PDA

View Full Version : Use of Chemical in Iraq Ignites Debate



thedrifter
11-28-05, 09:22 AM
Use of Chemical in Iraq Ignites Debate
Critics say civilians died in incendiary attacks. U.S. asserts white phosphorus was only used on insurgents.
By John Daniszewski and Mark Mazzetti, Times Staff Writers

BAGHDAD — Omar Ibrahim Abdullah went for a walk to get away from the heavy fighting in Fallouja a little over a year ago and, by his account, came across such a grotesque sight that he's been unable to banish it from his memory.

The United States had mounted a full-scale offensive to pacify the rebel-controlled Iraqi city, and Abdullah said he was eager to escape the Askari district, where he lived. He walked south toward the Euphrates River and stumbled on dozens of burned bodies that he said were colored black and red.

"They must have been affected by chemicals," he said, "because I had never seen anything like that before."

The corpses, he said, had suffered burns from the U.S. military's use of an incendiary chemical known as white phosphorus.

The Pentagon and other U.S. officials at first denied, and later admitted, that troops had used white phosphorus as a weapon against insurgents in Fallouja during that fiercely fought campaign. Its use became public because of questions raised by an Italian television documentary Nov. 8, which alleged that civilians had been targeted "indiscriminately" and that hundreds had died.

But even though U.S. officials have admitted using the substance against enemy fighters, they have denied the allegations of Fallouja residents such as Abdullah that its use was widespread and civilians were among those killed.

"We don't use munitions of any kind against innocent civilians," Army Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch said during a news conference. "In accordance with all established conventions, [white phosphorus] can be used against enemy combatants."

Nicknamed "Willie Pete" by troops, white phosphorus is a dangerous chemical that combusts on contact with oxygen. The military employs it mainly to illuminate battlefields and provide smoke screens. But its use is highly controversial because the only way it can be extinguished is by shutting off its air supply. When it comes in contact with humans, the chemical will burn through to the bone.

Incendiaries are considered particularly inhumane weapons under international treaty, and a 1980 United Nations convention limits their use. The U.S. has not signed the part of the convention that deals with incendiary weapons. Nevertheless, it largely has avoided using incendiary weapons since the Vietnam War and destroyed the last of its napalm arsenal four years ago.

In the 1990s, in fact, the U.S. condemned Iraqi President Saddam Hussein for allegedly using "white phosphorus chemical weapons" against Kurdish rebels and residents of Irbil and Dohuk.

In regard to a war the U.S. said it fought partly because of fears that Hussein would employ chemical or other nonconventional weapons, some critics say the use of white phosphorus is contrary to the spirit of American aims.

"An incendiary weapon cannot be thought of just like any conventional weapon," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Assn. in Washington. "There are rules that apply, and we have to make sure that they are being followed for various reasons."

He went on to explain that for the last century and a half, the U.S. has led international efforts to establish humane conduct standards in war, in part because American troops or civilians could be harmed.

"There is an important principle at stake here. The United States should be very interested in making sure that we are following the rules and other people understand we are following the rules," Kimball said.

But Pentagon officials say the use of white phosphorus, even as an incendiary weapon, is not proscribed by any treaty as long as it is directed solely against military targets.

The question is whether its use in November 2004 against insurgents fighting in a city that most, but not all, civilian inhabitants had fled violates the Inhumane Weapons Convention, to which the United States is a party.

Another issue is whether the United States is obliged to follow the convention's rules on incendiary weapons, given that the U.S. Senate has not ratified that protocol.

The rule bans the use of incendiary weapons against civilian targets or military targets not clearly separated from "concentrations" of civilians.

On the streets of Fallouja, the common allegation is that the U.S. used incendiary bombs against civilians. Iraqi doctors and the local human rights organization have pointed to scores of burned corpses as evidence.

But there's been no independent verification. U.S. officials have accused doctors in Fallouja of lying about such issues because, the officials say, the physicians are loyal to or intimidated by insurgents. The blackened corpses seen in the Italian documentary, for instance, may have been burned by conventional explosives or resulted from decomposition, some viewers have argued.

Abdul Qadir Sadi, an Iraqi from Fallouja in his 30s, said doctors had told him that two of his family members were killed by white phosphorus.

"They had a lot of serious skin burns," Sadi said. "The doctor at the hospital told us that they must have been hit by these chemicals. They were being treated by the doctor, but after a while, these burned places started to dissolve."

"We have registered the documents and exhibits of everything that happened," said Mohammed Tariq, a human rights worker in Fallouja. "We informed the Iraqi Red Crescent, the International Red Cross and [other] international organizations, but our efforts were in vain."

Pentagon officials say troops used white phosphorus in the Fallouja offensive for several reasons.

"It was used to mask and obscure U.S. troop movements and to flush out dug-in insurgents from spider holes and trenches," said Maj. Todd Vician, a Pentagon spokesman. "It was lawfully used against legitimate military targets."

When stories surfaced last year that the U.S. had used white phosphorus as an incendiary weapon in Fallouja, the State Department flatly denied the allegations. Such denials from Pentagon and diplomatic officials continued until only weeks ago.

According to talking points issued by the State Department in December, "U.S. forces have used [white phosphorus rounds] very sparingly in Fallouja, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters."

Vician said he could not explain the denials.

Elsewhere, soldiers and Marines had publicly praised the weapon's effectiveness against insurgents during the battle. A group of artillery officers who fought in Fallouja wrote in a military journal this year that white phosphorus, typically referred to as WP, "proved to be an effective and versatile weapon."

"We used it for screening missions … and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents … when we could not get effects on them with [high explosives]," the officers wrote in the March-April issue of Field Artillery magazine.

"We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and [high explosives] to take them out."

The U.S. began using white phosphorus extensively during World War II, when soldiers found the chemical useful for smoke screens, marking enemy positions and attacking military targets. For more than half a century, white phosphorus has been a staple of the U.S. arsenal.

John E. Pike of GlobalSecurity.org, a Washington-based military affairs think tank, doubts the claims made in the Italian television report that the U.S. military was aiming such munitions at civilians.

"What purpose could possibly be served by targeting civilians in Iraq?" he asked. "It would accomplish nothing, it would be counterproductive, and it would be a waste of ammo."

To journalists who saw white phosphorus used during the campaign, it appeared that it was meant for illuminating, not killing, insurgents.

Los Angeles Times reporter Patrick J. McDonnell, who accompanied Charlie Company of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, as it fought its way into Fallouja, recalls seeing night virtually turn to day as white phosphorus shells burst in the air.

"We only saw 'Willie Pete' being used for illumination purposes," McDonnell said. But he also remembers how the proximity of the fiery blasts concerned the Marines.

"The guys in my company were somewhat annoyed for two reasons: It illuminated our positions at night, not a nice thing, and occasionally the bursts came quite close to us. There didn't seem to be a lot of coordination," he said by e-mail.

At the time, most civilians had fled town, and U.S. troops seemed to be fighting in a city devoid of almost everyone but insurgents, McDonnell noted.

"We had rounds of white phosphorus burst in the air quite close to us, and the Marines were quite concerned, since they knew of its impact — that it burns through flesh and is impossible to extinguish," he said.

"Many Marines on the ground cursed the 'Willie Pete' every time it went off."

Daniszewski reported from Baghdad and Mazzetti from Washington. Special correspondent Asmaa Waguih contributed to this report.

White heat

White phosphorus, a highly flammable substance that ignites on contact with oxygen, is a longtime staple of the U.S. military arsenal. Some uses:

{bull} Can be loaded into a mortar shell, howitzer round or other projectile and fired at a target.

{bull} When delivered by an exploding shell, white phosphorus in contact with oxygen produces a smoke screen on the ground that can last up to 15 minutes. It can also illuminate battlefield targets.

{bull} Can be used as a weapon. Human contact with white phosphorus results in severe burns. The fire can only be extinguished by eliminating the oxygen supply.

Sources: Integrated Publishing, fas.org

Ellie

junker316
11-28-05, 10:44 AM
There was little done or said when yars ago during Desert Storm when Saddam lauched arsenal after arsenal of scuds loaded with his Chemicals at US Forces and otehr forces. The biggest thing mentioned was that we were trained for such attacks during that time period. Saddam was known for using and deploying everything under the sun during a war. From the likes of Mustard Gas to Blood agents. Anything to kill his enemies. He would use it. If he had Nukes he would have used them as well. When the liberation of Fallujah was underway the biggest risk wasn't hitting civilians, because most had fled the area, but being hit by whatever the insurgents had. We never knew if they had any Chemical weapons but we didn't rule it out either. Willie Pete was used mainly for illumination. There was times when it was used to get enemies out of their hiding places. Most " Civilians ", as they were called, were also Insurgent loyalists that purposely put themselves in dangerous areas to act as shields for the insurgents. They knew were would not fire at them or near them if they entered an area. Many timess they would come out and allow the insurgent to hide in mosques or other national buildings. They then would disappear until needed again to allow the insurgents to run. Sometimes they were in the line of fire and at that point S$%^ happens. They knew what they were doing and knew what would happen. Some would run out almost instantly screaming at us, usually just as a Willie Pete just went off, and then tumble to the ground in pain. Sorry for the lose of Darwin award winners, but at least they died shortly after. When these people decidded to use their bodies as shields they became militants as the insurgents were. They were the Gaurd force for the enemy and became the enemy themselves. They were used for survallence, intell, and shields. They may not have had rifles or other weapons but they did enough damage being Gaurds and reporting our locations.

Willie Pete did what it was supposed to do. It completely impressed me. I was like the Willie Pete rounds fired from the M1-A1 back a few years ago.

thedrifter
11-28-05, 07:14 PM
Behind the phosphorus clouds are war crimes within war crimes
We now know the US also used thermobaric weapons in its assult on Fallujah, where up to 50,000 civilians remained
By George MOnbiot
THE GUARDIAN , LONDON
Monday, Nov 28, 2005,Page 9

The media couldn't have made a bigger pig's ear of the white phosphorus story. So, before moving on to the new revelations from Fallujah, I would like to try to clear up the old ones. There is no hard evidence that white phosphorus was used against civilians.

The claim was made in a documentary broadcast on the Italian network RAI, called Fallujah: the Hidden Massacre. It claimed that the corpses in the pictures it ran "showed strange injuries, some burnt to the bone, others with skin hanging from their flesh ... The faces have literally melted away, just like other parts of the body. The clothes are strangely intact." These assertions were supported by a human-rights advocate who, it said, possessed "a biology degree."

I, too, possess a biology degree, and I am as well qualified to determine someone's cause of death as I am to perform open-heart surgery. So I asked Chris Milroy, professor of forensic pathology at the University of Sheffield, England, to watch the film.

He reported that "nothing indicates to me that the bodies have been burnt." They had turned black and lost their skin "through decomposition."

We don't yet know how these people died.

But there is hard evidence that white phosphorus was deployed as a weapon against combatants in Fallujah.

As the Guardian revealed on Nov. 15, US infantry officers confessed that they had used it to flush out insurgents. A Pentagon spokesman told the BBC that white phosphorus "was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants."

`Is there any crime the coalition forces have not committed in Iraq? '

The spokesman claimed "it is not a chemical weapon. They are not outlawed or illegal."

This denial has been accepted by most of the mainstream media. UN conventions, the London Times said, "ban its use on civilian but not military targets." But the word "civilian" does not occur in the chemical weapons convention. The use of the toxic properties of a chemical as a weapon is illegal, whoever the target is.

The Pentagon argues that white phosphorus burns people, rather than poisons them, and is covered only by the protocol on incendiary weapons, which the US has not signed.

But white phosphorus is both incendiary and toxic. The gas it produces attacks the mucous membranes, the eyes and the lungs.

As Peter Kaiser of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons told the BBC a couple of weeks ago: "If ... the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because ... any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

The US army knows that its use as a weapon is illegal. In the Battle Book, published by the US Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, my correspondent David Traynier found the following sentence: "It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP [white phosphorus] against personnel targets."

Blogger Gabriele Zamparini found a declassified document from the US Department of Defense, dated April 1991, and titled "Possible use of phosphorus chemical."

"During the brutal crackdown that followed the Kurdish uprising," it alleges, "Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam may have possibly used white phosphorus [WP] chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil ... and Dohuk provinces, Iraq. The WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds and helicopter gunships ... These reports of possible WP chemical weapon attacks spread quickly ... hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled from these two areas."

The Pentagon is in no doubt, in other words, that white phosphorus is an illegal chemical weapon.

The insurgents, of course, would be just as dead today if they were killed by other means. So does it matter if chemical weapons were mixed with other munitions?

It does. Anyone who has seen those photos of the lines of blind veterans at the remembrance services for World War I will surely understand the point of international law, and the dangers of undermining it.

But we shouldn't forget that the use of chemical weapons was a war crime within a war crime within a war crime. Both the invasion of Iraq and the assault on Fallujah were illegal acts of aggression.

Before attacking the city, the Marines stopped men "of fighting age" from leaving. Many women and children stayed: the Guardian's correspondent estimated that between 30,000 and 50,000 civilians were left.

The Marines treated Fallujah as if its only inhabitants were fighters. They levelled thousands of buildings, illegally denied access to the Iraqi Red Crescent and, according to the UN's special rapporteur, used "hunger and deprivation of water as a weapon of war against the civilian population."

I have been reading accounts of the assault published in the Marine Corps Gazette. The soldiers appear to have believed everything the US government told them.

One article claims that "the absence of civilians meant the Marines could employ blast weapons prior to entering houses that had become pillboxes, not homes."

Another said that "there were less than 500 civilians remaining in the city." It continued: "The heroics [of the Marines] will be the subject of many articles and books ... The real key to this tactical victory rested in the spirit of the warriors who courageously fought the battle. They deserve all of the credit for liberating Fallujah."

But buried in this hogwash is a grave revelation. An assault weapon the Marines were using had been armed with warheads containing "about 35 percent thermobaric novel explosive [NE] and 65 percent standard high explosive."

They deployed it "to cause the roof to collapse and crush the insurgents fortified inside interior rooms." It was used repeatedly: "The expenditure of explosives clearing houses was enormous."

The Marines can scarcely deny that they know what these weapons do. An article published in the Gazette in 2000 details the effects of their use by the Russians in Grozny. Thermobaric, or "fuel-air" weapons, it says, form a cloud of volatile gases or finely powdered explosives.

"This cloud is then ignited and the subsequent fireball sears the surrounding area while consuming the oxygen in this area. The lack of oxygen creates an enormous overpressure ... Personnel under the cloud are literally crushed to death. Outside the cloud area, the blast wave travels at some 3,000m per second ... As a result, a fuel-air explosive can have the effect of a tactical nuclear weapon without residual radiation, the Gazette article says.

'Those personnel caught directly under the aerosol cloud will die from the flame or overpressure. For those on the periphery of the strike, the injuries can be severe. Burns, broken bones, contusions from flying debris and blindness may result. Further, the crushing injuries from the overpressure can create air embolism within blood vessels, concussions, multiple internal hemorrhages in the liver and spleen, collapsed lungs, rupture of the eardrums and displacement of the eyes from their sockets," the article says.

It is hard to see how you could use these weapons in Fallujah without killing civilians.

This looks to me like a convincing explanation of the damage done to Fallujah, a city in which between 30,000 and 50,000 civilians might have been taking refuge. It could also explain the civilian casualties shown in the film.

So the question has now widened: is there any crime the coalition forces have not committed in Iraq?

Ellie

thedrifter
11-29-05, 09:39 AM
November 29, 2005, 8:32 a.m. <br />
White (Phosphorous) Lies <br />
Antiwar accusations aren’t as hot as critics think. <br />
By Michael Fumento <br />
<br />
Time again to try to cripple the U.S. military effort in Iraq. It's...

Nagalfar
11-29-05, 10:22 AM
I think they need to define/tell us who the "critics" really are.. everyone has a mouth.. most people dont know when to shut them, or even how to use them when they are open.. kinda like the reporters who use "critics and un-named sources" for their "stories".. and most the time they really are stories!