Home

Pentagon Slips Up and Confirms White Phosphorus Used Against Enemy Combatants: In breach of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Posted November 15th, 2005 by ringverse
in

On the back of the Rai24 documentary, and subsequent coverage in the Independent and the Guardian, and in response to the number of emails they have received, Radio 4s PM programme covered the White Phosphorus story this evening.
I have archived the interview here before it disappears from 'Listen Again'. If you have even a passing interest in this story, then it is well worth 5 minutes of your time.

On Radio4 tonight, the Pentagon clearly contradicts the US ambassador's letter to the Independent this morning, where he restates the US position, and flatly denies that White Phosphorus was used against people [enemy combtants or otherwise].

...US forces participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom continue to use appropriate lawful, conventional weapons against legitimate targets. US forces do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons.

Suggestions that US forces targeted civilians with white phosphorus in Operation Al Fajr are simply wrong. US forces use white phosphorus as obscurants or smoke screens and for target marking. White phosphorus is not banned by any convention when used in this manner....

ROBERT H TUTTLE
AMBASSADOR, US EMBASSY, LONDON W1

Compare and contrast with the words of Pentagon Spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Barry Venable tonight:

"... it [White Phosphorus] is an incendiary weapon and can be used against enemy combatants."

- Can you confirm then, that it was used as an offensive weapon against enemy troops in the siege of Fallujah?

"Yes. It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants."

As has been noted, White Phosphorus is not on the list of proscribed chemicals in the Chemical Weapons Convention. But the Convention does define chemical weapons and warfare.

Chemical warfare is different from the use of conventional weapons or nuclear weapons because the destructive effects of chemical weapons are not primarily due to any explosive force...

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).

Futher defined in the Convention as

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.

Up untill today, the position has been that White Phosphorus munitions were not deployed against people [enemy combatants], but as "obscurants or smoke screens and for target marking".
Under the terms of the convention that is for, "purposes that are not prohibited (an important legal definition, known as the General Purpose Criterion)"

These points are covered in some detail here, on the Daily Kos, who concludes with this analogy:

If I purchase a hammer and say it's a tool, no one can object, as long as I use it merely as a tool. However, if I use it to hit someone on the head, the police will take my hammer away and claim that, under the law, it is a weapon, because of the way it was used. The application defines the object in any context.

This evening, Pentagon Spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Barry Venable confirmed that the US did use these weapons 'inappropriately', by directing them at people [enemy combatants] in the siege of Fallujah. Thus in breach of the Chenical Weapons Convention.

At the time of the siege, there were an unknown number of civillians remaining in the city, at unknown locations.
We have evidence of the accuracy with which these munitions were deployed, from the account of the Americans accidently shelling their own troops.

So, from tonight's news, it would appear that we can stand by what we initially said. That the US used chemical weapons against civillians in Fallujah.

It should also be remembered that we [UK] were only too happy to move up our troops to fill the gap left by US forces involved in the attack on fallujah.
If you hold the thug's coat while he stomps on his victim, and then calmly return it to him when he has finished, then you cannot later claim you weren't complicit in the attack.
The sad thing is, from our current leaders we are unlikely to even hear any attempts at distancing us [UK] from the actions of the Americans. Just resigned indifference and the familiar chorus of 'move along, move along, nothing to see here.'
The media have picked this up, it remains to be seen if they will run with it.

White Phosphorus has been

On November 16th, 2005 Watching Them, Watching Us (not verified) says:

White Phosphorus has been used in this way from World War 2 onwards, and has never been condemned as a "chemical weapon" before - it really is not at all the same as nerve gas.

What are the alternatives ? "ethical" high explosives and shrapnel or perhaps the new man portable Fuel/ Air or ThermoBaric "novel explosive" warheads ?

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001944.html

The weasel words by the US Government spin doctors is, however similar to all the "we did not use Napalm, but a new , improved, more lethal formulation which technically is not Napalm, but which looks and acts similarly", which led to UK Ministers making misleading statements to Parliament.

As I have commented before,

On November 16th, 2005 davidk says:

As I have commented before, I agree. I don't think there are any 'good' or 'bad' weapons, if you have a legitimate target, anything goes. Which includes land mines, cluster bombs, softhead bullets etc. etc. IF you can aim them well enough to hit, and only hit, a legitimate target.

My only concerns in this case are:

1. Why did the US DoD feel it had to lie at first?
2. This was not an accurate delivery system, there were a lot of non-combatants in Fallujah (and other places since) so I don't think the use of WP was sensible even if it was legal. Which it may not have been if it wasn't being used to illuminate a battlefield.

WP has indeed been used in

On November 16th, 2005 ringverse says:

WP has indeed been used in warfare since WWII, and it appears to have a legitimate use on the battlefield today, either to light things up or obsure things.
It is partly because of the terrible effects it's use had in the firestorms we rained down on Germany at the end of WWII, that it's use as an incendiary is so contentious.

It is not a proscribed chemical weapon, because it is not designed to be used against people. That is reflected in UK policy, and the conventional weapons treaty we are signed up to, but the US aren't.

However, if it is used against people [enemy combatants?], it sails very close to the general definitions as described in the post above.

In Fallujah, there were an unknown number of civillians, at unknown locations. The indiscriminate use of WP munitions in these circumstances is a very different matter to either its uses to illuminate or obscure, or as an incendiary against the enemy ona battlefield.

This might have something to do with why the DoD has lied through it's hind teeth on the matter...

How would it's use by the Iraqis have been reported, if they had used it with the same justifications, against US positions in Iraqi towns during the war?