Pentagon calls white phosphorus a chemical weapon
On November 9 and 17 of this year, I addressed the use of white phosphorus, an incendiary weapon, by U.S. forces in Iraq. Reaction from readers was, well, intense.
You can find those posts here and here.
No one thinks that WP is a humane weapon, and no one denies that it was used in Iraq, specifically in Fallujah, but one of the central questions of the discussion, both here and elsewhere, has revolved around whether or not it's a chemical weapon. The answer, I thought, was no.
But now Think Progress alerts us to a declassified Pentagon document that suggests otherwise: "A formerly classified 1995 Pentagon intelligence document titled 'Possible Use of Phosphorous Chemical' describes the use of white phosphorus by Saddam Hussein on Kurdish fighters:
In other words, the Pentagon does refer to white phosphorus rounds as chemical weapons — at least if they’re used by our enemies."
See also Daily Kos: "About the most frustrating thing about the White Phosphorus "debate" has been the endless discussion whether it's a chemical weapon or not. There are legitimate uses for WP -- battlefield illumination and target spotting -- but use as a battlefield munition has apparently been a big supposed question mark. This regardless the fact that WP objectively behaves like a chemical weapon."
And Seeing the Forest (with links to various right-wing apologists).
You can find those posts here and here.
No one thinks that WP is a humane weapon, and no one denies that it was used in Iraq, specifically in Fallujah, but one of the central questions of the discussion, both here and elsewhere, has revolved around whether or not it's a chemical weapon. The answer, I thought, was no.
But now Think Progress alerts us to a declassified Pentagon document that suggests otherwise: "A formerly classified 1995 Pentagon intelligence document titled 'Possible Use of Phosphorous Chemical' describes the use of white phosphorus by Saddam Hussein on Kurdish fighters:
IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. […]
IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES’ OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ.
In other words, the Pentagon does refer to white phosphorus rounds as chemical weapons — at least if they’re used by our enemies."
See also Daily Kos: "About the most frustrating thing about the White Phosphorus "debate" has been the endless discussion whether it's a chemical weapon or not. There are legitimate uses for WP -- battlefield illumination and target spotting -- but use as a battlefield munition has apparently been a big supposed question mark. This regardless the fact that WP objectively behaves like a chemical weapon."
And Seeing the Forest (with links to various right-wing apologists).
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
8:23 AM
6 Comments:
Did you actually read the report before dancing your jig?
You just might want to. Think Progess completely misrepresented their evidence.
A brief phone call between two Kurdish brothers is not Pentagon policy.
By
Anonymous, at 2:34 AM
So, Anonymous, are you defending Saddam and suggesting that he didn't use chemical weapons against the Kurds?
The point I'm making here -- the point that Think Progress is making -- is that the Pentagon refers to WP as a chemical weapon (whether it was actually used as such or not).
You might want to read my post before attacking it.
By the way, I'm not addressing the question of whether or not WP is a useful and legitimate weapon to use in combat. That's another matter entirely, and some of you addressed it in your comments to my previous two posts.
By
Michael J.W. Stickings, at 2:51 AM
But surely WP doesn't behave as a chemical weapon? It doesn't have a wide area of effect, it's quite obvious, it doesn't persist, etc. Unless we're going to redefine 'chemical weapon' to include incendiaries, that is.
I am still waiting to learn exactly how it was used in Fallujah.
Jeff Rubinoff
By
Anonymous, at 7:41 AM
Just had to add that I've been looking around Seeing the Forest, and I thought that kind of American leftie only existed as a right-wing strawman.
Anonymous (Confederate Yankee?) has a point, in that the quote is not referring to an official US military classification of WP as a chemical weapon, but is referring to a telephone conversation in which WP is called a chemical weapon.
This whole 'WP used in Fallujah' thing is striking me more and more as a non-issue, a pointless tangent, though I will try to reserve judgement until I get a bit more information from sources qualified to provide it.
Jeff Rubinoff, aka Antiquated Tory
By
Anonymous, at 8:21 AM
Jeff you are correct; I hit submit before I'd entered my personal data.
Michael, if you read the documentation, you will see that the "serect Petangon report" is just a transcript of a phone call, not the pentagon referring to white phosphorous as chemical weapons.
In an example I used elsewhere, just becuase you might transcribe a phone call that says "Geroge Bush is the best president ever!" it doesn't mean you hold that view. That is all that happened here.
As I told Dave Johnson over at Seeing the Forest, you folks should be livid with Think Progress. They preyed upon your trust and shared ideology to shovel you you a load of turds, trusting that you would swallow them without question.
This is one of those rare times when it should not be a Democrat/Republican conservative/liberal issue. Thse are foreign sources and domestic partisans hoping to lie about our troops and put their lives in danger for a temporary political advantage.
I don't know how guys on your side of the aisle handle being used like that, but I know I certainly wouldn't be thrilled, and I would ask them to explain themselves at the very least.
Good day.
By
Anonymous, at 4:42 PM
Of course, if I were really paranoid, I might think that the whole thing was a put up job--that Silvio B is giving some help to his good buddies in DC by arranging for this Italian video production, knowing the rest of the media and then anti-war people would jump on it, only to be made to look like idiots when the full story came out. And you're idiots about WP, you're (meaning now 'we're') clearly idiots in general, in regards to this 'torture' nonsense, too.
I wonder how hard it would be to launch this rumor--who knows, it might even be true.
Jeff
By
Anonymous, at 7:06 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home