US admits using white phosphorous as incendiary in Fallujah

Quote:

---

US used white phosphorus in Iraq

The Pentagon has confirmed that US troops used white phosphorus during last year's offensive in the northern 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.

'Incendiary'

The US-led assault on Falluja - a stronghold of the Sunni insurgency west of Baghdad - displaced most of the city's 300,000 population and left many of its buildings destroyed.


Col Venable told the BBC's PM radio programme that the US army used white phosphorus incendiary munitions "primarily as obscurants, for smokescreens or target marking in some cases".

"However it is an incendiary weapon and may be used against enemy combatants."

WHITE PHOSPHORUS
Spontaneously flammable chemical used for battlefield illumination
Contact with particles causes burning of skin and flesh
Use of incendiary weapons prohibited for attacking civilians (Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons)
Protocol III not signed by US

And he said it had been used in Falluja, but it was "conventional munition", not a chemical weapon.

It is not "outlawed or illegal", Col Venable said.

"When you have enemy forces that are in covered positions that your high explosive artillery rounds are not having an impact on and you wish to get them out of those positions, one technique is to fire a white phosphorus round or rounds into the position because the combined effects of the fire and smoke - and in some case the terror brought about by the explosion on the ground - will drive them out of the holes so that you can kill them with high explosives," he said.

'Particularly nasty'

White phosphorus is highly flammable and ignites on contact with oxygen. If the substance hits someone's body, it will burn until deprived of oxygen.

Globalsecurity.org, a defence website, says: "Phosphorus burns on the skin are deep and painful... These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears... it could burn right down to the bone."

A spokesman at the UK Ministry of Defence said the use of white phosphorus was permitted in battle in cases where there were no civilians near the target area.

But Professor Paul Rodgers of the University of Bradford department of peace studies said white phosphorus could be considered a chemical weapon if deliberately aimed at civilians.

He told PM: "It is not counted under the chemical weapons convention in its normal use but, although it is a matter of legal niceties, it probably does fall into the category of chemical weapons if it is used for this kind of purpose directly against people."

When the Rai documentary revealing the use of white phosphorus in Iraq was broadcast on 8 November, it sparked fury among Italian anti-war protesters, who demonstrated outside the US embassy in Rome.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm

---

Mods: I know there was a thread on these allegations, but that descended into a flame war that strayed far from the original issue, so I thought I'd start a new one.

What's the story? targetting civilians is illegal whatever weapon you use, and surely no one imagines wars between combatants are fought with "nice" weapons?

It seems to me to be straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, if anyone is really saying that its cool to use ordinary munitions but not phosphorus ones.

IMHO the smokescreen is coming from the journalists, not the phosphorus.

Quote:

---

I know there was a thread on these allegations, but that descended into a flame war

---

Was white phosphorus used?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

Mods: I know there was a thread on these allegations, but that descended into a flame war that strayed far from the original issue, so I thought I'd start a new one.

---

It did not descend into a flame war. It descended into a semantic peeing contest over whether covering neighbourhoods with poison clouds constitutes chemical warfare.

Assorted regulations, treaties and suchlike about what goes and doesn't in war are set in place specifically to try to remove the worst and ugliest excesses it tends to spawn - treatment of prisoners, "off-limits" targets such as medical personnel, how to proceed when fighting in ares likely to contain civilians... that sort of thing. Nobody (at the levels where these things get drafted) has any illusions about what war becomes like when it's fought without rules; this is specifically why the rules are made, to remove the worst edge of barbarism from it. Not all that different to the logic why societies have laws, really.

Anyway, there's an international treaty banning the use of incendiaries as weapons, nevermind in population centres, and rather typically the US has failed to ratify that one. Their stubborn insistence on not ratifying anything that might legally oblige them to behave in a nice and wholesome manner never ceases to amaze me.

Although, granted, Finland for one hasn't AFAIK ratified that treaty either (or if we have it's a bit odd that our army has napalm lying around...), but then again we didn't recently burn scores of civilians to death in Iraq either.

The point, assassin, is that there is much reason to believe the US very intentionally deployed incendiary munitions in Fallujah much less out of tactical considerations than as a terror tactic, a message to the insurgents and their civilian sympathizers - "oppose us and this is what happens". Whatever the case may be, the fact is that how they used WP was pretty specifically against the letters of the aforementioned treaty and morally pretty repugnant, which is no doubt why they typically tried to keep their "foul deeds" under the wraps - predictably unsuccesfully.

In short, they did something bad, tried to call black white to cover it up, and eventually had to admit the whole mess in a depressingly characteristical PR disaster. If you ask me, the only ones who got anything out of it were the insurgents and jihadists, who got a whole new pile of new propaganda material to go around with.

Don't see the problem so long as it was valid military targets, what's the difference if you burn them or shoot them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ja'chyra

Don't see the problem so long as it was valid military targets, what's the difference if you burn them or shoot them?

---

The difference is that in urban warfare where your opponent does use civilians as shields(which is bad), shooting them is more accurate than using area zone weapons - especially ones specifically forbidden in unaccurate uses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

It did not descend into a flame war. It descended into a semantic peeing contest over whether covering neighbourhoods with poison clouds constitutes chemical warfare.

---

That is because it does not constitute chemical warfare, regardless of your opinion on the matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

That is because it does not constitute chemical warfare, regardless of your opinion on the matter.

---

Define 'matter'. :smug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Define 'matter'. :smug:

---

Define chemical warfare -:duel:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by el_slapper

The difference is that in urban warfare where your opponent does use civilians as shields(which is bad), shooting them is more accurate than using area zone weapons - especially ones specifically forbidden in unaccurate uses.

---

Depends what weapons you use, a lot of the heavier weapons are area effect or suppresion weapons where accuracy isn't such a issue. So are you saying they shouldn't use artillery or tanks?

Some information on why incendiary weapons have been banned by a lot of countries for the use in situations where military and civilian targets cannot be clearly separated:

Quote:

---

Napalm bombing came under discussion at the International Conference on Human Rights in Teheran (1968). The Conference's proposal that a study should be made was supported by the ICRC. The report on napalm, other incendiary weapons and all aspects of their possible use, presented to the General Assembly in 1972, concluded that the spread of fire with these weapons affected military and civilian targets indiscriminately, that the injuries were intensely painful, and that medical treatment was beyond the resources of most countries.

The United Nations Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects was the outcome of a conference held in Geneva in 1979 and 1980. The holding of the Conference had been recommended by the Diplomatic Conference which approved in 1977 the Additional Protocols to the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

The close connection between the Conventional Weapons Convention and other international humanitarian legislation, including the 1977 Protocols, is acknowledged by the States parties in recalling "the general principle of the protection of the civilian population against the effects of hostilities" as well as the principles of avoiding unnecessary suffering and of protecting the environment.

Three Protocols accompany the Convention. The first prohibits the use of weapons which injure by fragments not detectable by X-rays. The second seeks to prohibit or restrict the use of mines, booby-traps and devices which are actuated by remote or time controls. The third Protocol restricts the use of incendiary weapons.

---

Link to quote

Link to "Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons" (Protocol III)



Just for the record (again):
The US did not sign this protocol.

Therefore the use of WP was not illegal.

The question whether using WP in situations such as the one in Fallujah is "appropriate" or "moral" is of course something different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ja'chyra

Depends what weapons you use, a lot of the heavier weapons are area effect or suppresion weapons where accuracy isn't such a issue. So are you saying they shouldn't use artillery or tanks?

---

It depends on what you're planning to do with the city you attack...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Therefore the use of WP was not illegal.

---

Of course the anti-personnel use of WP is illegal. Look up the Chemical Weapons Convention ratified by the U.S. in 1997. It forbids the 'use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare'. QED.

No doubt this is how the "peeing contest" started. Its not the toxic properties of WP that are used in phosphorus munitions.

Thought experiment: Uncle Sam hits you with WP. Do you shout "Help, help, I'm being poisoned" or "Help, help I'm being burnt"?

Not illegal. QED.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

Its not the toxic properties of WP that are used in phosphorus munitions.

---

In this case they were, that is precisely the point. Haven't you followed the story at all? Even the Pentagon admits they were used against personnel, not for illumination or marking. Whole blocks were 'flushed' with WP. This in a built-up area. That constitutes chemical warfare, even if all the victims were heavily armed jihadists -- which they were not...

We used phosphorous as incendiary in Fallujah? Good.

Quote:

---

Even the Pentagon admits they were used against personnel, not for illumination or marking. Whole blocks were 'flushed' with WP. This in a built-up area. That constitutes chemical warfare,

---

?

Quote:

---

The US has now admitted using white phosphorus as a weapon in Falluja last year, after earlier denying it. The substance can cause burning of the flesh but is not illegal and is not classified as a chemical weapon.

A Pentagon spokesman, Lt Col Barry Venable, confirmed to the BBC the US had used white phosphorus "as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants" - though not against civilians, he said.

---

I don't want to get all scientific on yo ass but it does say they used it as an incendiary, not a toxin ?

I'm still not seeing a story here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Of course the anti-personnel use of WP is illegal. Look up the Chemical Weapons Convention ratified by the U.S. in 1997. It forbids the 'use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare'. QED.

---

Actually I do not think that this Convention can be applied here.

If you look at the text at the Convention:

Quote:

---

9. "Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention" means:

(a) Industrial, agricultural, research, medical, pharmaceutical or other peaceful purposes;

(b) Protective purposes, namely those purposes directly related to protection against toxic chemicals and to protection against chemical weapons;

(c) Military purposes not connected with the use of chemical weapons and not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare;

(d) Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes.

---

1993 Convention

it is rather clear that an incendiary weapon like WP is not covered by this convention as it is not dependent on its toxic properties (which are a secondary, albeit very nasty effect).

This seems to be the very reason for the additional Protocol I mentioned in my previous post - to cover additional "conventional" waepons that do not fall under the chemical warfare definition.

Don't get me wrong - by no means do I condone the use of WP on potentially civilian targets and I think it's rather a shame that the US uses such weapons in urban warfare - however, technically I do not think that you can make the point that the US violated any Conventions signed and ratified by them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Of course the anti-personnel use of WP is illegal. Look up the Chemical Weapons Convention ratified by the U.S. in 1997. It forbids the 'use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare'. QED.

---

Perhaps you will get tired of LYING about this subject at some future date. This didn't use the toxic properties, it used the incindiary ones.

It is amazing that you would throw away your credibility over something like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

It is amazing that you would throw away your credibility over something like this.

---

Adrian? Credibility?... Nevermind, I'll be nice.~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Anyway, there's an international treaty banning the use of incendiaries as weapons, nevermind in population centres, and rather typically the US has failed to ratify that one. Their stubborn insistence on not ratifying anything that might legally oblige them to behave in a nice and wholesome manner never ceases to amaze me.

---

Gee, maybe the terrorists will start playing nice and we can all have a group hug instead of fighting terriorsts in urban centers? (While I usually make a distinction between the insurgency and terrorism, the enemy in Fallujah were using terror attacks agains civilians on the rest of the country--they were by definition terrorists.)

What amazes me is that people want us to tie BOTH arms behind our backs while fighting these guys. Treaties like this are not going to interest us, because they will be abused by people like Adrian for political reasons, and by terrorists for tactical ones.

It is humorous that nations that don't have to deal with the problems directly think they should dictate our methods to us.

And contrary to your assertion I find nothing morally repugnant about using incindiaries on these terrorists.

Quote:

---

qed.

---

AOI?

There are two issues here, IMHO:

1. Was the use of WP illegal and/or immoral?

I'm not sure yet that it was illegal. One thing to note, however, was that WP was used as an incendiary when High Explosive rounds had no effect, and that they were used to 'flush out' insurgents. This, to me, suggests that it was the distinctive chemical properties of the rounds that were being used. If not, why did they switch from HE rounds? The fact that these were being used in urban areas makes it even more questionable.

2. Why did the US government first lie about this?

Because, obviously, they felt this was a questionable tactic that they didn't want to admit they were using. While they could argue, in Bushite legalese language, that, strictly speaking, the use of WP was not illegal, they knew they were on shaky moral ground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

2. Why did the US government first lie about this?

---

That's what I said in the other thread, and it's far more serious then #1 IMO.

@Ser Clegane and English Assassin, in this case the WP was used for its toxic qualities, i.e. to create poisonous clouds from which there was no escape for anyone. As a blister agent, it is worse than mustard gas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Perhaps you will get tired of LYING about this subject at some future date.

---

I am immune to such language.
If only some others were less immune to the truth... ~;)

You know, I think if we shot enough bullets we create enough smoke that the insurgents might get sick from the smoke, thus making guns a chemical weapon.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

@Ser Clegane and English Assassin, in this case the WP was used for its toxic qualities, i.e. to create poisonous clouds from which there was no excape for anyone. As a blister agent, it is worse than mustard gas.

---

How do you know that, Adrian - is that your assumption or are there any actual reports on this intention you could refer to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

How do you know that, Adrian - is that your assumption or are there any actual reports on this intention you could refer to?

---

It is all in the other thread, Ser Clegane. There you will also find the views of people who disagree. I guess everyone can make up their own mind by now. I am moving onto greener threads.
:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

It is all in the other thread, Ser Clegane. There you will also find the views of people who disagree. I guess everyone can make up their own mind by now. I am moving onto greener threads.
:bow:

---

I guess we will just have to disagree on the formal/legal aspect of this incident while agreeing with regard to the moral implications :bow:

it is rather clear that an incendiary weapon like WP is not covered by this convention as it is not dependent on its toxic properties (which are a secondary, albeit very nasty effect).

Secondary effect , thats how the Germans justified their early gas attacks in WWI wasn't it , they were not gas shells they were shells that contained gas , the primary "intent" was to cause an explosion the gassing was just a "secondary effect" . That way they were not breaking any conventions or treaties .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zorba

AOI?

---

Not sure if this is what you're asking, but QED means

Quod Erat Demonstratum, loosely translated as "As has already been demonstrated"

My first post in the other thread still stands:

Not nice, but apparently legal...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

it is rather clear that an incendiary weapon like WP is not covered by this convention as it is not dependent on its toxic properties (which are a secondary, albeit very nasty effect).

Secondary effect , thats how the Germans justified their early gas attacks in WWI wasn't it , they were not gas shells they were shells that contained gas , the primary "intent" was to cause an explosion the gassing was just a "secondary effect" . That way they were not breaking any conventions or treaties .

---

OK - how about some facts?

Do you have any numbers from this WP attack or any other WP attack that would show that poisoning is indeed the primary effect of this weapon?

If you have read my comments in the other thread on this issue you will hopefully understand my view on this.

While it is IMO clear that the use of WP is not covered by the chemical weapons convention under the given definitions, I see that one could argue that this definition should include weapons like WP as these weapons have effects that are indeed similar to the chemical weapons that are defined in the relevant convention.

That they are not covered is probably one of the reasons that there are some protocols that cover the usage of weapons that fall under the current definition of conventional weapons, such as incendiary weapons or anti-person mines.
As things stand, the US decided not to sign these protocols, and one can certainly draw conclusions regarding this decision made by US administrations.

Personally, I consider the use of weapons like WP in urban areas that are still inhabited by civilians as abhorrent and against the spirit of conventions such as that against the use of chemical weapons.
However, I think discussing whether it is illegal or not distracts from the IMHO more important discussion whether it is acceptable or not, as the former can easily be refuted and thus the discussion does not lesd anywhere.

It would appear that a majority of those disconcerted by the USA's use of white phosphorous munitions in this assault are also those who believe our invasion of Iraq to have been illegal/immoral/premature in the first place.

Setting aside your opposition to us being there at all (not asking you to discard your beliefs, merely to set them aside for the purpose of discussion), how should US forces have addressed the situation?

If you are facing non-conventional forces intermixed with civilians in a built-up urban area, you have a number of choices, none of which are thrilling.
You could:

A) cede control of the area to the non-conventional forces. This would minimize civilian casualties (barring some kind of pogrom by the non-conventionals) and minimize your own casualties, but would be a victory for the opposition allowing them to reinforce, develop a base, etc.

B) conduct a slow and painstaking infantry assault moving from room to room and house by house without the use of explosive devices or incendiaries or chemicals and carefully waiting for a positive identification before firing on any target. Since the non-conventional forces will be under no such restrictions, there will still be significant civilian casualties, but your forces will not contribute to that. Your casualties will be very high, since the defender has all of the tactical advantages in this scenario.

C) Use some form of chemical agent to discomfit the enemy and force them to leave many/all of the positions. The civilians intermixed will be harmed by this approach nearly as much as the non-conventional defenders, but the subsequent assault can move forward with fewer casualties and a greater likelihood of success. A number of civilians will require significant medical treatment. It is difficult to discern if civilian casualties will be less than in scenario "B," though it seems likely, but chemical injuries are more difficult to treat than standard trauma.

D) Identify enemy positions at range and hammer them with high-explosive munitions. Civilian casualties will be significant. The follow up assault will take casualties -- no bombardment zeros the opposition.

E) Identify the general area occupied by non-conventional forces and demolish it with lethal area-effect weapons. Civilian casualties will be horrific, but casualties to your own troops following up will be minimal.

F) use tactical nuclear weaponry to effect "e" above. Virtually everthing in the primary blast area will be eradicated, including civilians. No losses will be incurred by your forces. Radioactive contamination will be a concern, as will the political repercussions of this act.


Given a range of choices analogous to this -- remember, you've agreed to set aside the decision to be there in the first place for the sake of this discussion -- which choice is the most practical?

G) Play Celine Dion and have them either surrender or head to the showers and scream out "Arghh get it off me, I feel so unclean!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Given a range of choices analogous to this -- remember, you've agreed to set aside the decision to be there in the first place for the sake of this discussion -- which choice is the most practical?

---

Interesting post and a good question for debate. I would be happy to partake, but I can not because I know too little about the modus operandi, the range of weapons, tactical capabilities and information position of the U.S. army plus the situation on the ground in that town (like everybody else here, I have never been to Fallujah). I am constantly racking my brains about a decent political solution to the whole imbroglio, but we have discussed that issue elsewhere and at length. I am looking forward to other peoples answers.

EDIT
Maybe there are some good clues in the Battle for Basra in March 2003, when the Brits took the town without too many casualties after highly selective bombardment and with the use of good human intelligence.

I fail to follow your logic Seamus.

You assign numbers to a list of options, but of course there are a whole host of options available here. Are you saying this was the most effective option, and so the US was forced/wise to use it? If that is the case, napalm or nuclear weapons would be far more effective. That doesn't mean they are either moral or legal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Gee, maybe the terrorists will start playing nice and we can all have a group hug instead of fighting terriorsts in urban centers? (While I usually make a distinction between the insurgency and terrorism, the enemy in Fallujah were using terror attacks agains civilians on the rest of the country--they were by definition terrorists.)

What amazes me is that people want us to tie BOTH arms behind our backs while fighting these guys. Treaties like this are not going to interest us, because they will be abused by people like Adrian for political reasons, and by terrorists for tactical ones.

It is humorous that nations that don't have to deal with the problems directly think they should dictate our methods to us.

And contrary to your assertion I find nothing morally repugnant about using incindiaries on these terrorists.

---

Oh go away Red. What you're essentially saying is that just because the opposition uses nasty, underhanded, repulsive, barbaric and generally unwholesome tactics and methods it gives you a carte blanche to do the same.

Which is bull, at least unless you intend to render your moral standing to their level.

Them's the breaks. The cops don't use the same methods the mob does either, now do they ?

The most ardent adherents of the logic of "the end justifying the means" have always been tyrants, fanatics and terrorists; one is allowed to expect better from a country claiming to be a civilized nation, plus a general upholder of human rights, freedom et all.

You're also making the assumption you can play fast and loose with these sorts of things without lowering your ethical standards on the long term on the side; this has a serious stench of hubris about it. People act civilized partly so as to avoid getting used to acting uncivilized, if you see what I mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

EDIT
Maybe there are some good clues in the Battle for Basra in March 2003, when the Brits took the town without too many casualties after highly selective bombardment and with the use of good human intelligence.

---

HUMINT can make a world of difference. On those occasions where the USA has had it, our operations have been both more selective and more effective. The Brits (and USMC? or did they bypass?) did quality work in Basra.


Hurin

Yes, part of my argument is that the tactical choice made was one of the better ones available on an unpleasing list. All of these choices involve the deaths and injury of people who aren't combatants and really shouldn't be involved.

If you discount morality entirely, than the nuclear stuff becomes practical, but to discount the moral component entirely is to cede victory to the concept of terrorism if not to the particular terrorists in question. Not fun.

If you know a way of actually generating an open field fight with the terrorists/insurgents please let us know. Most of our military types dream of an engagement -- even facing long odds -- where they don't have to worry about innocents. Many of our opponents simply don't worry -- or use them as shields to make us hesitate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Oh go away Red.

---

Gotta defend Red on this one. He should go away simply because you disagree with him? So much for debate. Many times (in fact most of the time) I have disagreed with him, but he has as much of a right to his opinions as you do. :knight:

Eh, don't take it literally. Think of it as more of a general expression of being-fed-up-with-something, along the lines of "gimme a break". Plus a rough estmate of how highly I rate his points, mind you.

Understood...:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

It would appear that a majority of those disconcerted by the USA's use of white phosphorous munitions in this assault are also those who believe our invasion of Iraq to have been illegal/immoral/premature in the first place.

Setting aside your opposition to us being there at all (not asking you to discard your beliefs, merely to set them aside for the purpose of discussion), how should US forces have addressed the situation?

If you are facing non-conventional forces intermixed with civilians in a built-up urban area, you have a number of choices, none of which are thrilling.
You could:

A) cede control of the area to the non-conventional forces. This would minimize civilian casualties (barring some kind of pogrom by the non-conventionals) and minimize your own casualties, but would be a victory for the opposition allowing them to reinforce, develop a base, etc.

B) conduct a slow and painstaking infantry assault moving from room to room and house by house without the use of explosive devices or incendiaries or chemicals and carefully waiting for a positive identification before firing on any target. Since the non-conventional forces will be under no such restrictions, there will still be significant civilian casualties, but your forces will not contribute to that. Your casualties will be very high, since the defender has all of the tactical advantages in this scenario.

C) Use some form of chemical agent to discomfit the enemy and force them to leave many/all of the positions. The civilians intermixed will be harmed by this approach nearly as much as the non-conventional defenders, but the subsequent assault can move forward with fewer casualties and a greater likelihood of success. A number of civilians will require significant medical treatment. It is difficult to discern if civilian casualties will be less than in scenario "B," though it seems likely, but chemical injuries are more difficult to treat than standard trauma.

D) Identify enemy positions at range and hammer them with high-explosive munitions. Civilian casualties will be significant. The follow up assault will take casualties -- no bombardment zeros the opposition.

E) Identify the general area occupied by non-conventional forces and demolish it with lethal area-effect weapons. Civilian casualties will be horrific, but casualties to your own troops following up will be minimal.

F) use tactical nuclear weaponry to effect "e" above. Virtually everthing in the primary blast area will be eradicated, including civilians. No losses will be incurred by your forces. Radioactive contamination will be a concern, as will the political repercussions of this act.


Given a range of choices analogous to this -- remember, you've agreed to set aside the decision to be there in the first place for the sake of this discussion -- which choice is the most practical?

---

Sorry Seamus but if we are talking what the US did in Fallujah. The option what they actually did, was c) and d) together.As the article in the other thread stated the Us artillery and Mortars shelled Fallujah with both Phosphorus and HE rounds. What they did was basicly they forced the inhabitants and the enemy combatants out of the houses, with the Smoke and fires that using of WP resulted and then killed the people with HE or burned them with WP. The bottom line is was this necessary? And how does it differ of the so much critizised artillery tactics used by Russia in Chezhenia?

Personally speaking, I'd incidentally appreciate it if people didn't try to justify dubiously ethical methods with reducing friendly casualties. After all, when the chips are down it's a fact that soldiers get paid to die for things and civilians don't...

Soldiers get paid to die? That's a new one on me.... ~:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Personally speaking, I'd incidentally appreciate it if people didn't try to justify dubiously ethical methods with reducing friendly casualties. After all, when the chips are down it's a fact that soldiers get paid to die for things and civilians don't...

---

Soldiers get paid to protect their nation. If any dieing is to be done it is the other sides soldiers/warriors/resistance fighters/insurgents/terrorists not your own soldiers as meat shields for your civilians or theirs.

Quote:

---

the true role of infantry was not to expend itself upon heroic physical effort, not to wither away under merciless machine-gun fire, not to impale itself on hostile bayonets, but on the contrary, to advance under the maximum possible protection of the maximum possible array of mechanical resources, in the form of guns, machine-guns, tanks, mortars and aeroplanes; to advance with as little impediment as possible; to be relieved as far as possible of the obligation to fight their way forward.

---

I agree with John Monashs tactics that infantry are not there to die but are to be supported with the maximum amount of resources possible.

So ? It doesn't change anything about the fact that when you get down to the fundamentals, the role soldiers fulfill in a community is to fight, kill and if necessary die when needed. That's the basic reason of existence of the whole profession. All the rest is really just additional paraphenelia such as how exactly they go about fulfilling these duties, when, where, why, with what tools etc etc, or if they can make themselves useful during peacetime too.

Particularly in a professional (which in practice means mercenary; soldiers serve in return of financial benefits) army like the American one (indeed, particularly the American one which has fought about one war per decade since WW2...) this adds up to their lives being as-such worth less than those of the civilians; after all, they have on their own accord, for whatever reason, entered into a profession where getting killed in combat is an expected health hazard, and thus don't really have too much in the way of complaint coming if it happens. Conscript armies, based on the legal obligation of the citizens to serve under arms, are a bit different issue, but with them it can be argued that the risks of military service are a part of the "membership fee" the community demands from its inhabitants.

Civilians, conversely, have not conditionally rented their lives away in such a fashion. Hence, it is morally unsustainable to argue for tactics that incur considerable risks to civilian populations with the safety of one's own soldiers.

Professional soldiers are volunteers. As long as they are part of a countries armed forces they are not mercenaries. It would pay (pun intended) for you to get your definitions right. Nor does getting paid negate their right to life. Mercenaries get paid not to die but to protect people and objects.

Civilians get all the fruits of conquest and the benefit of not having in general to put their lives on the line. Soldiers and Civilians are equal citizens and as humans have equal right to life.

In this instance, putting the lives of enemy civilians over the lives of your own soldiers (citizens) is preposterous.

American Military actions must serve the lives of Americans first. Doing otherwise would be ineffectual at best, and treasonous at worst.

In my books fighting in return for payment (as opposed to, say, legal obligation) amounts to "mercenaries". The semantics of the matter don't particularly interest me.

I won't contest the thing about all humans having an equal right to live, but that was never the issue anyway.

Be they volunteers or mercenaries, however, the point is that unlike for example the hapless civilian population of, say, Fallujah the soldiers have chosen to embark on a potentionally quite dangerous career, and if you ask me this makes them to a fair degree responsible for any loss of life or limb that might happen. IMHO this also means they are to a degree responsible for not endangering the likes of civilians, sort of like how truck drivers are expected not to endanger pedestrians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

In my books fighting in return for payment (as opposed to, say, legal obligation) amounts to "mercenaries". The semantics of the matter don't particularly interest me.

---

So your books say that only those who fight for free escape the definition mercenary?

Mercenary

1 Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2 Hired for service in a foreign army.

Never said that, did I ?

No, but what you're saying doesn't make sense to me, nor does it jive with the definition of a mercenary.

US soldiers in Fallujah aren't mercenaries.

Quote:

---

US soldiers in Fallujah aren't mercenaries.

---

By my definitions they are, because pretty much the whole US military is essentially a mercenary outfit. The same goes for any professional army.

You see, I divide armies to about three categories based on their recruiting method. Mercenaries are those whose soldiers have no external obligation to serve, but are rewarded for their services in some fashion by their masters (that professional national armies serve only a single, fixed paymaster is of no consequence here). Conscripts are those serving due to external obligation to their masters, and usually also salaried - but this is by no means automatic. The final category aren't really armies at all (proper, organized armies fall to either of the previous categories) but irregular forces, whose members are neither obliged nor paid by their masters to fight but do so purely for their own reasons.

Of course, the above categories are by no means set in stone or final - conscript armies invariably have a corps of salaried full-time professionals, mercenary armies may find themselves obliged to become conscript armies due to circumstances (think the British in WW1), and irregulars may fill their ranks by forcibly recruiting new members or hiring people or get established enough to "graduate" into either of the two categories. And of course badly mauled mercenary or conscript armies may dissolve into irregular forces - this at least partially happened in Iraq, for example.

Obviously what motivates (or doesn't) individual soldiers in any army has no part in this typology, due to the simple fact that it can A) be externally manipulated B) comes in such a dizzying number of permutations as to be a functionally meaningless mess; the criteria is the primary source of new recruits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

IMHO this also means they are to a degree responsible for not endangering the likes of civilians, sort of like how truck drivers are expected not to endanger pedestrians.

---

Well IMDHO if a car swerves across the road I don't expect the truck driver to kill himself trying to protect the car driver.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

By my definitions they are, because pretty much the whole US military is essentially a mercenary outfit. The same goes for any professional army.

You see, I divide armies to about three categories based on their recruiting method. Mercenaries are those whose soldiers have no external obligation to serve, but are rewarded for their services in some fashion by their masters (that professional national armies serve only a single, fixed paymaster is of no consequence here). Conscripts are those serving due to external obligation to their masters, and usually also salaried - but this is by no means automatic. The final category aren't really armies at all (proper, organized armies fall to either of the previous categories) but irregular forces, whose members are neither obliged nor paid by their masters to fight but do so purely for their own reasons.

Of course, the above categories are by no means set in stone or final - conscript armies invariably have a corps of salaried full-time professionals, mercenary armies may find themselves obliged to become conscript armies due to circumstances (think the British in WW1), and irregulars may fill their ranks by forcibly recruiting new members or hiring people or get established enough to "graduate" into either of the two categories. And of course badly mauled mercenary or conscript armies may dissolve into irregular forces - this at least partially happened in Iraq, for example.

Obviously what motivates (or doesn't) individual soldiers in any army has no part in this typology, due to the simple fact that it can A) be externally manipulated B) comes in such a dizzying number of permutations as to be a functionally meaningless mess; the criteria is the primary source of new recruits.

---

I'm quoting you in full to make sure you don't edit on the fly.

Making up your own definitions as you go is not a valid way to prove anything.

Mercs serve anyone for money. Volunteer soldiers serve their country. They are a form of public servant. Mercs are private contractors who serve corporate interests in general.

Volunteer soldiers are normally held in higher esteem then conscripts, while mercs are seen in the same light as pirates, brigands and CEOs.

It's the pedestrians we're talking about.
*sigh*
Or, if you want me to stop playing around with metaphors and wring it out of wire, the US soldiers are the truck driver, the Iraqi civilians are the pedestrians and the insurgents are the dangerously driving biker gang.

OK - how about some facts?

Do you have any numbers from this WP attack or any other WP attack that would show that poisoning is indeed the primary effect of this weapon?

Primary effect ? where did I say it was the primary effect ?
Hey , just pointing out a previous historical incident of secondary effects Clegane ,
Besides which WP is for smoke/target marking , fire starting is a secondary effect , toxic poisoning from inhalation is a secondary secondary effect , burning on the other hand would be a primary secondary effect of smoke markers .
Then again it wasn't being used for marking was it , "shake and bake" is described by the US forces as Phsycological warfare .


US soldiers in Fallujah aren't mercenaries.
Certainly not , but it was the death of 4 mercenaries in Fallujah that triggered the assault .

*shrug* Your definitions, not mine. I explained those already. Personally, I see little reason to cover the main purpose of soldiers or the fundamental reality of professional armies with any rhetorical fig leaves. Notice that there were no implicit or explicit values involved in my typologies - I'm far too avid a student of military history to make any generic judgements one way or other merely on the basis of a combat force's recruitement method. Well, not counting press-gang methods.

Besides...

Quote:

---

Volunteer soldiers are normally held in higher esteem then conscripts,...

---

...you do realize that the Iraqi insurgents are by and large volunteers ? Or at least to my knowledge they're neither salaried nor legally obliged to fight for the cause(s) they obviously feel very strongly about...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

So your books say that only those who fight for free escape the definition mercenary?

Mercenary

1 Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.

---

So those Americans who only signed up for the Army so they could get money for college are all mercenaries?

Then a heck of a lot of US soldiers are clearly mercenaries.

Haven't I been saying for quite a while now that so far as I'm concerned professional armies are essentially mercenary ones ? ~:confused:

Not a big deal as such as far as I'm concerned, though - I do not consider the substantive "mercenary" to have particular moral or ethical baggage attached. IMO that's just one type of soldier among many.

"Mercenary" used as an adjective has its obvious negative connotations, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

So those Americans who only signed up for the Army so they could get money for college are all mercenaries?

---

No, unless you accept Watchman's definition.

Watchman, do you realize your definition classifies almost every organized military throughout all of history as mercenaries?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Well IMDHO if a car swerves across the road I don't expect the truck driver to kill himself trying to protect the car driver.

---

Good analogy.

"A definition that cannot differentiate is as useful as tits on a bull."

They get paid money for fighting wars. Sounds like mercenaries enough to me.

Regardless of what exactly you define soldiers as, though, I for one rate avoiding civilian casualties higher than avoiding soldier casualties. Their job description includes a real possibility of dying a very nasty death somewhere quite far away, after all. Conversely it ought to be something of a matter of good etiquette for foreign soldiers from far away to refrain from burning local inhabitants to cinders solely for their own convenience, if you see what I mean.

1 Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.

Hey my dad was a mercenary , he desired the material gain of a decent pair of boots from the FCA .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Personally speaking, I'd incidentally appreciate it if people didn't try to justify dubiously ethical methods with reducing friendly casualties. After all, when the chips are down it's a fact that soldiers get paid to die for things and civilians don't...

---

Well, personally speaking, I disagree with this and just about everything else you've said in the thread. Fallujah was a terrorist haven. Using incindiaries to destroy it is alright by me. It is the sort of place you make an example of, not "play nice" and take needless casualties in.

If you choose to live among terrorists, don't expect folks to go out of their way to keep you safe. That's the message. I see no reason for my friends or relatives to die (in uniform) to protect your precious terrorists' friends and family.

Fallujah was a terrorist haven. Using incindiaries to destroy it is alright by me. It is the sort of place you make an example of, not "play nice" and take needless casualties in.

But unfortunately making an example didn't work did it .~:rolleyes:
Edit to add....If you choose to live among terrorists, don't expect folks to go out of their way to keep you safe. That's the message.
Since the country is full of terrorists where do you suggest the people go to live then ?

Someone either needs a history lesson on what consitutes a mercenary force - be it company, battalion, brigade, or even army. And what constitutes a soldier serving in a National Army, or he needs to speak/ go serve in the military of any nation and call a soldier a mercenary - I lay odds on the soldier giving the individual a history lesson that they wont forget - especially if that soldier is an NCO of any army..

Warping terms and history to fit your own views of the world smacks of revision.

'Harvest courteously demonstrated exactly the attitude that worries me the most about the whole mess.
:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Since the country is full of terrorists where do you suggest the people go to live then ?

---

Doesn't appear to me that the whole country is full of terrorists. The Sunni portions are. It's not my concern where they chose to live if they are going to harbor terrorists.

Perhaps they should actually try the political process and try to find a way out, rather than resorting to terrorizing their neighbors and political opponents? I don't feel sorry for them, they are making their own path, and they will have to figure out how to live with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

'Harvest courteously demonstrated exactly the attitude that worries me the most about the whole mess.
:bow:

---

That terrorists not be given safe haven? Or that we not be paralyzed by terrorist techniques?

Congrats for having become incapable of differentiating between the insurgents and the civilians, Red. I'm sure more of that attitude will greatly help things down there...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

That terrorists not be given safe haven? Or that we not be paralyzed by terrorist techniques?

---

No. Having already undergone fairly serious moral corruption without noticing, and feeling all self-righterious about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Doesn't appear to me that the whole country is full of terrorists. The Sunni portions are.

---

Indeed, there are portions that are quite peaceful- don't expect to hear about that in the news though.

And everyone living in the troubled areas obviously has the resources to pack up their stuff and move across half the country once the wild-eyed gunmen start turning their flat into a firebase, right ?

Bloody brilliant reasoning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

And everyone living in the troubled areas obviously has the resources to pack up their stuff and move across half the country once the wild-eyed gunmen start turning their flat into a firebase, right ?

Bloody brilliant reasoning.

---

In case you haven't been keeping up with current events, they've had over 2 years to figure it out.

Bloody brilliant reasoning indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

No. Having already undergone fairly serious moral corruption without noticing, and feeling all self-righterious about it.

---

I've felt this way about terrorist supporting "civilians" for decades. My views haven't changed. You make your choices, live (or not) with the results.

Self-righteous? Nope, pragmatic.

What the hell is going on here? Ive seen at least four or five posts now where Im in total agreement with Red Harvest. Red I salute you. Either that or the end of the world is near.~:cheers: