PDA

View Full Version : Officials confirm dropping firebombs on Iraqi troops



thedrifter
08-05-03, 09:27 AM
Results are 'remarkably similar' to using napalm

By James W. Crawley
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

August 5, 2003

American jets killed Iraqi troops with firebombs – similar to the controversial napalm used in the Vietnam War – in March and April as Marines battled toward Baghdad.

Marine Corps fighter pilots and commanders who have returned from the war zone have confirmed dropping dozens of incendiary bombs near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris River. The explosions created massive fireballs.

"We napalmed both those (bridge) approaches," said Col. James Alles in a recent interview. He commanded Marine Air Group 11, based at Miramar Marine Corps Air Station, during the war. "Unfortunately, there were people there because you could see them in the (cockpit) video.

"They were Iraqi soldiers there. It's no great way to die," he added. How many Iraqis died, the military couldn't say. No accurate count has been made of Iraqi war casualties.

The bombing campaign helped clear the path for the Marines' race to Baghdad.

During the war, Pentagon spokesmen disputed reports that napalm was being used, saying the Pentagon's stockpile had been destroyed two years ago.

Apparently the spokesmen were drawing a distinction between the terms "firebomb" and "napalm." If reporters had asked about firebombs, officials said yesterday they would have confirmed their use.

What the Marines dropped, the spokesmen said yesterday, were "Mark 77 firebombs." They acknowledged those are incendiary devices with a function "remarkably similar" to napalm weapons.

Rather than using gasoline and benzene as the fuel, the firebombs use kerosene-based jet fuel, which has a smaller concentration of benzene.

Hundreds of partially loaded Mark 77 firebombs were stored on pre-positioned ammunition ships overseas, Marine Corps officials said. Those ships were unloaded in Kuwait during the weeks preceding the war.

"You can call it something other than napalm, but it's napalm," said John Pike, defense analyst with GlobalSecurity.com, a nonpartisan research group in Alexandria, Va.

Although many human rights groups consider incendiary bombs to be inhumane, international law does not prohibit their use against military forces. The United States has not agreed to a ban against possible civilian targets.

"Incendiaries create burns that are difficult to treat," said Robert Musil, executive director of Physicians for Social Responsibility, a Washington group that opposes the use of weapons of mass destruction.

Musil described the Pentagon's distinction between napalm and Mark 77 firebombs as "pretty outrageous."

"That's clearly Orwellian," he added.

Developed during World War II and dropped on troops and Japanese cities, incendiary bombs have been used by American forces in nearly every conflict since. Their use became controversial during the Vietnam War when U.S. and South Vietnamese aircraft dropped millions of pounds of napalm. Its effects were shown in a Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph of Vietnamese children running from their burned village.

Before March, the last time U.S. forces had used napalm in combat was the Persian Gulf War, again by Marines.

During a recent interview about the bombing campaign in Iraq, Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Jim Amos confirmed aircraft dropped what he and other Marines continue to call napalm on Iraqi troops on several occasions. He commanded Marine jet and helicopter units involved in the Iraq war and leads the Miramar-based 3rd Marine Air Wing.

Miramar pilots familiar with the bombing missions pointed to at least two locations where firebombs were dropped.

Before the Marines crossed the Saddam Canal in central Iraq, jets dropped several firebombs on enemy positions near a bridge that would become the Marines' main crossing point on the road toward Numaniyah, a key town 40 miles from Baghdad.

Next, the bombs were used against Iraqis near a key Tigris River bridge, north of Numaniyah, in early April.

There were reports of another attack on the first day of the war.

Two embedded journalists reported what they described as napalm being dropped on an Iraqi observation post at Safwan Hill overlooking the Kuwait border.

Reporters for CNN and the Sydney (Australia) Morning Herald were told by unnamed Marine officers that aircraft dropped napalm on the Iraqi position, which was adjacent to one of the Marines' main invasion routes.

Their reports were disputed by several Pentagon spokesmen who said no such bombs were used nor did the United States have any napalm weapons.

The Pentagon destroyed its stockpile of napalm canisters, which had been stored near Camp Pendleton at the Fallbrook Naval Weapons Station, in April 2001.

Yesterday military spokesmen described what they see as the distinction between the two types of incendiary bombs. They said mixture used in modern firebombs is a less harmful mixture than Vietnam War-era napalm.

"This additive has significantly less of an impact on the environment," wrote Marine spokesman Col. Michael Daily, in an e-mailed information sheet provided by the Pentagon.

He added, "many folks (out of habit) refer to the Mark 77 as 'napalm' because its effect upon the target is remarkably similar."

In the e-mail, Daily also acknowledged that firebombs were dropped near Safwan Hill.

Alles, who oversaw the Safwan bombing raid, said 18 one-ton satellite-guided bombs, but no incendiary bombs, were dropped on the site.

Military experts say incendiary bombs can be an effective weapon in certain situations.

Firebombs are useful against dug-in troops and light vehicles, said GlobalSecurity's Pike.

"I used it routinely in Vietnam," said retired Marine Lt. Gen. Bernard Trainor, now a prominent defense analyst. "I have no moral compunction against using it. It's just another weapon."

And, the distinctive fireball and smell have a psychological impact on troops, experts said.

"The generals love napalm," said Alles, who has transferred to Washington. "It has a big psychological effect."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James W. Crawley:
(619) 542-4559; jim.crawley@uniontrib.com



http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/images/030805firebombs_big.gif

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20030805-9999_1n5bomb.html#


Sempers,

Roger
:marine:

DanBO
08-05-03, 11:07 AM
Hell - All's fair in love and war. Don't they remember Sept. 11th?

"Semper Fi Mac"

CAS3
08-05-03, 12:28 PM
DANBO...
I feel the same way. Why is it all of these so called researchers and activists are located in DC. Is it because they are given federal money?
Things that make you go HHMMMM...

Kurt Stover
08-05-03, 12:52 PM
Ain't war He11? I guess if we had used sticks and rocks to pound their heads into mush, we'd of heard about that to. Fvcking liberals and democRATS. Whine if you don't do something, then whine when you do. The scourge of humanity!

Barrio_rat
08-05-03, 01:24 PM
These stories should get out more. Marines use Firebombs which can cause a great amount of damage as well as be damaging to the moral of the troops it is used agains. Lesson learned? Don't go to war against the Marines as they intend to win by any means they have at their disposal.

Like if the Iraqis could have gotten an aircraft off the ground and if they had the same weapon, they wouldn't use it on us? I get tired of people on the sidelines telling those in the military that, if they are going to war, they have to do it nicely.

Super Dave
08-05-03, 01:45 PM
As the saying goes..."It Sucks To Be Them!!" when it comes to war/battles...I will walk away the victor..You will not walk away.

Dan_Mills
08-05-03, 02:03 PM
Barrio_rat while I agree with you, Super Dave, DanBO, CAS3, and Kurt Stover's feelings on this one I also have to wonder "if the Iraqis could have gotten an aircraft off the ground and if they had the same weapon" and had used it, would the American people demand that the leaders who ordered the air strike be tried for war crimes? We would go straight to the world court if half of the stuff we do were done against us. I have nothing against this except for the hypocritical
actions we sometimes take. Of instance the difference in attitude we display between Iraq and North Korea. I say we should throw the United Nations out of the US, take back our independence, tell everyone to kiss our rosey red... and dare them to try something. What ya think?

Kurt Stover
08-05-03, 02:39 PM
Unfortunately, because of liberal idea and thinking hindering our actions it would be like cutting our own throat right now. Okay here it is in a nutshell. We are on the edge of technology to use an alternative fuel source (our largest and most sought after fossil fuel from the Arab countries). We have enough of this stuff here in the Americas, but the left won't let us use our own or manage a way to get it because it will endanger the three-toed yellow-breasted shrill gnat in Alaska.

Be it hydrogen from water, ant **** or whatever is being used as an alternative fuel, the backlash of this is, you can't make an immediate need or demand for such an item unless the federal government mandates it. Kind of like you aren't supposed to use hydrocarbons in spray cans, fluorocarbons for refrigerants and so forth.

Well we come down to a vicious cycle. Someone wants to make a profit off of a machine that can extract hydrogen from water which is relatively free (rain) or purchased which is supposed to be refined or filtered or some rabbi or priest waved a wand over it, using it in a combustible manner to create thrust movement or a means of transportation. No one in their right mind is going to pay out the wazoo for something that will do that when they can still pay 2, 3, 4 or even 5 dollars a gallon for gas.

So therefore no profit or money making in hydrogen unless the federal government thing happens. Why you ask (TAXES), the golden fleece of the left. If you made a gallon of hydrogen cost 1 dollar you can bet your sweet @ss that the left will want to have a 35% tax levied. Well Mr. Hydrogen manufacture says, hey, I like my boat, 40 thousand acre estate mansion, good food etc. So he raises the price to offset the tax.

BOOM, well now he has put a price of 3.75 a gallon and the 35% tax is now set at 40%. The Mr. Hydrogen folks get their money, the left gets their money and you get to pay some exorbient amount for something you really didn't want in the first place.

So, hang all the liberals, screw the Gnat drain the oil, get it in reserve, nuke the Arab oil fields so that it is useless or inaccessible, we sell to the world at inflated prices while undercutting the price of Mr. Hydrogen in development. Improve to a 99% optimum rating. Then once we have perfected the hydrogen thing, stop selling oil to the world and tell them they have to start buying our hydro cars and ship the hydrogen over to them in huge fat tankers.

Meanwhile we kick the UN out, keep a presence in these back@ssward countries, converting them into “Americanized” colonies while keeping their own identity. Thinning out the indigenous population with Americans. Soon we will have a utopia world. Yeah right, in the mean time keep using fire Bombs on our enemies, like someone said earlier, it sucks to be you when you are the looser.

lurchenstein
08-06-03, 02:03 AM
Nice suppository for the Al Quaida crowd!