Another credibility problem
by Jack GrantI had discounted these reports when I first read of them because I “considered the source” of both the accusations and the denial.
Unfortunately, I was wrong:
US used white phosphorus in Iraq
The Pentagon has confirmed that US troops used white phosphorus during last year’s offensive in the Iraqi city of Falluja.
“It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants,” spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC - though not against civilians, he said.
The US earlier denied it had been used in Falluja at all.
Col Venable denied that the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - constituted a banned chemical weapon.
Washington is not a signatory of an international treaty restricting the use of white phosphorus devices.
Col Venable said a statement by the US state department that white phosphorus had not been used was based on “poor information”.
The BBC’s defence correspondent Paul Wood says having to retract its denial has been a public relations disaster for the US military.
I’m not going to debate whether the use of this weapon is legal or illegal; since the US has not signed the treaty banning the weapon, then regardless of the effects of the substance on the human body it is not correct to say that we used an “illegal” weapon.
However, the use of this weapon in areas where there may be non-comabatants is not a way to make friends and influence people, and incorrectly claiming that we did not use weapons of this nature and then later saying we did does not enhance our already shaky credibility.
Trackback URL (right-click and choose the copy shortcut/link option)
Agreed, the initial denial is basically an admission of guilt, and guilt only happens when you did something you feel bad about. If it wasn’t illegal, why would they feel the need to deny usage?
By Oorgo on 11.17.05 16:52
Even if the US is right on the legality, it has undoubtedly inflicted a serious propaganda blow on itself. The incendiary effect on hearts and minds.
By Susan on 11.17.05 17:48
…since the US has not signed the treaty banning the weapon, then regardless of the effects of the substance on the human body it is not correct to say that we used an “illegalâ€? weapon…
So, if Iran were to develop a nuclear weapon - let us say a tactical artillery shell - and were then to use that against American troops it would not be illegal until such time as Iran signed up to a nuclear arms treaty?
Whereas if the US were to use such a weapon against Iran it would be illegal unless the US were to repudiate yet more ot its international treaties and agreements?
Somehow I hear the strong smell of rotting truth in the background.
By probligo on 11.19.05 06:12
As I understand the actual tactical use of Willy Pete, it is used as a marking round. i.e. to give a location marker so that high explosives will only be delivered to the desired targets.
So WP is a life saver when used in the ordinary way. It prevents HE from being delivered where it is not wanted.
It can be used as an incendiary - to catch things on fire - but that is not how it is generally used.
It would be really good if folks here had some actual tactical experience or defered to those who do.
Me? I learned the above from an arty blogger. It is not hard to find.
So yeah. Let us dispense with the WP and just sling the HE in the general direction. We can then more easily justify the action. Even if more people die.
After all HE is conventional. In no way a war crime.
By M. Simon on 11.20.05 01:11