Exclusive: Classified Pentagon Doc Described White Phosphorus As ‘Che

[RedEarth]

Exclusive: Classified Pentagon Document Described White Phosphorus As ‘Chemical Weapon’
To downplay the political impact of revelations that U.S. forces used deadly white phosphorus rounds against Iraqi insurgents in Falluja last year, Pentagon officials have insisted that phosphorus munitions are legal since they aren’t technically “chemical weapons.”

The media have helped them. For instance, the New York Times ran a piece today on the phosphorus controversy. On at least three occasions, the Times emphasizes that the phosphorus rounds are “incendiary muntions” that have been “incorrectly called chemical weapons.”

But the distinction is a minor one, and arguably political in nature. A formerly classified 1995 Pentagon intelligence document titled “Possible Use of Phosphorous Chemical” describes the use of white phosphorus by Saddam Hussein on Kurdish fighters:

IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. <…>

IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES’ OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ.

In other words, the Pentagon does refer to white phosphorus rounds as chemical weapons — at least if they’re used by our enemies.

The real point here goes beyond the Pentagon’s legalistic parsings. The use of white phosphorus against enemy fighters is a “terribly ill-conceived method,” demonstrating an Army interested “only in the immediate tactical gain and its felicitous shake and bake fun.” And the dishonest efforts by Bush administration officials to deny and downplay that use only further undermines U.S. credibility abroad.

To paraphrase President Bush, this isn’t a question about what is legal, it’s about what is right.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/21/phosphorus-chemical/

[wtmusic]

1. good catch

hope MSM latches onto this :headbang:

[Wildewolfe]

2. The title of the document

... reveals the correct parsing and it doesn't say what you think it does.

It refers to white phosphorus as "Phosphorous Chemical"

That's the name of the weapon. Adding weapon to the end of it does not change that parsing. It's "Phosphorous Chemical" Weapon. NOT "Phosphorous" "Chemical weapon". No matter how you try it doesn't lead correctly to the conclusion you're wanting it to.

Don't get me wrong... WP is a nasty thing when used as a weapon. But it IS an incendiary weapon and not a chemical weapon. Incendiaries are nasty things... but still not in the same class as Sarin or GX or any of the real chem weapons.

edit had to change the characters I was using to deliniate the 3 words...;p

[wtmusic]

7. Eh

I'll reject that classification on a number of grounds:

1) Phosphorus is obviously a chemical, a weapon is not. "Chemical" parses together with "weapon", or it is redundant.

2) Document refers to use as a "brutal crackdown" (unlike our "brutal crackdown" in Fallujah?), and compares to nerve gas.

3) It describes the WP as being "delivered". When does the military "deliver" incendiaries?

This is not OP's opinion -- the DOD is calling WP a chem weapon when it suits their purposes. And they've been busted.

[Wildewolfe]

10. Refer again to the title of the document....

... it describes what it is talking about. Phospherous Chemical. Weapon describes the usage of Phospherous Chemical in this case.

WP, while nasty as hell, is nothing compared to nerve gas on undefended civilian populations. WP IS evil, and if it was used on civilians those commanders need to be prosecuted. But you are talking about kill totals that differ from each other by order(s) of magnitude. A single WP artillery shell might kill everyone in a city block or two. One nerve gas round might kill tens of thousands depending on prevailing winds and the altitude it was set to detonate at.

The military "delivers" things such as smart bombs, fastcam strikes (cluster bomb antipersonel interdictions... don't know if they still call em that) and a variety of other nasty surprises. Deliver is simply a nice way of saying bad things, but it is NOT related nor restricted to use with chemical weapons.

The bottom line on it is simple. WP has been classified an incendiary munition for almost 100 years.

[wtmusic]

12. semantics

the DOD is clearly trying to build a case against Saddam by linking it with nerve gas. The fact that the international community considers it an incendiary is irrelevant--the DOD wants it both ways.

I'd disagree also with your tactical assessment. One nerve gas round will not kill 10,000 people before it disperses, unless you detonated it in the Superdome with the roof closed and everyone was kind enough to hang around and breathe deeply (the leak at Bhopal killed roughly 5,000 in their sleep but it took *27 tons* of methyl isocyanate).

[ArkDem]

13. Your argument is more stretched than saltwater taffy.

:shrug:

[LeftHander]

15. BULL crap! Chemical Weapon in a Smoke Screen.

WP is not persistent like nerve or blister agents but it is just as toxic....even when it is not reacting in o2.

This has been the big secret the military has been hiding. WP and Phophorus Pentoxide are dimers and are both highly toxic. When thye react with oxygen the result is smoke. But before the smoke happens and the WP and PP breakdown into Phosphoic Acid they are HIGHLY TOXIC agents.

So if you scatter a highly toxic chemical over people what the fuck do you call that?

I call it a chemical weapon....this one just so happens to burn itself away and leaves harmless smoke and dead people.

[ArkDem]

3. I may be wrong but all guns and artillery work because of

chemical processes?

[TheBaldyMan]

6. everything you wanted to know about WP but were afraid to ask ...

for all your chemical weapon needs

its like napalm but the burns are chemical as well as thermal

Is there a nice way to kill or maim someone?

[wtmusic]

8. There are ways which are less cruel than others

and less indiscriminate

[ArkDem]

11. Is a large explosion that puts out deadly shrapnel any less

indiscriminate ? I think we need to concentrate on real issues that matter to most people.

[ArkDem]

9. Fire is a chemical reaction.

[KansDem]

4. How long till the Screw Your Times issues a retraction...

admitting it made an error.

[TheGunslinger]

5. Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop!

[Straight Shooter]

14. IMHO, if a weapon is considered extraordinarily cruel and inhumane

by those familiar with the effects of that weapon, then it really doesn't matter what descriptor we apply to it. It should be banned by all nations and the users of it should be punished according to the harm done.

I can try to appreciate the distinction between what is a chemical weapon and what is not. What I cannot appreciate is that our government, in our name, would condemn others for the use of that weapon and then hypocritically use such a weapon of this ferocity when they damn well know the results that will ensue.