I’ll make this short and sweet.
A weekly columnist in The Guardian backs the assertions about white phosphorus and the use of chemical weapons made in several Daily Kos diaries lately. [
Update: See clarification below!] I take the liberty of posting this as a separate diary because of the relevance to the debates in this forum and the powerful language of the article.
The headline and the conclusion really need no further comments, but it is interesting to note that the author credits the blogosphere for adding merit to the allegations.
The US used chemical weapons in Iraq - and then lied about it
Now we know napalm and phosphorus bombs have been dropped on Iraqis, why have the hawks failed to speak out?
George Monbiot
Tuesday November 15, 2005
Guardian
Did US troops use chemical weapons in Falluja? The answer is yes. The proof is not to be found in the documentary broadcast on Italian TV last week, which has generated gigabytes of hype on the internet. It's a turkey, whose evidence that white phosphorus was fired at Iraqi troops is flimsy and circumstantial. But the bloggers debating it found the smoking gun.
The first account they unearthed in a magazine published by the US army. In the March 2005 edition of Field Artillery, officers from the 2nd Infantry's fire support element boast about their role in the attack on Falluja in November last year: "White Phosphorous. WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE [high explosive]. We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."
The second, in California's North County Times, was by a reporter embedded with the marines in the April 2004 siege of Falluja. "'Gun up!' Millikin yelled ... grabbing a white phosphorus round from a nearby ammo can and holding it over the tube. 'Fire!' Bogert yelled, as Millikin dropped it. The boom kicked dust around the pit as they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call 'shake'n'bake' into... buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week."
White phosphorus is not listed in the schedules of the Chemical Weapons Convention. It can be legally used as a flare to illuminate the battlefield, or to produce smoke to hide troop movements from the enemy. Like other unlisted substances, it may be deployed for "Military purposes... not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare". But it becomes a chemical weapon as soon as it is used directly against people. A chemical weapon can be "any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm".
White phosphorus is fat-soluble and burns spontaneously on contact with the air. According to globalsecurity.org: "The burns usually are multiple, deep, and variable in size. The solid in the eye produces severe injury. The particles continue to burn unless deprived of atmospheric oxygen... If service members are hit by pieces of white phosphorus, it could burn right down to the bone." As it oxidises, it produces smoke composed of phosphorus pentoxide. According to the standard US industrial safety sheet, the smoke "releases heat on contact with moisture and will burn mucous surfaces... Contact... can cause severe eye burns and permanent damage."
Until last week, the US state department maintained that US forces used white phosphorus shells "very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes". They were fired "to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters". Confronted with the new evidence, on Thursday it changed its position. "We have learned that some of the information we were provided ... is incorrect. White phosphorous shells, which produce smoke, were used in Fallujah not for illumination but for screening purposes, ie obscuring troop movements and, according to... Field Artillery magazine, 'as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes...' The article states that US forces used white phosphorus rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds." The US government, in other words, appears to admit that white phosphorus was used in Falluja as a chemical weapon.
The article then turns to the use of mark 77 and how the US administration lied about that as well.
The concluding paragraph is powerful, and it is my fervent hope that it will be picked up by the US main stream media.
Saddam, facing a possible death sentence, is accused of mass murder, torture, false imprisonment and the use of chemical weapons. He is certainly guilty on all counts. So, it now seems, are those who overthrew him.
Update: I added the highlight for clarification of that specific point.
Update: Saugatojas points out below: The article by George Monbiot is in an op-ed column in The Guardian. I was first made aware of the article through Raw Story: "Paper: US lies on chemical weapons." I changed the diary title to "Claim in THE GUARDIAN: US used CWs and lied about it."
Update: For the purpose of clarifying the background of this article, I quote from Wikipedia (yes, I know it's not an athoritative source, but I just want to make it clear who George Monbiot is, for people -- such as myself -- who may be unfamiliar with his connection to The Guardian.)
George Monbiot (born January 27, 1963) is a journalist, author, academic and environmental and political activist in the United Kingdom who writes a weekly column for The Guardian newspaper.
So even if it is considered op-ed, the link to the newspaper is closer than it would have been if the article was a mere reader's letter. But, as saugatojas points out, this does not (necessarily, at least) make it an Editorial Assessment (as far as I know; please correct me if I'm wrong.)
Update: In the interest of maximizing accuracy, I should point out today's article in
The Independent, which may contradict my previous interpretaion of the Peter Kaiser interview, although it is not clear if he rules out the possibility that WP may cause harm in other ways than the termic burns themselves.
The use of incendiary weapons such as WP and napalm against civilian targets - though not military targets - is banned by international treaty. Article two, protocol III of the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons states: "It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects, the object of attack by incendiary weapons." Some have claimed the use of WP contravenes the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention which bans the use of any "toxic chemical" weapons which causes "death, harm or temporary incapacitation to humans or animals through their chemical action on life processes".
However, Peter Kaiser, a spokesman for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which enforces the convention, said the convention permitted the use of such weapons for "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". He said the burns caused by WP were thermic rather than chemical and as such not prohibited by the treaty.
I would like to see some thoroughly debated expert opinions on this, it seems to me that George Monbiot also has some credentials.
The Peter Kaiser interview on the RAI web site also seems to be somewhat in contradiction to the statements referred to in The Independent. Either he has changed his mind, or one of the two reports are less than 100% accurate. This is from the RAI interview:
[…][WP is a legal conventional weapon when it is] used within the context of a military application which does not […] intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. […] If, on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, in other words the caustic properties of white phosphorus are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited [under the CWC].[...] Any chemical that is used against humans or animals that causes harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons. So it does not matter which substance we’re talking about. As long as the purpose is to cause harm through toxic properties, that is prohibited behavior [under the CWC].
In addition, the Independent article also says:
A physician at a local hospital said the corpses of insurgents "were burned, and some corpses were melted".
[...]
The doctor said he "treated people who had their skin melted"
It seems to me that the jury is still out on the issue of whether the CWC may apply. I would like to see some clarification on whether the caustic properties of WP may cause harm, even if WP used in an incendiary fashion also causes termic burns.