ammo can and holding it over the tube. 'Fire!' Bogert yelled, as Millikin dropped it. The boom kicked dust around the pit as they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call 'shake'n'bake' into... buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week."

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. Like other unlisted substances, it may be deployed for "Military purposes... not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare". 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".

[tuvor]

1. FALLUJAH NAPALMED (November 28, 2004)

FALLUJAH NAPALMED

www.sundaymirror.co.uk

Nov 28 2004

US uses banned weapon ..but was Tony Blair told?

By Paul Gilfeather Political Editor

US troops are secretly using outlawed napalm gas to wipe out remaining insurgents in and around Fallujah.

News that President George W. Bush has sanctioned the use of napalm, a deadly cocktail of polystyrene and jet fuel banned by the United Nations in 1980, will stun governments around the world.

And last night Tony Blair was dragged into the row as furious Labour MPs demanded he face the Commons over it. Reports claim that innocent civilians have died in napalm attacks, which turn victims into human fireballs as the gel bonds flames to flesh.

Outraged critics have also demanded that Mr Blair threatens to withdraw British troops from Iraq unless the US abandons one of the world's most reviled weapons. Halifax Labour MP Alice Mahon said: "I am calling on Mr Blair to make an emergency statement to the Commons to explain why this is happening. It begs the question: 'Did we know about this hideous weapon's use in Iraq?'"

Since the American assault on Fallujah there have been reports of "melted" corpses, which appeared to have napalm injuries.

Last August the US was forced to admit using the gas in Iraq.

A 1980 UN convention banned the use of napalm against civilians - after pictures of a naked girl victim fleeing in Vietnam shocked the world.

America, which didn't ratify the treaty, is the only country in the world still using the weapon.

(Original link no longer works)
http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/news/tm_objectid=14920109%26method=full%26siteid=106694-name_page.html

[fooj]

2. We talked about that over dinner. I can't believe there isn't a soul

who will speak out about it. It's crazy...

:banghead:

[mike_c]

3. don-- this is a dead end unless it's reframed....

The problem is that both napalm (and derivatives like the MK77) and WP are regulated as incendiary weapons, not as prohibited chemical weapons, and their use against civilians is proscribed, not their general battlefield use. AND the U.S. did not sign the Geneva Protocol on incendiary weapons anyway-- but the most important thing is not to get diverted calling these "chemical weapons." Legally, they're not. It might be a narrow distinction, but it's real.

[tuvor]

4. "the U.S. did not sign the Geneva Protocol on incendiary weapons"

Why-the-hell-didn't-it-get-signed-by-the-USA aside...who was the commander-in-chief at the time?

[mike_c]

5. Ronald Reagan....

Need I say more?

[tuvor]

6. No surprise there. However...

...Couldn't Clinton have rectified it?

Not that he didn't have a lot of other priorities. Just asking.

[mike_c]

8. I don't know the answer to that-- but the fact is that he didn't....

Maybe because he doubted that a repig congress would be sympathetic? I'm just guessing, though. It's equally likely that no one thought the matter important, because it was inconcievable that the U.S. would need a treaty to prohibit the use of incendiaries against civilians after the horrors of Vietnam.

Oh, on second thought....

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Slight correction, MK 47 is actually banned

but WP ... it is not... it is legal, it is a question of how it was used, aka civilian concentrations.

Now after this mess we may actually BE FORCED by the world to actually sign Protocol III and destroy some things, that said, WP is not covered under Protocol III, it is still allowed under very proscribed uses and many nations have it in their arsenal, can you say tracer rounds?

[mike_c]

12. relevant article from protocol III....

Article 2
Protection of civilians and civilian objects

1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.

Posted for those who might not be familiar with it. Remember that Fallujah was a civilian city first and foremost.

Hey Nadin-- aren't you on the east coast? Don't you ever sleep? Thanks for the info! :) :hi:

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. I am on the west coast

and as a Red Cross worker I had to memorize this crap at one point... to think my job was as a medic, damn it!

;-)

nursing a bad cold, should be in bed, but oh well,

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. I have made the point several times

:popcorn:

It is not what was used, but how.

[mrfrapp]

15. From The Article

[snip]

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. Like other unlisted substances, it may be deployed for "Military purposes... not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare". 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".

[snip]

The relevant question is whether White Phosporus was used "directly against people" and thus adjudged to be a "chemical weapon". It appears that the answer to this is yes.

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.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/9/164137/436

http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/Previous_Editions/05/mar-apr05/PAGE24-30.pdf

It hardly matters whether the USA have signed the relevant treaties or not. The current rationale for the Iraq invasion is that Hussein used chemical weapons in the past (therefore, he may use them in the future). If the USA has recently used chemical weapons in Iraq then it demolishes the moral high ground the White House thinks it is standing on now.

There's a good summary of all this in today's Independent.

[snip]

There have also been claims that in the minutiae of the argument about the use of WP, a broader truth is being missed. Kathy Kelly, a campaigner with the anti-war group Voices of the Wilderness, said: "If the US wants to promote security for this generation and the next, it should build relationships with these countries. If the US uses conventional or non-conventional weapons, in civilian neighourhoods, that melt people's bodies down to the bone, it will leave these people seething. We should think on this rather than arguing about whether we can squeak such weapons past the Geneva Conventions and international accords."

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article327094.ece

[wtmusic]

7. photos of what white phosphorus did to the people of Fallujah

Warning: Extremely Graphic.

http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/dispatches/000176.php

I am ill.

[mike_c]

10. thank you for the reminder, but I cannot look at those tonight....

I just can't.

[wtmusic]

14. kick nt