What is white phosphorus?

Alright, I've already written three rather incendiary posts on white phosphorus, specifically on the use of WP by U.S. forces in Fallujah last year. Those posts, which elicited a number of impassioned comments from readers, are here, here, and here. Here's what's happened so far:

-- Italy's RAI TV network aired a documentary alleging U.S. use of WP against civilians in Fallujah. This story was picked up by the BBC, The Independent, The Christian Science Monitor, and, in the blogosphere, Juan Cole.

-- The Pentagon initially denied the story, calling it "disinformation". But then, after much delay, it flip-flopped and admitted that WP was used as a weapon against insurgents in Fallujah (but not against civilians).

-- Think Progress reported on a declassified Pentagon document that refers to WP as a chemical weapon.

And so here we are.

It seems that Think Progress's report was somewhat misleading. Conservatives John Cole and Confederate Yankee respond, arguing that a) the Pentagon document cited by Think Progress is not an official document but the report of a conversation between two Kurds, and b) WP isn't a chemical weapon but a conventional incendiary one (when used as a weapon and not strictly as a smoke-screening agent).

Fair enough. But let's hear from the other side:

Kos, for example, whom John Cole singles out: "Apologists of the use of WP continue to hide under the legalistic argument that white phosphorus isn't classified as a chemical weapon under any treaty signed by the United States, as if our moral standing in the world hinges on legal parsings. In the court of world opinion, if it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, and burns off the skin of babies like a duck while leaving their clothes intact, well then..."

And my friend Dave Johnson at Seeing the Forest, who has been challenged by Confederate Yankee to a blogospheric duel: "Don't you understand the propaganda advantage they gained because our forces used WP for 'shake and bake'? Just as with torture, it isn't the revealing it's the doing. I don't CARE if it is a 'chemical' weapon or not, that is hardly the point. They should not have started the policy of torture, and they should not have allowed the use of WP as a weapon. Because of the huge propaganda advantage this gives the enemy. It is NOT the revealing, it is the USE. It is our DUTY to speak out against the use. And it is NOT the troops, it's the leadership that failed us."

In the MSM, The Independent picked up the Pentagon document story,

**********

Dave makes a valid point: Does it even matter if WP is technically a chemical weapon? Shouldn't we be more concerned with the use of WP as a weapon? Or, that is, shouldn't the discussion focus on whether or not WP is a useful, legitimate, and, well, morally defensible weapon? (Or, perhaps, morality doesn't matter on the battlefield? -- if so, then say so.) Beyond this, shouldn't we be concerned with the perception of the use of WP as a weapon in Iraq? Kos is right, after all: WP seems like a duck. How does this affect U.S. credibility in Iraq, throughout the Middle East, and around the world? Does that even matter?

These are all, I think, valid questions. Let's ask them. And answer them.

For more on what WP is, and what it does, see GlobalSecurity.org here: "White Phosphorus (WP), known as Willy Pete, is used for signaling, screening, and incendiary purposes... White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a signatory. Smokes and obscurants comprise a category of materials that are not used militarily as direct chemical agents."

But it's pretty nasty stuff. See here. For example: "Skin contact with burning white phosphorus may burn skin or cause liver, heart, and kidney damage."

From its Wikipedia entry (which, admittedly, may be open to criticism): "White phosphorus is a common allotrope of the chemical element phosphorus which has found extensive military application as an incendiary agent, smoke-screening agent and as an antipersonnel flame compound capable of causing serious burns."

Effects on humans: "Incandescent particles of WP cast off by a WP weapon's initial explosion can produce extensive, deep (second and third degree), painful burns. These weapons are particularly dangerous to exposed personnel because white phosphorus continues to burn unless deprived of oxygen or until it is completely consumed, in some cases burning right down to the bone."

But here's where things get interesting:

Use of white phosphorus against military targets (and outside civilian areas) is not specifically banned by any treaty. However, there is a debate on whether white phosphorus is a chemical weapon and thus outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which went into effect in April of 1997. The CWC is monitored by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The spokesman for that organization, Peter Kaiser, stated that the use of white phosphorus was not prohibited under the convention if it was used for "(m)ilitary 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" (Chemical Weapons Convention, Article II, Definitions, 9, "Purposes not Prohibited" c.)). The Chemical Weapons Convention specifically defines a "toxic chemical" as a chemical "which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals". (CWC, II). Following that definition, the convention defines chemical weapons as "(t)oxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes". Strictly speaking, since white phosphorus's primary effects are not actually due to its toxicity, but its spontaneous ignition in the presence of oxygen, many believe it has more in common with incendiary weapons instead.

The 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons against civilian populations or indiscriminate incendiary attacks against military forces co-located with civilians. However, the protocol also specifically excludes weapons whose incendiary effect is secondary, such as smoke grenades. This has been often read as excluding white phosphorus munitions from this protocol, as well. The United States is among the nations that are parties to the convention but have not signed Protocol III.

So legally, yes, there might not be a problem. And, indeed, WP may be a useful and legitimate "weapon" when used indirectly on enemy targets -- whether as a smoke-screening agent or as a psychological weapon. But what if WP is used so that the "incendiary effect" becomes primary? Is it then still useful? Perhaps. Legitimate? Maybe (since the U.S. isn't a signatory to Protocol III). But moral? There's the big question.

Pentagon spokesman Col. Barry Venable has admitted that the U.S. used WP as "an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," according to the BBC. He stressed that it isn't a chemical weapon, that it's merely a conventional weapon, and that it's not "outlawed or illegal".

Again, fair enough. But is that where the story ends? For some, yes. The U.S. used it, but it's not a chemical weapon, its use is not prohibited by treaty, and it may be a useful agent on the battlefield -- where, let us not forget, our troops' lives are at risk.

But I come back to this: What message does the use of WP send to those whose hearts and minds the U.S. is trying to win over? After all, they're not interested in whether or not WP is a chemical weapon by definition or whether or not the U.S. is a signatory to this or that convention or protocol or whatever. They're not interested in the chemistry of WP or its deployment on the battlefield as a smoke-screening agent. Rather, they're interested in how the U.S. conducts itself in a war of its own making as it attempts to spread freedom and democracy around the world, in speech if not always in deed.

Perhaps the Pentagon -- perhaps America's civilian leadership -- needs to do a better job explaining why it does what it does. If it was absolutely necessary to use WP on the battlefield in Fallujah, then make that case. If it wasn't, then there'd better be a good reason why it was used.

Let me be clear about something before I end: I do not believe that there is any sort of moral equivalency between America and her enemies. I have said that before and I say it again. Criticizing the U.S. for using WP or for torturing detainees is not to imply that the U.S. is at the moral level of the Islamofascists, as they're now being called, or of, say, the Nazis.

But America must be held to a higher standard. That is why torture must be repudiated and why the use of WP in Iraq must at least be questioned. I won't say conclusively that it should or shouldn't have been used, but the discussion must take place within the context of that higher standard.

That's what the world expects of America. And that's what Americans should expect of themselves.