There's been an awful lot of hysterical blogging about the issue of Army use of white phosphorus and Mark-77 incendiary devices in Iraq. With respect, I think we really need to take a deep breath, step back and take a dispassionate look at what's going on. If we do not, we as a community are going to be driving a good chunk of national security-minded Democrats to the right - again.
You say that women and children are dying in Iraq as US military forces go into urban areas and clean out insurgents? Is this news? NO. It's unfortunate that civilians die during combat operations, and US military forces should (and I believe try to) avoid unnecessary civilian casualties. But let's not let the issue of civilian casualties, as ugly and painful as they are, get in the way of the question of whether US forces are committing international crimes. Because they're not.
This is a cross-post from my blog Armchair Generalist.
Our liberal brethern (such as
Hullabaloo, Daily Kos, Juan Cole, and many smaller blogs such as
National Debunker and others) are in an uproar over an Italian investigative team's reporting that U.S. troops are using chemical warfare against Iraqis in Fallujah. Many
newspapers (to include
Reuters and the
Christian Science Monitor) are picking up the story, also, and rather than CHECKING THE DAMN FACTS, they all rush to judgement and assume that the story is true - that the evil American military imperalist dogs are deliberately targeting Iraqi noncombatants with phosphorus bombs and napalm.
People, get a grip. This is exactly what Repubs want to see - they like it when you swallow this swill, when you blindly attack the alleged actions of military troops without understanding what you are reading. Yes, drive those of us with military backgrounds out of the liberal camps and back into the safe, comforting arms of the national security Repubs. You idiots. Actually, there are a few sane liberals over at Kos, like Ernest here.
Let's lay down the facts. First, there are no phosphorus bombs. There are white phosphorus smoke projectiles or cartridges - and they are not incendiary devices. The purpose of the 120-mm Mortar Smoke (WP) Cartridge is to provide a white smoke cloud to obscure the enemy's view of your troops' position or their movement. We like WP because when you're under fire by snipers or groups of hostile people that you can't immediately reach out and touch, you can call for fire and get a nice, thick smoke screen between you and them very, very quickly. Yes, WP has some nasty qualities, and maybe particles of the WP fall off and hit people, but it's quick and it saves U.S. military lives. Because the fighting is in an urban area, some of those people hurt might be noncombatants. But we don't use "phosphorus munitions" to target and hurt civilians. Not only is it very inefficient (why not just drop HE?), it's not moral. And our soldiers (relatively speaking) are better than that.
I blogged back in June about the Mark-77 Mod 5 incendiary munition. The MK-77 Mod 5 uses kerosene-based jet fuel and a polystyrene thickener, instead of the older composition of benzene, gasoline, and polystyrene. The term "napalm" comes from a combination of the words naphthalene and palmitate, which were added to gasoline in World Wars II to create the fuel for fire bombs and flamethrowers. As technology developed, better formulas were developed, and modern incendiary munitions (Viet Nam-era and later) did not use either component. Much like the term "Xerox" has been used as a generic term for any copier, the term "napalm" has nonetheless stuck to these types of "fire bombs," more because of the similarity of the flame component caused by the use of these munitions.
Second point. Neither napalm or WP munitions are chemical warfare munitions. They have chemical fills, but the effectiveness and utility of the munitions do not rely on the physical properties of the chemical fills. Chemical warfare agents, such as mustard, sarin, and VX, are super-toxic chemicals that will kill you upon exposure. The U.S. military has made a clear distinction between chemical-filled munitions and chemical warfare munitions since World War II, and the funny thing is, most of the world's nations agree with us (check out the Chemical Weapons Convention sometime). IT'S NOT CHEMICAL WARFARE. It's conventional warfare, period, when a military force uses an incendiary weapon to attack an adversary's position. There is nothing like flame to scare the crap out of the enemy, and it's very effective.
Third point. If you believe this crap, this propaganda (warning, graphic photos), that this news team got, that there are burned and "melted" bodies of women and children, without questioning the forensics data or motives of either the journalists or the Iraqi sympathizers, well, I can't help you there. But honest to god, do you have even an ounce of skepticism in your heads? When you see pictures of illumination flares floating down on parachutes and the story is saying (or suggesting) that those are chunks of WP falling, you have to say, "huh? maybe this guy is misleading me..."
The guys and gals fighting in Iraq aren't hired by the Bush administration. Lord knows I don't like how the Bush administration got us into Iraq, but I don't question the motives and training of the military men and women over there (well, except for a few frustrated MPs and MI types, maybe). I do know my boys wouldn't do this crap - they came from the same towns and cities you all did. Let's not start by assuming the worst of them. Let's see the evidence, be unbiased and question the findings, talk to some people that know chemical warfare from conventional warfare, and be civil about this issue.
We don't use illegal or immoral weapons in war. We're the good guys. Now try to remember that we Dem-leaning types have a national security position too, and we're going to be working with the same military leaders and people that you're questioning now. Get wise. Otherwise it's going to be a very long three years - or more - if you don't.
UPDATE: Well, evidently the Army IS using WP in a direct-fire mode against combatant targets. I'm somewhat surprised, the munition wasn't designed for that, and there is definitely the risk of collateral damage that they're ignoring. But it still isn't chemical warfare...