by Charles
I haven’t read much Stephen Green lately, but this piece caught my eye. A teaser:
Previously, I wrote that in order to win the Terror War, we must "prove the enemy ideology to be ineffective," just as we did in the Cold War. In that conflict, we did so in three ways: by fighting where we had to while maintaining our freedoms, but most importantly by out-growing the Communist economies. I argued that similar methods would win the Terror War. We’d have to fight, we’d have to maintain our freedoms, but the primary key to victory in the Current Mess is taking the initiative.
What I didn’t see then – but what I do see today – is what "taking the initiative" really means.
It means, fighting a media war. It means, turning the enemy’s one great strength into our own. Broadcast words, sounds, and images are the arm of decision in today’s world.
And if that assessment is correct, then we’re losing this war and badly.
I sort of touched on the issue in this post, but Green gets more to the essence. The media is not just on the sidelines in this War Against Militant Islamism, they are made part of the fight by our enemies. The sooner mainstream media recognizes this and engages in this information war, the better for all of us. The disinformation comes in pretty fast, but a good starting point today would be dispelling the lie that we used chemical weapons in Fallujah (more cites here, here, here and here). It’s old news, twisted to make it sound new. This is where the mainstream press needs to step in and challenge the "reporting" by The Independent and RAI.
Update: So far, twenty four hours after writing this post, no one in the mainstream press has stepped up and directly challenged the assertions made by The Independent and RAI. So far, it’s blogosphere only. I’m not asking the mainstream media to become a cheering section for the Bush administration, but neither should it be a cheering section for those who are trying to undermine our interests, nor should they sit on the sidelines at let these spurious charges go unanswered. Fair’s fair.
- John Cole follows up on his earlier piece, and boy is he pissed off.
- Glenn Reynolds has a couple of e-mails from veterans who have used WP.
- Jeff Goldstein adds a few more points.
- The Confederate Yankee joins in on the debunking.
- In the Stockholm Spectator Blog, Michael Moynihan points out that RAI’s star witness, Jeff Englehart, did not witness the use of WP, did not hear orders to employ WP, and was in a non-combat role in the final two days of the operation.
- A ranting prof rants.
- Scott Burgess has been all over this reporting debacle, starting here, updating here and again here. His latest assessment:
So, to sum up:
The primary evidence for the Italian documentary’s claims that white phosphorus was used as a weapon against civilian targets in Fallujah consists of photos provided by a campaigner to have the Americans prosecuted for war crimes, and an interview with an antiwar activist who wasn’t directly involved in combat.
Concerning the photos, the Independent’s chosen weapons expert disputes the key claim – that the intact clothing on the bodies constitutes virtual proof that the victims were incinerated by phosphorus used as weaponry.
It’s clear that this story has all it takes to become the latest Received Truth. Look forward to hearing it repeated ad nauseam.
There is of course the possibility that I missed the mainstream press debunking. Perhaps it was on page A147 of the New York Times. Or not. The point is that a prominent and accurate telling of what actually happened would not only be a service to the truth, it would restore honor to the soldiers who risked life and limb to root out the terrorists and Sunni-paramilitarists from that town.
If I understand your reasoning, the story is “false” because the bad media people called white phosphorus a “chemical weapon” – which it is, but it’s not the illegal kind of chemical weapon. None of the “debunkers” you link to argued that the story of using white phos on Fallujah was untrue (apart from the fellow John Cole found, who didn’t even argue that, but simply said that HE could likewise cause those types of corpses – of course, HE also tends to blow bodies up but that is neither here nor there).
So, to sum up your argument on this: bombarding civilians in Fallujah with white phos is perfectly legitimate because white phos isn’t banned by the Geneva Conventions. By this yardstick, napalming civilians in Vietnam was perfectly kosher.
CB:
I agree that we should be trying to win the media war. The answer is not to browbeat the media into running press releases as news, or to stop running stories. The way to win a media war is to present a coherent and compelling narrative, that is not at odds with the facts on the ground. Step one has to be gearing our public diplomacy so that it is designed to appeal to people in the ME, not to people in Alabama. I don’t think you can call Ms. Hughes’ efforts a success so far by any measure.
Instead, the Admin’s media strategy wrt the war is essentially the same as its strategy towards any other policy/political issue: play to the base. Of course, efforts to convince YOU that the war is a good idea, that our victory is inevitable, or that our cause (and our conduct fair) is just are a complete waste of time. You already believe these things. What can our gov’t say to convince the ordinary fellow in Peshawar, Jidda, or Aden of these things?
WRT the media, you’ve got to stop being the party of no.
To most other countries, WP is a banned chemical weapon when used in large quantities against civilians. If you want to convince anyone outside of U.S. war supporters, you need something that shows it wasn’t used in large quantities in fallujah.
(And tell the Army command not to reflexively lie, it makes any effective response impossible. WP is a smoke agent; magnesium is used in flares.)
Don’t they understand that we only use the NICE kind of napalm?
It’s too bad that the strategic geniuses in the Bush administration didn’t realize this before starting the wrong war at the wrong time in Iraq. Afghanistan was the fight we had to fight. American troops beseiging the cities of Iraq is ceding the media war to the enemy.
The sooner mainstream media recognizes this and engages in this information war, the better for all of us.
Because telling lies to the people at home, when the truth is readily available to your allies and enemies abroad, always works as a media strategy.
It may make you feel better when the mainstream media lie to you, Charles, but it won’t actually help the US win any wars.
Am I the only one who notes the irony in Charles citing with approval a quote calling an essential step in winning the war maintaining our freedoms, while at the same time calling for the press to become an organ of the state in an information war?
Charles, we often see comments from supporters of the war indicating the extreme care our forces use to distinguish enemy combatants from innocent civilians. This is difficult in a guerilla war, and enemy planners are well aware of the difficulty and exploit it.
Thinking back to the time of the attack on Fallujah, I recall reading many justifications for merciless action based on the notion that the whole population there amounted to terrorists. That was very unlikely to be true, of course.
Now, from one of your links, we see that attitude again:
I don’t think this kind of argument will serve to swing any public opinion our way.
P.S., Dantheman, yeah, I thought of that too. Not to mention the other erosions of our freedoms (detention without recourse, increased surveillance, assertion of unchecked executive power, etc.)
Tim: If you want to convince anyone outside of U.S. war supporters, you need something that shows it wasn’t used in large quantities in fallujah.
As well as being used against civilians.
However most media I’ve seen notes that the use of “chemical weapons indiscriminately against civilians” is an allegation and often puts the text into scare quotes as well. They additionally devote quite a bit of space to the US’s position on the matter.
I am curious how Charles feels the media should handle this. Ignore it, only tell one side of the story, or what?
The sooner mainstream media recognizes this and engages in this information war, the better for all of us.
I’m not sure what you’re proposing here, Charles. I mean, the thrust of the article is that the media is important in shaping public opinion. In other news, water is wet. But the phrase above seems to indicate, um, what? That various corporations that run the media and their employees need to somehow have all simultaneously have some kind of revelation and conciously modify their reporting to, to, …
Help me out here.
Given fas.org’s tendency to fall out of date, I wonder if we can conclude from:
The Marine Corps dropped all of the approximately 500 MK-77s used in the Gulf War.
that we’ve since made more? Or maybe they’re just incorrect.
All other commentary reserved. The first few iterations on press coverage of military actions usually involves multiple corrections, clarifications, restatements, and multiple failures to do proper research, and so I tend not to give them all that much weight. It’s something that definitely merits attention, though.
Yes, because saying “America used perfectly legal* white phosporus to burn women and children in Fallujah to the bone after eight one-ton bombs were precisely dropped on the town [*because we weren’t a signatory to that article of the chemical weapons treaty]” is a big PR coup.
Remember: once the Pentagon puts out a press release on a subject, it’s officially “old news” and should not be followed up in any material respect.
P.S. We don’t do torture.
CB, I think that at a high level you’re absolutely correct. A ‘war of ideas’ is being waged against western globalism by a small group of religious extremists who would like to re-establish an Islamic caliphate. Treating it as a purely military conflict will probably be disastrous: armies can surrender, ideologies can’t.
I think what you’re advocating, though, would make this war of ideas even MORE difficult to win. When we kills civilians in Iraq, it’s not American media coverage of the event that hurts our ‘war of ideas.’ It’s the fact that there are now N additional families with dead children, husbands, and fathers in the country we’re attempting to befriend.
When a war of ideas is on, we must hold ourselves to even higher standards — our actions will be scrutinized even closer by those who are ‘on the fence’ in regions like Iraq and the rest of the mideast. Polishing up the news that WE hear will not change the things that THEY see.
Am I the only one who notes the irony in Charles citing with approval a quote calling an essential step in winning the war maintaining our freedoms, while at the same time calling for the press to become an organ of the state in an information war?
i thought i noted it, but it was only for a brief second before i got to the assertion that burning phosphorus isn’t a chemical weapon. at that point, i was blinded by the brilliant, searing, flesh-burning, white-hot light of WTF ???
I’m sorta doubtful we’re going to have the truth about what happened in Fallujah in any length of time that matters, politically speaking. There’s a time lag involved–you wait for all the relevant actors to die off or at least have one foot in the grave and then you can be fully honest about who did what to whom. For instance, it’s been 50 years since the Korean War and while atrocity stories about the North Koreans and the Chinese are common knowledge, until the No Gun Ri account came out a few years ago, one had to read books by British authors or lefty American historians (Bruce Cumings, who is a bit too kind to the North Korean government for my taste, but still worth reading) to learn some of the unpleasant details about what the South Koreans and the Americans did. And then there are stories like this one–
http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/200511/kt2005110117132068040.htm
So just be patient and sometime around 2060 we’ll know all we need to know.
I think the points made by
CharleyCarp and Jeff Eaton are the really critical ones. We can’t just claim to have a better ideology or society. We can’t just claim that our values and behavior are better. We have to show that we are better in our actions. The problem with using the “chemical weapons” isn’t in the definition of chemical weapon or the details of internatinal law. The problem is that the use of those kinds of weapons by a superpower against a civilian target area while supposedly seeking the removal of WMD’s from a dictator will inevitably be perceived as, at best, hypocritical. We have to think of how our actions will be seen by others and hold ourselves to a high standard.
Won’t happen under this administration, of course.
From my point of view, being able to say truthfully “we didn’t burn a lot of children to death” is more important than being able to say “we didn’t use this particular category of weapon on that spot”. Just as being able to say “we didn’t grab random people and hurt them until they died without ever checking seriously if they were guilty of anything” is more important than being able to say “we didn’t violate our favored readings of the particular obligations we happen to wish to keep”.
The more we can be entirely true, and provably so, with really simple language, the more likely we are to win the war of ideas. The more we have to depend on technicalities and nitpicking, the less likely.
I’m sorta doubtful we’re going to have the truth about what happened in Fallujah in any length of time that matters, politically speaking.
I’d suggest taking a look at Red Six for the info.
Dave, could you link to any specific posts on the blog about Fallujah?
I think that the January 2005 archive page has most of his Fallujah postings. Scroll down and look for November 9, November 10, November 11. He may have posted more in February.
How many people read CBFTW? He wrote from Mosul and has had 3 articles in Esquire excerpted from his book.
Charles:
You say we are at war with Militant Islam, and the way to win this war is to communicate to the larger population of moderate or undecided Muslims that we are not bad people, and would like to be their friends. Fine. Sounds good.
The thing I think you are missing is the idea that action is the sincerest form of communication.
It does not matter what nice things the government (or the media) might say. If our actions include torturing men to death, or incinerating civilians with white phosphorous, the words simply cannot be be believed.
Here is an explanation about the phosporus, etc
Slarti writes:
“that we’ve since made more?”
FAS doesn’t say we only had 500 Mk77s. It says we used 500 in the Gulf War, and that most of those used in the Gulf War were dropped by the Marines.
It is not saying that the Marines dropped our entire stock of 500 Mk77s, which seems to be your reading.
Jes: (from DaveC link)
link
In preparation for the assault, artillery guns dropped white phosphorus or “Willy Pete” on the city. The FA guys later told us this was the newest WP in the way it deployed. Whatever it was, it was incredible. As the rounds came in, they burst in the air several hundred feet above the ground. They streaked towards the ground in little spider trails burning bright orange. The WP hit the ground creating a thick white smoke screen but it still burned bright orange on the ground. This lit up the battlefield for the main effort, and created a smoke screen. The thermal sights on tanks and bradleys could still see through it, even though with the naked eye, everything was obscured.
Looks like they did do a mass barrage of WP on Fallujah. Would have got a lot of civilians that way.
From DaveC’s cite:
IT’S NOT CHEMICAL WARFARE. It’s conventional warfare, period
I think the point being missed is:
A. The line b/w what constitutes a chemical weapon is a fine and artificial one.
B. Whatever type of munition WP is, it’s an indiscriminate one when used in an urban area, whether the intent of it’s deployment was, say, a smokescreen or not. And a deployment, in the opinion of most of the world, that is an illegal one. This is a battle that will be fought in the realm of international public opinion.
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.
Fine. What’s the Armchair General’s forensic theory to explain the nature of those wounds, then? What is his evidence the Italian presenters of this documentary are lying and/or exaggerating?
This whole CB post can, as others have done, basically be distilled into “We must win the war of ideas if we suppress knowledge of our actions”.
This is the early 21st century. This is the age of handheld digital video cameras and the internet. You can’t do that anymore effectively. The best way to win the war of ideas is to…have good ideas. Using WP on Fallujah, no matter how U.S. Army leadership pontificates, is not a good idea.
I am prepared to wager the images of the melted women and children will Fallujah’s legacy to history.
There’s a curious meme that’s come up — the idea that because we didn’t sign on to the portion of the international treaties that classify white phosphorus as a chemical weapon, we were not using chemical weapons.
Curiously enough, Iraq had not signed on with international treaties banning chemical weapons, either. Does that mean that it was acceptable for Iraq to stockpile and use Sarin, for example?
Okay, let me get this straight. C. Bird advocates the press becoming an arm of the government and he expects us to believe mere words can change the meaning of actions.
Man, the right is really scraping the bottom of the barrel now.
Okay, let me get this straight. C. Bird advocates the press becoming an arm of the government and he expects us to believe mere words can change the meaning of actions.
Pretty much. He’s reached the Hindrocket level of wankocracy.
Every time I see a more conservative blogger start arguing that we need to win the war of words or that AI overstepped its bounds with the whole ‘gulag’ thing, or now “WP is not a ‘chemical’ weapon,” I can’t help but think how ironic it is. After all, when the more extreme end of the academic left started doing that, the right derided it as ‘political correctness’ and ‘postmodern semantical wankery.’ But then we have already seen how the current administration has adopted the ‘Slick Willie’ mode of definition to defend itself from the torture label.
“What do you mean by ‘Pot,’ Kettle?
Incidentally, here’s an interesting bit from James Joyner:
That’s generally right, I think. The Army wasn’t targeting civilians, but at the same time, these weapons can cause a lot of horrible damage, regardless of their intended target.
Was any serious thought devoted to writing this post? It reads like a phony back-handed post about the white phosphurus issue, dressed up as a media issue.
The disinformation comes in pretty fast, but a good starting point today would be dispelling the lie that…
Now, someone rational would complete that sentence by noting that the lies and disinformation that are most hurting our cause have streamed from the White House like a crap river. Instead, we get a poorly reasoned post about white phosphurus? In effect, that the media’s duty is to repeat lies because they will allegedly make us look better.
As for white phosphorus, most of the world views it as a banned chemical weapon, although the US has not signed on to that view. So its borderline, and under US doctrine, its not supposed to be used in civilian areas like Falloujah. It certainly has many of the characteristics of a chemical weapon — it creates a toxic cloud that kills by burning on skin contact.
Guess what mustard gas also does? — the exact same thing, although its less effective than white phosphurus in atacking the skin.
White phosphurus allegedly has a use for night vision, for smoke screens and has a use in shaped charges against armored vehicles. So there is a logic to not banning it completely. Using it as an anti-personnel device looks exactly like a chemical weapon, and using it in civilian areas (as was done here) is horrible.
On top of that, the US army has denied that it did this, even though it now seems clear that it happened. Just another rivelet in the crap river.
So, Charles, if you actually care about a proper media strategy, rather than a false attack on the white phosphurus issue:
1. Don’t use horrible weapons in civilian areas that the rest of the world views as a chemical weapon. It makes us look really bad.
2. Don’t lie about its use.
3. Don’t write phony posts about how the problem is the “lying” associated with the white phosphurus issue when you make no effort whatsoever to deal with these facts.
As others have noted, Charles, it’s quite simple.
If you don’t want people to think you’re bad, it isn’t sufficient to wipe the fingerprints off your misdeed.
If you don’t want people to think you’re bad, you just have to suck it up and not be bad.
The flipside of your argument is that the Bush administration could win the war on terror if the media would just stop reporting on all the terrorst attacks. That would be much, much easier.
In the area of actions speaking louder than words the US could do a great deal by developing weapons intended to limit civilian casualties. Israel has a missile designed to limit collateral damage in built up areas such as Gaza. The US has a vast military R&D capacity – surely we can come up with something less brutal than WP for generating smoke.
Just to note for the record that there’s still considerable credible disagreement on the scale of what happened at No Gun Ri.
That’s the quick summary for those unfamiliar. Read the article for the substance of the debate; it seems fair coverage from my limited knowledge of the controversy. For one side of the story, the recent Army investigation report is fairly exhaustive. The j’accuse is here.
Color me with DaveC on this one; there have been a number of fair minded (John Cole) and Dem-ish (Generalist) explanations on this. An inability to at least consider that sometimes there is an innocent explanation makes the theory that led to all of our correct predictions look suspect.
Here’s an argument: We should have a policy not to melt the skin off of children. Not even with “legal” weapons. Because melting the skin off of children is BAD. It’s even worse than the fact that the librul media does not want to participate in information warfare (umm, since when?). It’s, like, majorly BAD and it’s real, and no amount of legalistic wankery is going to make me accept that melting the skin off of children is acceptable or defensible.
And the fact that it’s called “shake’n’bake” all down the chain of command tells me that there are people who think that it’s acceptable to melt the skin off of children and some of them are in positions of responsibility.
And to think that there are people on these wild internets defending the practice of melting the skin off of children. Family values, baby!
You know, I grew up next door to the Soviet Union. It is disturbing how much the “Conservative” language resembles Soviet propaganda. Freedom is on the march, liberation of peoples of the Middle East. Somehow, the authoritarian mindset generates convergent language. Anybody looking for a Ph.D subject?
“And the fact that it’s called ‘shake’n’bake’ all down the chain of command tells me that there are people who think that it’s acceptable to melt the skin off of children and some of them are in positions of responsibility.”
Splattering their skulls with bullets is pretty bad, too.
And probably it’s best you don’t, in general, listen to combat soldiers talk amongst themselves. You might be surprised what seems “acceptable.”
What CharleyCarp and Jon H said, and what I’ve been saying for almost 15 years now: the issue isn’t one of propaganda failing to obscure our blunders, it’s of living up to our ideals in the real world. Or, to be blunt: it’s about not being bad and living with the consequences thereof. Trouble is, we in the US have grown so accustomed to thinking of ourselves as axiomatically being “the good guys”, so secure in our presumed righteousness, that we’ve fallen under the delusion that it’s only what we say or intend that matters, not what we actually do — and that needs to change, and change fast, or more people are going to die.
[Plus, y’know, “not being bad” is difficult and arduous and so at odds with our burgeoning national mythos that I’m not sure we even know how to do it any more…]
There’s an interesting tangent here about “salvation by faith” versus “salvation through works” as played out on the international stage that’s becoming ever more suggestive to me as the Bush Administration careens on, but I’ll hold back unless there’s interest.
Trouble is, we in the US have grown so accustomed to thinking of ourselves as axiomatically being “the good guys”, so secure in our presumed righteousness,
well, not everyone. but those who don’t are called “America-haters”.
saying “hey, don’t do that in my name!” is happily called treason by many who vote for Republican candidates.
Gary: And probably it’s best you don’t, in general, listen to combat soldiers talk amongst themselves. You might be surprised what seems “acceptable.”
Indeed. And remember, these boys have to come home again and reintegrate with a society composed of people who haven’t seen and done some awful things.
Let’s hope it works out better than the last time.
Gary, I’m not a church lady, I can take most language 😉 I have no objection to the guys and gals in the line of fire using what ever language to get through their day.
But I think there is a reason civilized people have created conventions of war banning certain kinds of weapons. Personally, I would rather take a bullet in the head than watch my flesh burn.
My mother was a war refugee at 5. My daughter is now 5. I do tend to take a dim view of endangering civilians and children in wars, especially when I’m paying for the damn war. And before anybody says, yes, I know it’s always been so. But someday…
Spartikus – there are lots of ways to burn a body, surprise surprise. WP munitions are meant to be used for smoke – it certainly is not a chemical warfare agent. I trust the media far less than I trust the Pentagon. And to Jeff Eaton, Iraq did sign the Geneva Protocol, which says you’re not allowed to use chemical weapons first. Second is okay though.
Athena is all over the Jordan bombings.
The Jordan PM may have been killed.
From the March edition of Field Artillery magazine:
J: it certainly is not a chemical warfare agent.
Says the U.S. Army. Almost every modern weapon utilizes a chemical reaction somewhere along the line. That WP is classified as an “incendiary” rather “chemical” munition is a bookkeeping distinction, if you ask me.
Thanks, J. The information I was looking at had a number of references to specific treaties that had or hadn’t been signed by various nations, and I was trying to figure out what the implication was that Iraq was listed as ‘no’ on all of them…
That WP is classified as an “incendiary” rather “chemical” munition is a bookkeeping distinction, if you ask me.
I would disagree. Incendiary weapons are intended to maim, kill, or destroy through heat, while chemical weapons are intended to to the same through ingestion, respiration, or absorption of poisons. That’s a pretty clear distinction.
Charles, perhaps it would clarify what you mean to give some examples of some press reports you see as good and bad examples?
To me it sounds like you’re calling for voluntary propaganda, which strikes me as both wrong in itself and a hopeless strategy in the “war of ideas” for the reasons Charley & others have given. Perhaps that’s not what you mean but if not you’re not explaining yourself clearly.
ungood, DoD says using WP against personnel targets is against the law. Now, who ordered them to be used against a city?
You’re right, DPU
To me it sounds like you’re calling for voluntary propaganda
Chicago Tribune 11/04/2005 p 3
2 headlines 1 large, smaller one directly underneath
Very clever.
I think that would qualify as voluntary propoganda right there (but not for US).
The sad part about the Trib thing is that I wrote Liz Sly (writer of 1st article) and asked her to throw in a few positive articles on Iraq every now and then, and by golly, she did.
But the layout was out of her control.
double-plus writes: “through ingestion, respiration, or absorption of poisons”
“Poisons” is probably the wrong term.
A blistering agent is a chemical weapon, but it isn’t really a ‘poison’ as such. I mean, technically, boiling water is a blistering agent, and does nasty things when ingested, but it’s not a poison.
Steam would do just as well as mustard gas, if the steam behaved the same way in air as the gas does, and if it didn’t lose effectiveness as it cooled.
I’m not sure there’s a good distinction to be made between a chemical that causes burns through heat, and a chemical that causes chemical burns.
DaveC writes: ”
I think that would qualify as voluntary propoganda right there (but not for US).”
So you don’t think the loss of a Cobra is newsworthy? Or that the taxpayers who are paying for this mess don’t have a right to know about it?
WP munitions are meant to be used for smoke – it certainly is not a chemical warfare agent
although it serves the latter purpose pretty well, apparently.
tell the parents of that broiled infant that WP is for smoke. see how far that gets you in the Propaganda War.
Charles, I am sure this has been touched on ad nauseum in the comments which I do not have time to read right now, but, this is not a war of “spin.” Our actions have got to speak louder than our words. Invading countries on the flimiest fabrications, torturing, holding without charging, open-ended imprisonment, and so forth, are hardly going to win us hearts and minds in the Middle East. We have got to find a way to clean up the mess we have made in Iraq, and then get out. We need to try to demonstrate that we are what we say we are, rather than the “do as I say, not as I do” approach that this administration has been using. We need to find ways to reduce our demand for oil. We are seen as greedy, and are selling our souls (and our security) to get it, rather than look hard at conservation and alternative energy sources. This is all absurd. And once again, all Conservatives can do is try to somehow make it the media’s fault? Tiresome.
So you don’t think the loss of a Cobra is newsworthy? Or that the taxpayers who are paying for this mess don’t have a right to know about it?
You dont get it. It poisoned a positive story and for headline readers made it look like the killing of US servicemen was the reason for joy.
Now I will pose a question. If a suicide bomber blew himself up outside a crowded football stadium, do you think that the public would have a right to know about it? I never saw anything in the papers about it.
The smoke is phosphorus pentoxide, toxic by itself and also highly hydrophilic. It behaves a lot like nitric oxide or sulfur trioxide; in high concentrations it can char skin just by a dehydration effect. It reacts with water in the lungs to form a medium strong acid, phosphoric acid. If you use large amounts on an area it makes a fair-to-middling chemical weapon, certainly better than chlorine. Nobody outside the U.S. is going to be receptive to the idea that it’s not a chemical weapon.
Incidentally, because of the smoke, it’s not too swift as an illuminating agent.
Hmmm…an Incendiary-Chemical or a Chemical-Incendiary munition? So much haze.
Nobody outside the U.S. is going to be receptive to the idea that it’s not a chemical weapon.
and i imagine one little live demo of what it can do to flesh on 20/20 or 60 Minutes, for example, would dissuade most of the rest.
but, this is not a war of “spin.”
Look, Zarqawi calls his group “Al Qaeda in Iraq” and communicates with Al Zawahiri, and yet it is asserted that Iraq is keeping us from fighting Al Qaeda because we don’t have bin Laden.
It looks to me that the media, politicians, activists, whatever are saying we need to stop fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq to fight Al Qaeda elsewhere.
And page 5 of that same Trib has a satellite image of a covert prison near Kabul. Well, yes of course the captured Taliban guys are in prison in Afghanistan. What next to expose? Maybe a map and where you can get a set of keys?
I can’t get on the soldiers’ case too much, for battlefield slang like “shake-and-bake.” They’re in an impossible position, have been since the damn war started, and I can barely even imagine the stress they’re under.
But it seems plain as day to me that WP isn’t supposed to be used against civilians; and we’re using WP against civilians; and I don’t see how that isn’t a war crime.
What is apparent to me is that continuing to support the war and the Bush Admin’s handling of the war requires a steady, inexorable erosion of principle, ethics, and just plain decency.
And turning the MSM into a de jure arm of the government for propaganda purposes is an exercise in self-serving futility, much like dressing a pig in a silk dress and declaring it Homecoming Queen.
Look, Zarqawi calls his group “Al Qaeda in Iraq” and communicates with Al Zawahiri, and yet it is asserted that Iraq is keeping us from fighting Al Qaeda because we don’t have bin Laden
the Zarqawi branch of alQ is a result of our occupation of Iraq. alQ is a franchise, these days, and Zarqawi opened an Iraq branch since the market for alQ Brand ™ killers in Iraq has been booming recently. before the invasion, he was nothing.
If a suicide bomber blew himself up outside a crowded football stadium, do you think that the public would have a right to know about it? I never saw anything in the papers about it.
Oh, brother.
If you’re talking about
Grrrr . . . I don’t know what the eff happened there, but the sentence should conclude: ” . . . and didn’t have anything to do with what you appear to be insinuating.
I have never seen more people who talk so tough about kicking ass around the world but are so scared of terrorists that they jump in the air and wet their pants everytime something goes “bang.”
If you look back at what went on in battle of Fallujah, most or all of the civilians had got the hell out of town.
From this source at the time
Look, 86 google hits is not “all over the news”, and the first lines
pretty much prove that it was mainly blogs that covered it.
Now I speculated on ObWi that the FBI and/or the university wanted to shut this story down. What I am saying is that there are certain stories that newspapers and broadcast news run with, and some that they spike, for whatever reasons. I was citing this as an example of the news sometimes opting not to report something very broadly. Certainly everybody in OK knew about it, but it was not so much a national story. That tells me that editors and producers have a lot of influence about what kind of stories get the big coverage – hence the spin angle.
most or all of the civilians had got the hell out of town.
I guess that depends on what your definition of “most” and “all” is…
“This is where the mainstream press needs to step in and challenge the “reporting” by The Independent and RAI.”
No, this is where you Republicans need to stop trying to obfuscate the issue and demand that your government stop using hideous weapons like white phosphorus rounds against human targets.
This was a pitched battle less than 2 months before the January elections against the most heavily armed Baathist + AQ stronghold, which had been living under Taliban like conditions.
CaseyL, agreed. I do hope I didn’t give the impression I was getting on the case of soldiers on the ground. That was not my intention.
DaveC, this might be difficyult for you to comprehend, but maybe the lack of national news coverage of the Hinrichs story was motivated largely by decency. From all appearances, a troubled young man took his own life. The family seems to have taken it that way, and may well have asked reporters pursuing the story to respect their privacy in the face of has to have been an awful tragedy for them.
For you and I though, it’s no story at all. No impact on our lives, no public policy issues, no video, and no involvement of either Paris Hilton or Michael Jackson. No politicians involved, either before or after. Why’s this any more worthy of national coverage than this (just to pick a local story at random). Because the latter guy lived? Only the did-he-intend-to-harm-others angle matters, and once one concludes that it’s absent, all you’ve got left is exploiting a tragedy.
And even then, why would anyone think the Hinrichs story would sell soap?
This was a pitched battle less than 2 months before the January elections against the most heavily armed Baathist + AQ stronghold, which had been living under Taliban like conditions.
Help me out here, which of these features make it better, from a propaganda perspective, to have used WP in a way that harmed civilians:
– that the battle was pitched
– that it was 2 months before the elections
– that the enemy was heavily armed
– that the town was a Baathist + AQ stronghold
– that religious discipline was imposed
This was an assault of choice. Our side had total control over timing, tactics, tempo, choice of weapons, everything.
Alopex, no, I didn’t think you were. I was mostly forestalling any “Oh, you hate the troops!” responses to my comments.
This was an assault of choice. Our side had total control over timing, tactics, tempo, choice of weapons, everything.
OK, I’ll look at this like a football fan. If I’m on our side, I don’t want the game to be interesting or be in doubt. I want to win. Other people who are not fans don’t care who wins.
which of these features make it better, from a propaganda perspective, to have used WP in a way that harmed civilians
I am not a lawsyer, but if I gave several reasons, all legitimate, and somebody challenged me to narrow it down to one reason, I would not do that.
The fact that the civilians knew that there was danger imminent and that they were allowed to leave if they chose to do so and that a huge majority did decide to leave makes it evident to me that our military did what they could to minimize civilian casualties.
The suicide bombers who have killed far more Iraqi civilians than our armed forces don’t seem to do that.
If the MSM was such a dogpiling antiwar liberal juggernaut bent on spinning every negative report into front page news, then they certainly would have done so last December when I first read about the use of WP in Fallujah (along with the stories about our use of ‘not-really-napalm’). But Zmag is not the most reliable source and there were lots of unsubstantiated and sensationalist rumors coming out of the city at the time.
Of course the WP rumors turn out now to have been true. And the fact that they have come out only after Iraq has ratified its constitution seems to argue more strongly for the media’s cooperation in the controlled release of this information that against it.
I’ll end my comment with an exerpt from Stephen Den Beste:
I’m bothered by press obsession with irrelevancies and details and distractions.
Well…the Italian press’s obsession with irrelevancies, anyway.
DaveC quotes an ignoramus:
“What I’m worried about is what I see as a concerted attempt to distract us all from the most important issue of the day: there’s a war on. I’m bothered by press obsession with irrelevancies and details and distractions.”
There’s a war on? How does Mr. DenBeste know this? Has the President called for national sacrifice? Have we imposed a war tax, or conscription? Have we marshalled the resources of this great Republic to fight this war? Have we subordinated greed and profit and war windfalls to the common good?
No, we have not.
Oh, and that war? When did Congress declare it?
This war, of which you speak: where is it? Who is fighting it?
DaveC: The fact that the civilians knew that there was danger imminent and that they were allowed to leave if they chose to do so and that a huge majority did decide to leave makes it evident to me that our military did what they could to minimize civilian casualties.
Well, it may make it evident to you, DaveC, but I don’t see how. There were still civilians in Fallujah, and the US knew it, when WP was used against the people in Fallujah. Not that, frankly, using a chemical weapon would have been any better a choice if there had been no civilians left in Fallujah.
The suicide bombers who have killed far more Iraqi civilians than our armed forces don’t seem to do that.
Well, if you measure US military behavior against terrorist behavior, and are satisfied that US soldiers usually behave better than terrorists, then you have appallingly low standards for the US military, which most soldiers I know would find very offensive.
I don’t have a cite, but I thought it was a well established fact that the US wasn’t letting men of military age leave Fallujah, and that as a result many families stayed. Anyone got more on that?
How revealing
Quote: “The sooner mainstream media recognizes this and engages in this information war, the better for all of us.”
Man’s got a point.
Everything started going to shit when they stopped lying to us.
Would it have killed em to say they found one WMD in Iraq FFS ??? Jesus the Navy could have donated one seing as they’re not doing shit. Put a moustache on it and bury it in the sand… world happy… news happy… people happy… happy happy.
DaveC, I didn’t mean for propaganda purposes with Americans. I meant with those in the Middle East we are trying to reach. You know, the people whose opinion actually matter in the media theatre of this war.
You don’t think the assault on Falluja was improperly done. Many people do. Your message to them — ‘serves ’em right for getting in our way’ — doesn’t seem likely to resonate with the people who’s minds we are trying to change.
In the bigger WOT picture, it doesn’t matter what you think, and it doesn’t matter what I think. What matters are the thoughts of the guy we want to to decide that the Caliphate (or just religiously motivated anti-western violence) is a bad idea, just like we wanted people to decide that Communism is a bad idea. One big factor in accomplishing this is having those people not think we are overbearing *ssholes bent on imposing our values and humiliating them (by which I mean individual, family, clan, tribe, and nation [and by nation, I mean ‘Arab nation,’ in the sense expressed in the new Iraqi constitution]).
Now CB seems to think they’re getting the wrong idea from the New York Times. Etc. There may be some little of that, but I’d bet their getting a whole lot more of it from their own contact with our conduct. There is, it seems to me, in inescapable tension between how the Base wants to see our war effort — wrt changing values and humiliation of the foe — and how we need for the undecided young men we are trying to reach to feel about it.
(Ms. Hughes seems to think that we should encourage them to reject the values of their ancestors and adopt ours. I would have thought that she is exactly the wrong person to send over to convince people that we are not overbearing *ssholes etc, but then maybe she can work some kind of magic . . .)
I know my last comment has been passed and forgotten by now, but just wanted to acknowledge: Jon H, on rereading the fas.org bit on Mk-77, my initial reading of that was incorrect. So, no, it doesn’t look like it’s saying they were all used up during GWI.
Stickler raises some good points.
1. To whom have we delivered a declaration of war?
2. From whom may we collect a surrender? (Or deliver a surrender, if we capitulate.)
It’s the second point that really worries me, because a whole lot of recent executive claims amount to “we can do this for the duration of the war”, except that the war has no victory condition. This is markedly unlike World War II, or Korea, or even the Vietnam war, where it was possible to establish a clear-cut end to hostilities.
Would an advocate of this war please point to an official statement as to what constitutes victory or defeat? I don’t mean “when there’s peace and bunnies everywhere” language, but something precise enough that it could be used to end all “for the duration” policies.
Well, the den Beste quote does show what the right is really worried about. Not a PR war for Muslim opinion, but trying to keep Americans on board. (And if they keep bailing on the war it’s all the Democrats’ fault, of course.} If any Republican in the government had been interested in an actual large positive change in opinion, they would have taken the opportunity afforded by the earthquake tragedy and dropped several billion on relief efforts.
Um, I’d submit that perhaps it shows what denBeste is really worried about. It’s not as if we all got together and selected Stephen denBeste as our spokesman. Personally, I try to spend as much time away from this kind of thinking as possible, because once it takes hold, you cannot trust anyone to be authentic anymore. And so we become Shadar Logoth, if we haven’t done so already.
Totally unrelated, I think SDB is mostly bang-on and highly insightful when discussing engineering.
It also bears pointing out that “Republican” and “The Right” aren’t entirely synonymous, just as “Democrat” and “The Left” aren’t.
Den Beste’s comments on cell phone stuff are very interesting except that they never seem to grapple with an important fact: approaches other than the one his employer and he (and George Gilder) favor were providing superior service for a long time while his crew were years away from rolling things out.
I tend to think of this as the essence of a lot of his stances: elaborate, dense, often interesting exposition that happens to founder on the most rudimentary fact checking.
Man, with the exception of DaveC, you folks are doing a terrible job so far at fighting this media war. Didn’t you read the post at all? You’re all going to have to work a lot harder at your disinformation-fighting efforts in the future. You know, blog commenters are not just on the sidelines in this War Against Militant Islamism, you are made part of the fight by our enemies
Possibly, Bruce. I know my observation that GPS was spread-spectrum (and, in fact, is CDMA) was at least initially met with resistance, probably due to the fact that QualComm has (as far as I can tell) some sort of trademark on various CDMA implementations, and also possibly because GPS and cellphones are so very different in purpose as to make spread-spectrum comparisons between them rather silly.
In any case, I am not nearly familiar enough with the various cellular communications technologies to be a decent judge of which is better, but I am engineer enough to observe that (as an example) land-line voice communications were implemented well in advance of VOIP, but probably can’t be considered to be superior to VOIP simply because they were there first. So, first isn’t necessarily (I’d say rarely, but that kind of demands a huge amount of substantiation) best.
Probably not your point, though.
Oh, sure, I agree that later introductions get real benefits. What I meant was that Den Beste was touting as vastly superior features yet to come things that my friends in London and Helsinki had been using for years.
CharleyCarp: Now CB seems to think they’re getting the wrong idea from the New York Times. Etc. There may be some little of that, but I’d bet their getting a whole lot more of it from their own contact with our conduct.
So true. Here is an example from the time of the release of the Abu Ghraib photographs:
Ah, I hadn’t noticed when he did that. “Features” are less interesting to me than the underlying technology, unless I’m buying something. I do agree with him on his touting of CDMA as superior to most other bandwidth-sharing technologies of the time, but as I’ve said, I’m not a communications expert. I am familiar with most of the basics of modulation schemes, but I’m not up to date on their applications.
And now I leave this alone, because it’s turning into a threadjack.
Er, yeah, I didn’t mean to launch an extended digression either.
(Would you be willing sometime to start up a separate thread on the tech versus features thing? I tend to vacillate in my preferences on it, and there are what amount to aesthetic and moral judgments involved as well as technical ones.)
There’s more than one way to play into the hands of the enemy. For example, the “Countercolumn” post that Charles cites as proving his point. This column quotes a particularly gory paragraph from the Independent’s article in which the effects of white phospohorus on the human body are described. Countercolumn’s response: “Hey, maybe they can make more money as a porn site!” So here we have an example of a western, probably US writer mocking the deaths of Iraqis and saying that the description of their burned bodies would do better on a porn site. This is beyond disgusting. How would people have reacted if a columnist for al Jazeera had said that descriptions of the destruction of the WTC would make good porn? It demonstrates disrespect for the lives of those who died–and those still alive.
If I were an agent of al Qaeda, I’d translate that column into Arabic, Farsi, etc, highlighting this and other particularly appalling statements, and distribute them widely as an example of the western world’s attitude towards Islamic people. And watch the volunteers roll in.
So, to sum up your argument on this: bombarding civilians in Fallujah with white phos is perfectly legitimate because white phos isn’t banned by the Geneva Conventions.
Words means things, chdb. WP contains nasty chemicals but it is not a chemical weapon as defined by the appropriate bodies. Bombarding civilians is not a legitimate act, and there is no evidence taht civilians were targeted in Fallujah. Most of the civilians had already fled, and coalition soldiers followed the rules of engagement. The pictures of “caramelized” bodies of dead civilians (assuming the fighting-age men in the pictures are civilians) are highly suspect because WP burns clothing as well as skin. The clothes in the pictures were intact.
It may make you feel better when the mainstream media lie to you, Charles, but it won’t actually help the US win any wars.
It may make you feel better when The Independent spreads lies and half-truths to you, Jes, but it won’t help you persuade anyone to your side.
BTW, I wrote an update and I’m working slowly through the comments.
Now I’m confused. Charles, are you saying that it’s a lie that our soldiers used WP, or are you saying that it is a lie to claim they used chemical weapons because WP isn’t a chemical weapon?
It may make you feel better when The Independent spreads lies and half-truths to you
Has this been displayed? I must have missed something.
Re: “Witness” Jeff Englehart. You “debunking” claims he couldn’t have seen anything because he was in “a non-combat” role for the last two days. Actually watching the documentary, the Englehart says he heard about WP being deployed over the radio. As for being an “antiwar activist”, I don’t see how that is central other than for poisoning the war purposes (did you stop to think that maybe he’s an antiwar activist because of what he saw and heard in Fallujah?). Either his testimony is false, and can be displayed as false, or it is testimony made in good faith. Meanwhile, this claim:
Can clearly be dismissed, in light of the March issue of Field Artillery magazine quoted on this thread more than once.
Re: The Independent’s weapons expert contradicting the effects of WP. Um, after having to search for this particular claim, it turns out that the owner of the blog “Daily Ablution”, called John Pike and asked him whether he was referring to WP or napalm. Well here:
I’ve never heard of Daily Ablution. I’m sure it’s testimony passed along in good faith. I would still like to hear, though, a credible alternative explanation for the wounds show in the pictures. For example, has the clothing been added post-mortem, and if yes, then why would it be added if it was not consistent with the “actual” effects of WP?
Many grammatical errors. Ugh.
Since the U.S. did use WP in large quantities in Falloujah and it almost certainly caused the civilian burns observed, I think the MSM is doing the U.S. army a gigantic coverup favor just by remaining silent on the issue. Expecting a debunking is a little much.
Via DailyKos (which I’m sure will give CB fits), further corroboration of WP use in Iraq beyond spotting, smokescreen and illumination purposes. This time via the May-June issue of Infantry Magazine:
even more (via KOS):
Under the prodding of the generals, Sassaman took the concept of nonlethal force to its limits. His theory was that no progress would be possible without order first and that ultimately, even if his men were hard on the locals, they would come around. When his men came under fire from a wheat field, Sassaman routinely retaliated by firing phosphorous shells to burn the entire field down. The ambush site would be gone, and farmers might be persuaded not to allow insurgents to use their land again.
Hey, Achmed, who are you going to believe: CNN or your lying eyes?
A laughable update — just more fact challenged assertions:
1. Charles — do you dispute that the US used WP artillery shells during daytime in Fallujah as an anti-personnel device? The evidence seems pretty conclusive that it did. If you think otherwise, why not devote a few seconds to that point, before jumping to the conclusion that the press should have debunked a story that no one has yet debunked. Your commentary is fact-challenged.
2. People in other countries believe the use of WP in urban areas is akin to employing chemical weapons. So their news services call its use in Fallujah the use of a chemical weapon, which you say must be debunked as “false.”
Except its a debateable value judgment, rather than something “false.” Several countries have agreed not to use WP in this context, which protocol the US has not joined. In any event, US policy is to not use it in such a context because it so much resembles a chemical weapon in that context — though that policy seems to have been violated in Fallujah.
A proper news story in the US would point out this underlying debate — that the use of WP in urban areas ends up resembling the use of banned chemcial weapons, and would ask why the US has decided to proceed in this manner. It would point out that others think it is the use of an improper chemical weapon, which explains why overseas news services are reporting it in this manner. It would point out how it is not technically a banned chemical weapon — that this is a value judgment that others have already made, but not the US. It would point out how this debate creates an issue for the US in our effort to win moral support for our causes.
It would not engage in the phony propoganda war you advocate.
3. Use of WP artillery shells in urban areas ends up looking a lot like deploying mustard gas. This is an indisputable fact. The military people justify its use in the battlefield context because the burning WP gas forces troops to flee concealed positions, enabling other weapons to wipe them out. But so would mustard gas. The utility of the weapon hardly justifies its automatic use.
Your inability to deal with these basic facts undermines all of your comment. The others you cite also gloss over this like it is irrelevant — they suffer from the same blinders.
DaveC, I don’t think you can know which faction has killed the largest number of civilians in Iraq. Right now it’s possible the insurgents are killing most of the civilians, but that’s based on news reports and by the very nature of this war (and probably most colonial wars, but especially this one), the western press can’t go wandering around counting bodies on its own, assuming they were independent-minded enough to want to do so. I wouldn’t expect any government (certainly not ours) to tell the truth about the civilians they’ve killed in a supposedly noble cause and so the media count is likely to be heavily biased towards the reporting of killings by the insurgents and also of killings of alleged insurgents by US forces. I wouldn’t assume every insurgent we supposedly kill really was an insurgent.
Iraq Body Count published a study of their own data which concluded as of early 2005 that the US had caused 39 percent of the deaths, with violent crime coming in second and the insurgents far behind, though in recent months they’re catching up. Or they might be, except for the fact that others also continue to kill. I think there are zero significant digits in the IBC estimate for the reasons already given.
There is the Lancet study, of course, and a couple of Iraqi groups which claim the death toll is much higher than the IBC number, and the UN survey for the first year of the war found 24,000 violent deaths and insurgents couldn’t have caused more than a small fraction of those at that point. The problem with that number is some might have been insurgents, of course, but I think 12 percent were women and children, not too different from the IBC percentage for their civilian data.
A link you provided has already been rendered obsolete, so to speak, by the admission that the US did use WP as a weapon.
In general I take proclamations of American military virtue with a grain of salt. I don’t doubt that US troops are no worse than average Americans. Look at the number of Americans who defend torture and tell me that’s supposed to be a comfort. No doubt the majority are decent. That leaves plenty of scope for indecency and anyway, people in wartime sometimes don’t behave the way they’d like to think they would in civilian life. And so when someone says “I’m a progressive” and then says US forces couldn’t be committing war crimes because they’re just our neighbors, I tend to remember the wifebeater who lived in the house next door when I was growing up. Besides, the ultimate responsibilty lies higher up and I’d guess very few people, when ordered to commit a war crime, actually refuse to carry out the order, especially when they don’t have to see the results for themselves. Bombing and shelling villages came pretty easy for Americans in Vietnam.
What’s In a Number, an update on the Lancet study, from This American Life, well worth a listen.
this article is behind a subscription wall, so my link goes to a copy.
Now I’m confused. Charles, are you saying that it’s a lie that our soldiers used WP, or are you saying that it is a lie to claim they used chemical weapons because WP isn’t a chemical weapon?
This is what I wrote, Lily: “The disinformation comes in pretty fast, but a good starting point today would be dispelling the lie that we used chemical weapons in Fallujah”
WP was used in Fallujah. No one, including me, denied that. WP is not a chemical weapon and it is not illegal; therefore, we used no chemical weapons in Fallujah, and no treaties or conventions were violated. It is an incendiary device used for illumination purposes, sometimes as an alternative to fuel air explosives. When people say that we used chemical weapons in Fallujah, they are lying. Words mean things.
Using the pictures of dead people–the ones that show the clothing intact–as evidence that they were killed by WP is a lie. WP burns right through clothing to the skin. We don’t really know how those folks actually died, but it wasn’t by WP.
When Englehart said that everyone dies within 150 meters, he is lying. GlobalSecurity.org:
I know many of you are predisposed to think the worst, but the facts are not on your side. I can’t believe so many of you are buying this crap.
“I know many of you are predisposed to think the worst”
Please award yourself a Karnak.
Charles: WP is not a chemical weapon and it is not illegal; therefore, we used no chemical weapons in Fallujah, and no treaties or conventions were violated.
How nice for the relatives and friends of the people in Fallujah who were horribly burned to death with WP to know that it was perfectly legal for the US to do so, because the US never signed up to any treaty or convention banning the use of WP.
This is your idea of successful propaganda – tell the families/friends of the victims that they’ve got no right to be upset because their friends/kin were horribly done to death in a perfectly legal way?
Or are you seeing this as an information war on people inside the US who do not support the war in Iraq?
Charles, I will try to make this very clear:
THE DEATHS WEREN’T A RESULT OF WP BEING USED AS SMOKE
This has been made evident throughout this thread. You know, the article in Field Artillery, the witnesses own testimony you are trying to debunk. Etc.
And I would be very very careful about throwing accusations of lying around. It might be something that could be fairly levelled at you, at this point.
“Use of WP artillery shells in urban areas ends up looking a lot like deploying mustard gas. This is an indisputable fact.”
It’s quite disputable, actually. It looks a lot more like other incendiaries, and particularly like WP, which has been used for various military purposes since at least WWII and particularly in Vietnam.
It’s not particularly harmful as a gas.
Anyone telling you otherwise is either ignorant, or has an agenda. Treatment is required for burns, not inhalation.
This is wrong. It’s used as a direct weapon primarily because the burning per se drives people out. (This is as well as being used for other incendiary missions, as well as for smoke, of course.)
Is burning someone to death horrible? Of course. It’s equally horrible to be burned to death with a flame thrower, and it’s not extremely dissimilar to burning to death via napalm, or gasoline.
It’s also entirely horrible to blow people’s limbs off, to gut them, to blow their head to pieces, and to do that to babies and whole families.
There are no nice ways to do any of these things, and there are no nice ways to fight wars. This is why it’s best to take getting into them rather seriously.
The oxidation product of WP is not harmless. The oxides are more chemically toxic than the WP itself. In high enough concentrations it is considered a poison gas in industrial use.
It is also no longer used for illumination. Magnesium works better.
It is also quite possible to burn skin through woven fabric if the agent is a vapor. Protection against hot gases requires an impermeable fabric, usually glass-based.
Whoops. Here’s the link to the MSDS.
MSDS
Or, here:
I guess, to summarize: pure phosphoric acid is probably not good for skin, eyes and lungs. In lower concentrations, though, it’s perfectly fine when mixed with carmel coloring, artificial flavoring, aspartame, and carbonated water.
So, discussing the effects of exposure to the ignition by-products of phosphorus need to also include the amount of exposure. Small amounts: no big deal. Taking a bath in phosphoric acid: probably not good. The above seems to indicate that on the field, at least, exposure to phosphorus smoke doesn’t cause lasting symptoms after the smoke goes away. I’m not sure what this has to do with the particular situation being discussed, but it is relevant to discussions of WP as a chemical weapon.
I’ve seen references, although not a link, to a treaty or part therof to which the US is not a party which defines WP as a chemical weapon. If this is accurate, can’t we safely say (1) we did use WP (2) many countries, but not the US, legally define WP as a chemical weapon, and (3) WP kills through external burns, rather than usually through inhalation poisoning? (2) seems to make the initial article objected to accurate, although perhaps misleading in that it did not call attention to the US’s failure to be a party to the relevant treaty and to the burning, rather than poisonous, nature of WP.
Yeah. Running thru a smoke grenade outside, no big deal. Sitting in a room full of hot oxide for minutes, a particularly slow and painful way to die.
Tim, if you’ve got a cite for this, please provide. Opinion is easy to come by on this sort of issue; hard fact is usually less forthcoming. Personally, I think if you’re close enough to the “hot oxide” for the heat to make a difference, you’re going to be close enough to be burned to death by the phosphorus igniting any nearby flammables. This is the stuff of opinion.
Round 3 of fact-challenged Charles — his 11/11 11:21 am post.
He selectively quotes from that portion of Global Security relting to WP smoke, but omits the reference to WP incendiary:
White phosphorus results in painful chemical burn injuries. The resultant burn typically appears as a necrotic area with a yellowish color and characteristic garliclike odor. White phosphorus is highly lipid soluble and as such, is believed to have rapid dermal penetration once particles are embedded under the skin. Because of its enhanced lipid solubility, many have believed that these injuries result in delayed wound healing. This has not been well studied; therefore, all that can be stated is that white phosphorus burns represent a small subsegment of chemical burns, all of which typically result in delayed wound healing.
Incandescent particles of WP may produce extensive burns. Phosphorus burns on the skin are deep and painful; a firm eschar is produced and is surrounded by vesiculation. 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. Contact with these particles can cause local burns. These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears. If service members are hit by pieces of white phosphorus, it could burn right down to the bone. Burns usually are limited to areas of exposed skin (upper extremities, face). Burns frequently are second and third degree because of the rapid ignition and highly lipophilic properties of white phosphorus.
To summarize, WP used in concentrations as an incendiary (exactly what was used in Fallujah — “shake and bake”) is likely to cause very severe burning to those affected by the dispersal — this includes inhalation. Is it 150 m? Numerous sources have indicated this is the effective range for artillery shells of the stuff. And it is much more readily attacks exposed skin rather than clothing.
Its worth noting that grenades and small mortar rounds of the stuff probably dose not create this effect — its the incendiary artiellery rounds used in Fallujah that create this effect. That’s why its US policy not to use it in urban areas, ewxept in Fallujah.
I know many of you are predisposed to think the worst, but the facts are not on your side. I can’t believe so many of you are buying this crap.
I can’t believe your willingness to skew facts.
The treaty is the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III). Geneva, 10 October 1980..
eMedicine has this to say about White Phosphorus when used as incendiary agent.
I still await an alternate theory that would explain the type of wounds seen in the pictures on RAI website.
It sounds as if you’ve got some idea just how much WP was used, and what type of WP rounds were used. Please share.
“Its worth noting that grenades and small mortar rounds of the stuff probably dose not create this effect — its the incendiary artiellery rounds used in Fallujah that create this effect.”
I can’t figure out what you mean by “this effect,” I’m afraid. (I’m also baffled by the notion that use of white phosphorous in battle is some sort of revelation; only someone who has never read any accounts of modern warfighting in the last fifty years would find it so; heck, I remember playing videogames of tank warfare twenty years ago where you had a choice of WP or HE shells; reading this stuff is like reading someone gasping about having just found out that Army soldiers use chemical reactions to blow civilians’ bodies apart, or that lead is fired at high velocities (by a chemical reaction!; these are chemical weapons!) into innocent people’s organs, shredding them to bits, killing them in seconds or leaving them to bleed for hours; it’s all terrible, and it’s all equally news.)
I’m also baffled by the notion that use of white phosphorous in battle is some sort of revelation;
I’m baffled by the notion that people aren’t grasping the idea that the objection is the use of incendiary agents in an urban area where civilians are known to still reside, contrary to Army’s own doctrine and international consensus.
Especially when the conflict is one, supposedly, of hearts and minds.
Slarti, it’s just my opinion. If you were close to the round you’d be killed quickly; otherwise it would probably be death by suffocation as the hot gases filled up the space, like in building fire fatalities from smoke inhalation. The painful part would come from effectively being sprayed with a hot, fairly strong acid.
I imagine, then, that you’d be just as baffled if we were raining conventional explosives on the same area? I mean, I’ve heard plenty of outrage over the WP being used on the civilians, but little over the use of conventional HE weapons.
Let’s see…what sort of WP rounds were used? Could it have been burster rounds? Rounds that are designed as incendiaries and are against the law of land warfare to employ …against personnel targets? Or could they have been smoke rounds? Rounds consistent with:
Hence my earlier questions. If we used the ground-burst type, then I’m guessing we violated some of our own rules in doing so. If not, then your room full of hot oxide theory is hogwash.
I’m baffled by:
1. The invasion in general.
2. That Fallujah was allowed to fester
3. The sledgehammer assault in light of 2.
Given that this is not total war, but a counterinsurgency is a country that been liberated, I am baffled by the self-defeating roughboy tactics of the U.S. Army, especially in light of the tactics and doctrines of other major armies that stress lower key approaches and which seemed to have, until recently, better results. Like say the British in Basra. And I say until recently because it seems the troubles in the American zone have spilled over.
The use of WP in Fallujah is just another chapter in this story.
It seems to me it would have been alot easier for the U.S. to simply fire up the B-52’s and carpetbomb the place into oblivion. You would have likely had the same level of bewildered outrage, but with the bonus that Fallujah would have been dealt with once and for all, with little to no casulties.
If you’re going to be an evil empire, don’t do it half way.
Rounds consistent with:
That doesn’t follow. How do you get smoke rounds out of that sentence? Do you have some sort of special knowledge?
From the November 10, 2004 issue of the Washington Post:
More smoke rounds?
We’ve got:
1. Photos of the corpses of noncombatants with wounds – in light of any other explantion – the most credible explanation of which is White Phosphorus.
2. Video of some sort of burst type shelling.
3. A witness who testifies he heard over the radio that Whiskey Pete was being used.
4. Corroborating articles in Field Artillery magazine, and the Washington Post.
Aside from explicit mention of smoke rounds in Field Artillery? No. But information is normally more valuable (to me, at least) than opinion.
BTW, do you have a link to any of that?
You lost me on that one. The smoke is the oxide, and it’s hot because it’s the combustion product. From the blog link DaveC gave earlier in the thread, at least one barrage on the city looked like bursters.
In lower concentrations, though, it’s perfectly fine when mixed with carmel coloring, artificial flavoring, aspartame, and carbonated water.
Like hell it is. That stuff will totally dissolve your teeth inside a week! [My sister’s best friend’s boyfriend’s cousin did that experiment in 8th grade, I swear!] Well, either that, or it’ll produce a tiny race of people and, eventually, Lutherans.
BTW, do you have a link to any of that?
All the links have been provided, often more than once, throughout the thread.
I’m thinking you’re not familiar with what
“screening missions” means. This knowledge is only “special” in the sense of having minimal familiarity with military usage and practice (although my own highest rank in uniform was Second Class Boy Scout).
Have I mentioned lately how unhealthy the huge split between civilian and military culture is?
I’m thinking you’re not familiar with what
“screening missions” means.
And I’m thinking there are two references. One to screening missions, and one about “psychological warfare” and it doesn’t follow the latter was conducted with “smoke rounds”.
Hence the point about WP being a “flexible munition”
It’s smoke. It’s fire. It’s two-two great tastes in one.
OTOH I would think that “psychological warfare” is not typically executed using incendiaries. Just a thought.
Slarti:
It sounds as if you’ve got some idea just how much WP was used, and what type of WP rounds were used.
From reading elsewhere, there is a type of artillery delivered WP that air bursts into smaller components and rains over an area. I speculate that this is the type of munition that creates the alleged “150m” effect talked about. I forget the numerical designation for this shell type — the cites sprinkled throughout this thread link to the military journals that talk about its use. There has also been discussion about the total number of rounds of this type that were deployed to Iraq (500 or so), but no indication as to how many were used in Fallujah, but another cite has a reference to the supply having been exhausted by the end of the Fallujah activity. But its not very definite.
I wrote above about how its not WP itself that is the issue, but these air-burst artillery shells that create an issue in an urban environnment. Smaller weapons carrying WP (low caliber mortars and grenades) probably limit their effect to only minor incendiary or smoke because of the lesser amount of WP involved.
The rules of engagement prohibit large WP use in urban areas unless specifically authorized by senior command — From GlobalSecurity.org which Charles linked to above.
The point is that WP has multiple uses, and can be employed in multiple ways. We are not talking about the smoke bombs for which WP is sometimes used, but the large incendiary shells of WP.
Charles is allegedly “debunking” the WP issue by citing to the smoke bomb’s properties, while ignoring the large incendiary type of munition.
OTOH I would think that “psychological warfare” is not typically executed using incendiaries. Just a thought.
It’s not? And smokescreens are?
The actual turn of phrase from Field Artillery magazine was “potent psychological weapon”
I speculate that this is a smoke round. Its effects are consistent with this picture of said smoke round going off.
Which is where speculation can take you, I guess.
Based on the munition’s size, I estimate that the maximum amount of WP that it (in 155mm form) can contain is maybe 12 pounds. For comparison, the 155mm HE round carries 15 pounds of TNT. The WP round must also contain a burster charge for spreading the stuff around, which is why I’m thinking it’s only about 12 pounds. If you can find anything on this that’s more precise, please post it.
Ok, maybe your words (paraphrased) will take a bit better:
it doesn’t follow the latter was conducted with “incendiary rounds”
Given that this is not total war, but a counterinsurgency is a country that been liberated, I am baffled by the self-defeating roughboy tactics of the U.S. Army, …
The use of WP in Fallujah is just another chapter in this story.
The Fallujah fight was a set-piece battle against entrenched bad guys, so it had to be fought on an ugly scale. It was allowed to fester for political reasons.
Incendiaries are incredibly useful in fighting an entrenched enemy — think Iwo Jima, for example. I can understand why the marines would want to use it — it saves the lives of their comrades.
But your point is correct — its the political consequences of how you fight an insurgency that are paramount, and that’s the core point regarding the WP issue. Otherwise, why not carpet bomb the place.
Ok, maybe your words (paraphrased) will take a bit better:
Given use of the term “shake and bake” I think it’s the more plausible scenario, don’t you?
And I’m thinking there are two references. One to screening missions, and one about “psychological warfare” and it doesn’t follow the latter was conducted with “smoke rounds”.
Gary is also ignoring this account from Infantry Magazine. It’s not specific to Fallujah, but notice this particular line:
“The Iraqis in one observation post attempted to flee but were fixed with white phosphorus fires. As they attempted to flee again, white phosphorus rounds impacted the vehicle and set it on fire. The section continued to fire a mix of high explosive and white phosphorus rounds into the objective area.”
WP used for screening is airburst, obviously, in order to spread the smoke. If they impacted a vehicle, they were being used primarily for destructive purposes.
Ok, spartikus, please tell me exactly what you think that term means.
Slartibartfast, perhaps you could enlighten us? From your tone, it seems you know the answer. Am I wrong?
A cursory Google search reveals “shake n’bake” in Vietnam era military slang as meaning an “*1 officer straight out of OCS (Officer Candidate School) without any combat experience. or *2 the derogatory term applied to a graduate of an accelerated NCO academy who was then entitled to wear “buck” sergeant stripes.
But that doesn’t really make any sense in the context of the quote from Field Artillery, does it?
Maybe, in the modern military lingo, it sounds exactly as it sounds: they “shaked” their targets with HE and “baked” them with WP.
But please, feel free to contribute knowledge.
“Gary is also ignoring this account from Infantry Magazine.”
I’m reasonably sure I’m not. Perhaps you’re confusing something someone else said with something I’ve said.
“If they impacted a vehicle, they were being used primarily for destructive purposes.”
Assuming that was intentional, sure. Have I said anything to contradict this? Or to indicate that I have any doubt that WP is apt to have hit people, innocent people, maybe even, and burned them alive, horribly? Or to indicate that I think it’s implausible that WP may have been used intentionally as an anti-personnel indendiary weapon, whether against policy or tacitly ignored? If so, where?
Yes, you are. But it was you that was drawing some conclusions from what shake and bake meant, not me. So I was kind of hoping for a tutorial.
Well, until someone offers up a credible theory that explains the evidence presented in the Italian documentary, the article in Field Artillery, and the article in the Washington Post, the most plausible explanation remains that U.S. forces fired WP incendiary shells during the assault on Fallujah, and that noncombatants died as a result of that.
As others have pointed out, war is ugly and incendiary weapons have their uses. But Iraq is not the tumult of conventional armies locked in a battle to the death on, say, the plains of Central Europe. It’s a counterinsurgency campaign attempting to, at the very least, buy time for a credible successor state to step into the vacum of the Baathist regime, if such a thing is possible. And this very much depends on goodwill of the populace.
Besides the helicopter lifting off a Saigon rooftop, what is the most enduring image from the Vietnam War? I’d say it was probably this one…another image of the effects of incendiary weapons.
Slarti, this is a frequent and irritating tactic of yours in comments. It seems to me that most speakers of English would get the same impression from the term “shake and bake” that spartikus does. He is not claiming special knowledge, so please dispense with the “I was kind of hoping for a tutorial” bit. The burden is on you, as someone who apparently gets a different impression from the expression, to come up with a different interpretation.
Too spooky, considering the topic. DirecTV is playing ‘The End’ in the dead programming space left after the Sabres-Leafs game.
Alternatively, this.
I could be wrong, but I’m fairly sure that if my husband/wife/daughter/son/grandfather/granddaughter’s head is blown off by a handgun, or a carbine, or a machinegun, I’m going to harbor considerable ill will to the people who did that, and it’s not apt to be significantly lessened because it was bullets that did the job, not fire. But maybe that’s just me.
Yes, Nell, you’re irritated by me, I’m irritated by you. Pretty much beside the point in this conversation, don’t you think? In fact, I’m rather irritated by these side trips into what you imagine might be my tactics.
I’m not talking “impression”, Nell. And “most speakers of English” don’t speak this kind of jargon. Do you know what it means?
Point is, there seem to be a great many instant experts who are absolutely convinced of…something or other, with respect to this particular issue. Speak up, subject matter experts.
Maybe the use of incendiaries on targets where civilians are known to be in numbers and arbitrary executions on the street are, like, all fruit of the same poisoned tree.
But I’ll go out on limb here and say that I would probably be just a little bit extra devastated if my one year old daughter was burned to death rather than shot. But maybe that’s just me.
The Fallujah fight was a set-piece battle against entrenched bad guys, so it had to be fought on an ugly scale. It was allowed to fester for political reasons.
Incendiaries are incredibly useful in fighting an entrenched enemy — think Iwo Jima, for example. I can understand why the marines would want to use it — it saves the lives of their comrades.
But your point is correct — its the political consequences of how you fight an insurgency that are paramount, and that’s the core point regarding the WP issue. Otherwise, why not carpet bomb the place.
Pretty good analysis, dmbeaster. My 2 bits:
The coalition forces simply weren’t ready to go in there in April, particularly the Iraqi Army or ING, who were needed to assess who were bad guys and who if anyboy weren’t. It also took time to figure out how to get the civilians who wanted to leave out of town. That said, the battle was happened weeks, maybe 2 months, later than it could have because of the Presidential election.
The video that I saw showed the WP fired behind the buildings on the edge of town, and then the tanks firing at the illuminated buildings. This also presumably cut off any retreat.
Certainly it was the intention of our forces to kill people, a lot of people, who were well armed bad guys concentrated in one place. I rather doubt there was any specific intent to kill civilians, and yet I think everybody knew that there would be civialian casualties among those that stayed in town.
DaveC: I rather doubt there was any specific intent to kill civilians, and yet I think everybody knew that there would be civialian casualties among those that stayed in town.
People keep trying to explain to me how deliberately killing civilians isn’t really deliberately killing civilians when you can say that your intent was something else, even though you knew perfectly well that your action would in fact kill civilians.
Sort of like a drunk driver claiming “I didn’t MEAN to hurt anyone” in court, and having that accepted as a perfectly adequate defense, because having good intentions is all that matters.
So, the US military deliberately burned civilians to death, but that’s okay, because along with the civilians, some heavily-armed insurgents probably also got killed, and even though the military knew they were killing civilians, it was the insurgents that they meant to kill.
Another comment on the WP issue in Michael Froomkin’s comments. Froomkin’s further comment here.
Hrmphf. While I have absolutely no special knowledge of any sort related to the topic, I find the suggestion in the linked comment that the phrase “take them out” to describe the intended effect of the WP rounds meant ‘to frighten them away with smoke’ awfully implausible.
Um, I don’t see that in the quote being commented on. The now famous quote says:
HE to take them out. Not WP.
Whoops, I got the WP and HE switched in the quote. Never mind.
Question-begging.
Look, when one consructs a dam or a major building or a linear accelerator, there’s a clear correlation between work hours and fatalities (the figure I have in my head is 1 fatality/$10^9 spent). One has no intention of killing laborers, but it’s a known consequence of large projects built under reasonable safety standards.
Fact: war inevitably kills innocent bystanders.
Axiom: therefore war is intentional killing of innocents.
Conclusion: therefore war is always inherently wrong.
It’s fine to argue for pacifism. I’ve had days when I’ve felt like going for it, although I’ve never been able to keep myself convinced for more than a day at a time, and they were mostly in decades past, myself. But every so often the temptation looms very strongly.
However, it’s perhaps useful to simply be upfront and clear about one’s premise.
Rilkefan: One has no intention of killing laborers, but it’s a known consequence of large projects built under reasonable safety standards.
Yes, and burning civilians to death is a known consequence of firing WP munitions at civilians.
How about:
Fact: war inevitably kills innocent bystanders, including by setting them on fire and causing them to be burned alive.
Conclusion: therefore war is only justified when the goals to be served by the war have an expected value sufficient to justify setting innocent people on fire.
Illustration: If you’re thinking of starting a war, picture a schoolbus full of children in a puddle of gasoline. Imagine that the ends you seek would be gained if you tossed a lighted match into the puddle. If you wouldn’t throw the match into the puddle, don’t start the war.
Seriously, it’s not pacifism to want to keep the costs of war front and center. We seem to have (possibly not, but seem to have) used WP rounds as an incendiary against people in Fallujah, burning them to death. This sort of thing happens in wars, it’s not clear that it’s necessarily worse than being shot or killed by an explosion — all true. Nonetheless, when we’re talking about whether the war should have been commenced, or should continue, it is good to report on this sort of thing, so that we remember that we are setting innocent people on fire, and for our actions to be justified they must serve a goal sufficiently important to warrant setting innocent people on fire.
“Conclusion: therefore war is only justified when the goals to be served by the war have an expected value sufficient to justify setting innocent people on fire.”
Definitely.
Or alternatively:
Fact: war inevitably kills innocent bystanders.
Axiom: therefore war is intentional killing of innocents.
Conclusion: we must choose both ends that are likely to make the misery death worth it, and means that minimize the misery and death along the way. And we must be honest about the costs and gains along the way.
I wouldn’t call observing the Hague conventions pacifism. There’s a pratical reason you follow them; you don’t want your troops exposed to the same shit. There’s a good reason hollow-point bullets, poisoned shrapnel, and a host of other goodies aren’t used by armies.
So Gary, as posited earlier, why not fire up the B-52’s, or better yet, just drop a tactical nuke? I mean, it’s war, innit? And innocent bystanders have a chance of getting killed, so why not bring your most effective, and cost-effective, weapons to the game?
“So Gary, as posited earlier, why not fire up the B-52’s, or better yet, just drop a tactical nuke?”
See Bruce’s conclusion.
White Phosphorus in urban areas crosses that line for me. And much of the world.
“White Phosphorus in urban areas crosses that line for me. And much of the world.”
If you’re looking for me to argue with you on this, you’ll have to try down the hall, I’m afraid.
The final chapter:
This affair has reinforced a conclusion I’ve drawn from the Iraq War: U.S. Army spokethingy’s are not to be believed.
See also here.
“U.S. Army spokethingy’s are not to be believed.”
You’re saying that this shouldn’t be believed?
I’m inclined to feel differently; I find that statement very plausible.
But, certainly I agree that nobody’s words should be automatically believed.
I’m not sure I buy that, Gary.
RE: the lie that we used chemical weapons in Fallujah
http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/americas/us/war_crimes_fallujah.html#this_is_real
Comments are closed.