US admits using white phosphorous as incendiary in Fallujah

[Hurin_Rules]

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.

[English assassin]

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.

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

Was white phosphorus used?

[Adrian II]

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.

[Watchman]

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.

[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?

[el_slapper]

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.

[Redleg]

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.

[Adrian II]

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

Define 'matter'.

[Redleg]

Define 'matter'.

Define chemical warfare -

[Ja'chyra]

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?

[Ser Clegane]

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:

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.

[Ironside]

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...

[Adrian II]

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.

[English assassin]

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.

[Adrian II]

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...

[Devastatin Dave]

We used phosphorous as incendiary in Fallujah? Good.

[English assassin]

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,

?

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.

[Ser Clegane]

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:

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.

[Red Harvest]

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.

[Devastatin Dave]

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

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

[Red Harvest]

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.

[Reverend Joe]

qed.

AOI?

[Hurin_Rules]

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.

[Kralizec]

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.

[Adrian II]

@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.

[Adrian II]

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...

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

[Ser Clegane]

@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?

[Adrian II]

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.

[Ser Clegane]

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.

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