The military is FINALLY defending itself in regards to WP:
The United States’ most senior general has defended the use of weapons containing white phosphorus in Iraq.
General Peter Pace said that such munitions were a “legitimate tool of the military”, used to illuminate targets and create smokescreens.
Two weeks ago, the US admitted using it to flush out insurgents in Falluja last year – raising concerns that it might have hit civilians.
…Gen Pace said no military went to greater lengths to avoid civilian casualties than the US army.
He said white phosphorus, a chemical that burns on exposure to oxygen, producing a bright light and lots of white smoke, was used primarily to illuminate a battlefield or to hide troop movements.
“It is not a chemical weapon. It is an incendiary. And it is well within the law of war to use those weapons as they’re being used, for marking and for screening,” he said.
If it comes into contact with human skin, white phosphorus can ignite and burn down to the bone if it is not exhausted or extinguished.
An Italian TV channel has reported that the US used white phosphorus against civilians in Falluja, and showed pictures of burned bodies.
The US has denied this.
“A bullet goes through skin even faster than white phosphorus does,” Gen Pace said.
“So I would rather have the proper instrument applied at the proper time, as precisely as possible, to get the job done, in a way that kills as many of the bad guys as possible and does as little collateral damage as possible.
“That is just the nature of warfare.”
It is about damned time, and merely reiterates what I have been stating from the beginning. Those who have been making charges that ‘chemical weapons’ were used against civilians, or the more sanitized charge, that we used WP ‘carelessly’ or ‘indiscriminately,’ with no regard for civilian life, have had their charges go without an official response for far too long.
WP is not illegal, it is not in and of itself ‘immoral,’ it is not a chemical munition, and as Gen. Pace points out, it is simply another tool that when used appropriately, is needed. The problem for critics is that ANY military behavior is de facto a ‘war crime,’ since they view the entire war illegal, and these WP charges have just been a dishonest canard used to attack the troops, the administration, and the nation.
And before you think General Pace is just another one of those dishonest Pentagon flacks, I offer you this, which Tim linked to earlier:
When UPI’s Pam Hess asked about torture by Iraqi authorities, Rumsfeld replied that “obviously, the United States does not have a responsibility” other than to voice disapproval.
But [Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace] had a different view. “It is the absolute responsibility of every U.S. service member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene, to stop it,” the general said.
Rumsfeld interjected: “I don’t think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it; it’s to report it.”
But Pace meant what he said. “If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it,” he said, firmly.
Gen. Pace is a decent man trying to do the right thing by his troops, his country, and the Iraqi people. He should be allowed to continue to do his job without having to defend against outrageous charges leveled by activists and partisans with no evidence and lots of agenda.
*** Update ***
Here is another version of the same WP/Gen. Pace story from Defenselink:
White phosphorous is a legitimate military tool, but U.S. forces have been highly judicious about using it to avoid harming civilians, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Pentagon reporters Nov. 29.
Pace defended use of the substance, which U.S. forces use primarily as a smokescreen, to mark targets or to flush enemy combatants out of protected positions. “It is well within the law of war to use those weapons as they are being used for marking and screening,” he said.
U.S. troops used limited white phosphorous munitions against legitimate targets during Operation Al Fajr in Fallujah, Iraq, last year, defense officials confirmed. However, officials refuted recent news reports that U.S. forces have used the substance as an incendiary weapon. White phosphorous can cause serious burns if it comes into contact with skin.
U.S. forces have never used white phosphorous to target innocent civilians, officials said, and have taken great pains to avoid doing so.
Just as with any other weapon, troops use a variety of factors to determine the appropriateness of using white phosphorous, explained Air Force Maj. Todd Vician, a Pentagon spokesman. These include the target vulnerability and location, available munitions, and the potential risk to civilians and friendly forces, he said.
Geek, Esq.
I agree with everything the general and you are saying. My only caveat would be to determine whether WP was in fact used in too great a concentration in Falluja–even accidentally.
Steve
From what I have seen, General Pace is a stand-up guy.
Lines
He makes some decent off-the-shelf salsa, too.
Mike S
I thought that just last week they admitted to using it as a weapon. Was I wrong?
I’m not saying it’s a chem weapon, just asking for clarification.
ape
Isn’t the problem not that the accusation went without official response but that it got one that was false, dishonest, or both?
Robbie
Using White Phosphorus may be legal…but is it moral? Does it help our image in the middle east and around the world when we use WP. We already have a tarnished image due to the Bush Administration endorsing torture and redention tactics against our enemies. Furthermore, do we really need WP to illuminate a battle field? Do we need it for Urban Warfare, when we know civilians will be around?…we have night vision goggles and a whole host of things to use in order to see our adversaries. I believe General Pace and those other smart Generals have other tools in the toolbox to use to fight this insurgency. Afterall we are spending over $400B annually for this military not including the Iraq War. We got caught with our hands in the cookie jar…no doubt about it. Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it moral or ethical. If we condemned Saddam’s use of WP then we shouldn’t be using it to fight our wars.
Partamian
General Pace is correct on all accounts. Soldiers know what they are supposed to do. It’s a big part of the Army Values – Personal Courage and integrity. You are expected to disobey an unlawful order, even if it will cause you hardship… even if it may be difficult and unpopular. We have rules, if you see something wrong you do something about it.
As far as the WP goes, we shouldn’t be indiscriminately attacking civilians anyway… so, the WP is a moot point in this case. The issue is… are we attacking civilians or not? I believe we are not. Not deliberately for sure.
I know we are trained not to. As a leader, I am expected to train my subordinates that this is not the correct course of action. I don’t want to get into the collateral damage thing, but sometime civilians are in the crossfire so to speak. It will always be this way, especially with the jerks we are fighting now. They set up their operations among civilians. We make every reasonable effort not to hurt innocent people.
We’re the good guys!
Confederate Yankee
How do you even define “too great a concentration”? It was deployed according to doctrinal usage, as it has been for over 60 years. There was absolutely nothing illegal or immoral about our use of white phosphorus in this or any other battle of this war.
As a matter of fact, the Italian “crockumentary” that started all this fuss shows in excess of 20 bodies that the film claims were burned black by white phosphorus, turned out to be a complete fabrication. Not only were these bodies not burned by white phosphorus, they showed no signs of being burned at all.
The entire documentary is a fraud, as are the arguments it generated by liberals all too willing to think of our military as heartless murderers.
They should all be ashamed.
ppGaz
Is it possible to design the Moral Model of Warfare?
Seriously.
SomeCallMeTim
A lot of us agree with you, John. Or defer to and agree with you. I’m not sure who you are fighting.
Mona
We got caught with our hands in the cookie jar…no doubt about it. Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it moral or ethical. If we condemned Saddam’s use of WP then we shouldn’t be using it to fight our wars.
Stalin had bullets put in the back of several hundred thousand heads. Just because bullets are legal doesn’t make their use moral or ethical. If we condemned Stalin’s use of bullets, then our soldiers should never use them to fight our wars.
RTO Trainer
Even in the face of no evidence to that effect?
RTO Trainer
Robbie
RTO Trainer
Robbie,
What would make it immoral?
Confederate Yankee
Uh, winning?
Partamian
Yes! Click away!
Jus in Bello
smijer
It’s good to see someone with credibility inside the Pentagon denying the rumors … although there wasn’t a direct and specific denial of WP use as an antipersonnel in civilian-populated areas. At least the fellow is concerned about it, and if it turns out that something’s being done behind his back, the fact that he spoke up will make it that much more likely that a whistleblower will be able to find him… Thanks for sharing this, JC.
Partamian
As a side note… that last link was only in regards to the subject at hand and I don’t know much about the organization that runs the site. I didn’t have time to check them out. I do feel the article gives a pretty good overview of Jus In Bello.
KC
Amen, John.
Geek, Esq.
To rephrase my earlier post, the only issue would be whether it was used inappropriately. I haven’t seen evidence to indicate that it was, but it would probably be smart to provide more detail as to how it was used.
serena1313
WP dates back to WW2 … It rains balls of fire — flaming chemicals. It clings onto anything (alive) it touches until the oxygen supply is consumed. It lasts for hours and burns humans from the inside. There is nothing that can be done. They die a slow and agonizing death.
After Viet Nam the US banned or restricted the use of incendiary weapons like WP. The 1983 International Convention banned its use against civilians. WP does not discriminate between civilians and the opposition. Although the Pentagon will not deny nor confirm whether reports of civilians were victims of WP (photos show they were) the pentagon has no intention of investigating it, no comment explaining how or what extra measures were taken to protect the civilians.
One of the crimes ascribed to Saddam was his attack on the Kurds using chemical weapons, which was WP in 1991.
Certain actions even during war-time are too inhumane. Following the “rules” of war and international treaties separate the men from the boys so to speak.
If America will not lead the world in ethical behaviour who will? When words are not supported with actions it sends a message to the rest of the world it’s okay to say one thing and do another.
Steve S
I agree. The ridiculous accusations leveled by Republicans toward Attorney General Reno, and the military regarding what happened at Waco are outrageous.
Oops…. I guess that was a Democrat, so outrageous hyperbole is ok to launch at them.
John Cole
Congrats to Steve S. for the earliest contender for ‘Red herring of the Century.’
rilkefan
Still don’t see how the two phrases above are in accord.
Al Maviva
Jesus H. Tapdancin’ Christ. I see the idiocy continues.
>>>My only caveat would be to determine whether WP was in fact used in too great a concentration in Falluja—even accidentally.
Geek, what exactly is the proper concentration under various circumstances? What if there is wind and the illum round – suspended on a parachute a couple thousand feet up – is drifting. What if we’re trying to get a certain density of smoke, and the wind shift? What if we were going to attack from the left side of the building, and we now want to storm it from the right? This is exactly the kind of inquiry that makes military people hate liberal critics of the military who lack any military experience save that which Sy Hersh relates fourth hand. The proper concentration? I dunno, ask the Sergeant who called for the fire mission who is sitting there popping his head up trying to determine if there’s enough light, and enough smoke. It’s enough to light the battlefield, enough smoke to obscure your position or your attack, or enough smoke to make the enemy have to shift his position, forcing him into the open. The notion that this kind of tactical decision can and should be subject to some level of legal review is galling beyond belief. Jeebus… maybe we should subpoena AQ before we storm the buildings. Civilian oversight of the military is one thing, activist micromanagement of combat tactics in small unit engagements is something so entirely different that this critique reads like a Beckett play – an absurdist masterpiece.
And Robbie, you in contrast, deserve congrats. Really. I didn’t know you could pile bad ideas that high in a single place. It’s like a 100 foot high house of cards. Impressive. If you are doing this sarcastically, I’m impressed, you could write for the Onion, or for the NY Times Op Ed page. In order:
>>Using White Phosphorus may be legal…but is it moral?
Gee, I dunno. Killing people in war may be legal, but is it moral? You ought to stick to drinking the bong water pal, with that level of sophisticated moral debate. Hey, don’t you have finals to study for?
>>>Furthermore, do we really need WP to illuminate a battle field? Do we need it for Urban Warfare, when we know civilians will be around?…we have night vision goggles and a whole host of things to use in order to see our adversaries.
Ever looked through a set of NVGS? It’s like looking down a straw, with green tint on it. It’s hard to drive in them, hard to fly in them, hard to call fire in them, and hard to spot enemy movement, unless you are looking at the right spot. Moreover, NVGs don’t surprise and blind the enemy when you are looking to attack them.
>>If we condemned Saddam’s use of WP then we shouldn’t be using it to fight our wars.
When a raw intelligence report relays the words of a source characterizing a conventional weapon as a chemical weapon, it doesn’t mean the U.S. government is characterizing it as a chemical weapon. It means that the source did, and to report otherwise would be to rig the intelligence.
And Serena, WP doesn’t rain “balls of fire.” When it burns – often in a little canister below a parachute – it drips hot ash and little burning bits, and actually drips very little of it considering the massive distance that an illum mission will actually light. It looks really spectacular at night on a film, just like it’s in your livingroom, but then again, so do July 4th Fireworks, and last time I checked, they weren’t illegal or immoral, or a particular threat to burn up the neighborhood. And one other thing. You say,
>>>Certain actions even during war-time are too inhumane. Following the “rules” of war and international treaties separate the men from the boys so to speak.
I agree with you, Serena. We should have the boys stand up at 8:00 AM, and charge into Fallujah. They should rush the buildings occupied by AQ, kick the doors open, then bayonet every fucker in there to death, or just butt stroke them into comas, old school style, like proper gentlemen. Then stop for a spot of tea, and perhaps a bit of football for the lads. Anything less just isn’t cricket.
Robbie
There is a moral model of warfare. The Geneva Conventions alludes to that. We tried, convicted and hanged members of the Nazi Regime for committing crimes against humanity, for commencing wars of aggression and their use of the Nazi war machinery against civilians. We did the same thing to the Japanese military after the war for how they used their war machine in the Far East.
We are supposed to be a nation of high principles, morals and values…just because we can use WP, should we? Using WP on a battlefield with a FEBA or FLOT is one thing…we should be more judicious/careful using it in an Urban environment due to the fact that civilians are around.
Furthermore to the genius who made the silly Stalin bullet analogy…the immorality wasn’t the use of the bullets…the immorality or crime was the cold blooded and cowardly execution style murder of unarmed prisoners be they soldiers or civilians..something that most US citizens find to be morally reprehensible and something our own Government doesn’t endorse…Remember this, “after the war, we have to win the peace” Using WP in Iraq combined with the stupidity at Abu Ghraib will make winning the peace that much harder in Iraq. Just because doing an act is legal doesn’t make it moral or wise to do…morality is in the eyes of the beholder…I’m sure the Iraqis don’t believe we were acting legally or morally when we used WP in Fallujah.
RTO Trainer
Why would you expect that? There is nothing wrong with using WP as an antipersonnel munition in civilian poluated areas so long as the reasonable care required by our doctrine was followed.
RTO Trainer
No.
It rains fine particles of buring material that will burn what it comes in to direct contact with. It doesn’t cling and one of the treatment steps is to turn teh victim so that the wp pieces will fall off and away from the body. It burns for about 60 to 90 seconds. I burns surface contacts, though it can burn deeply it still won’t burn from the inside.
RTO Trainer
Note that the part of the fist statement that you emphasised is a BBC praphrase and not GEN Pace’s quote. That’s the biggest part of the disconnect.
Easily illustrated in that WP is not used for illumination. While it does burn brightly, it burns too briefly to be much use in that respect.
RTO Trainer
Why do you insist that we aren’t as judicious and careful is is possible to be?
Retief
Gen. Pace is absolutely right but his response is odd in one way. Like rilkefan said, “It is not a chemical weapon. It is an incendiary. And it is well within the law of war to use those weapons as they’re being used, for marking and for screening,” doesn’t cover the Shake & Bake that we’ve been hearing about. Even though that use, as RTO Trainer points out, is well within US doctrine. He then gives us some good “war means fighting & fighting means killing” stuff, but why muddy the waters with the marking and screening comment?
Steve S
What? You think it’s fine to slander our Law Enforcement Officers by accusing them of war crimes?
Oh, I’m sorry… I’m starting to sound like a wingnut.
This whole thing has just been laughable from the start.
Capt B
Firstly, great blog. I’ll tell ya what,Im here NOW in Iraq and if I have to use WP, believe me its going down range. With your fellow Americans being killed by cruel weapons here indiscriminately and used against their own Iraqi civilians our tactics and uses back during the Fallujah battle were right on. 99% of civilians were out of Fallujah. The point of using WP against civilians is off the mark. Young Marines and Soldiers battle day to day here using very careful and controlled combat techniques that are conducted with discipline. The fact of an IED exploding covering my Marines with oil and attempting to burn them to near death and cause other Marines mental wounds to discourage them from fighting is the injustice but you don’t hear of that skylined. We used WP correctly and legally. Using WP incorrectly would be like accusing the Marine that shot the unarmed insurgent a second time when he made a move towards the Marine and was filmed. I thank god that our weapon systems are as they are and allow us to act as surgeons removing a cancer and not harming others in the process.
Mr Furious
You got a source for that? And I don’t mean Newsmax or LGF. Seriously, I may have missed it, if this is widely known to be true, I’d like to read it somewhere other than from a random commenter.
nittacci
You could use the same argument to say that any weapon no matter how horrific, is fair to use if it kills bad guys. It’s not a chemical munition, but it’s a chemical, used as a munition. And torture is really just extra-exhuberant interrogation. If WP was used in this way against our guys, we’d be condemning it as an act of barbarism. Hell, if it was used against any country friendly to us, it would be terrorism.
Geek, Esq.
Look, it wasn’t dilettantes who came up with the principle of proportionality. And it wasn’t hippies who determined that incendiaries are inappropriate for use near large concentrations of civilians. Your beef is with the people who have made and negotiated the law of warfare, not liberals.
nittacci
“Is it possible to design the Moral Model of Warfare?”
By condemning terrorism, we are trying to establish what is moral in warfare and what is not. We say that combatants are supposed to wear uniforms. That they are expected to leave civilians out of it.
By the current definitions, the Confederate raiders in Kansas and other plains states would clearly be considered terrorists, but there are statues of them in town squares.
Jason Van Steenwyk
Nobody yet has addressed my assertion that the use of WP saves lives and reduces collateral damage. You guys are continuing the argument using the same discredited talking points, as if my argument (and General Pace’s, now, I might add) did not exist.
Why should we use a highly lethal, highly destructive HE round when better results can be obtained with a much less destructive WP round, particularly at night?
Why would banning WP NOT result in greater casualties among noncombatants?
Gray
“The military is FINALLY defending itself in regards to WP:”
You pretend that you don’t know that the DoD defended the use of WP before, but that they had to retract their statement because it was proven to be untrue? A new level of spin…
Bill Hicks
I sort of agree with Steve S. The only reason earlier posts by John Cole about WP generated so much feces flinging was that John accused folks who said the US used WP illegally in Fallujah of “slandering the troops”. The folks making the illegal WP comments said they were not pointing the finger at the troops but at the commanders, Rumsfeld, and Bush who would have had to authorize the use of WP in a way that is illegal/not previously authorized such as use against civilians. There was a little bit of interesting debate about whether under certain situations WP might be a chemical weapon but most commenters agreed WP was not chemical.
So John, do you still agree that the folks who made these claims were anti-troops even when they claimed they were anti-Bush?
Confederate Yankee
I have several sources for that particualr claim, all neatly tied up here:
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/135550.php
Instead of relying on journalists in the media relying on journalists and PR flacks in the military, I worked directly with real experts on my articles.
In this case, my military expert was an honor’s graduate of the U.S. Marine Corps Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Warfare Defense School who saw evidence of Saddam’s chemical weapons in the 1991 Gulf War firsthand (another story for another time), and one of George Monibot’s sources, Chris Milroy, professor of forensic pathology at the University of Sheffield (England), who flatly states these bodies were not burned at all.
When you deal with real experts auch as Captain (later Major) Holcomb and Doctor Milroy instead of public relations people, they tend to cut through the bull very quickly.
Of course, they are just my sources for this particular article. I’ve also worked with five other active duty and retired career military oficers in my other articles on the subject.
The information was out there all along, all the media had to do was ask the right people. It’s sad when blogs have to do the job of gathering the facts that the media just isn’t interested in pursuing.
rilkefan
RTO:
Ok, so from above again:
Either I’m hopelessly confused, General Pace needs a crash course in clarity on touchy topics, or “Shake ‘n bake” isn’t accepted procedure.
Bill Hicks
One other thought related to my previous post. John Cole has been fairly vocal about how the abuse of detainees in Iraq is driven by the folks at the top. The troops are largely pawns that were encouraged or directed to abuse detainees. I agree with this. What I don’t understand is that if WP were used illegally (please note the use of were instead of was, I am not claiming anything illegal happened with WP in Fallujah), why is it inappropriate to point the finger at the top realizing that the troops follow orders and are simply trying to do the best job possible?
BumperStickerist
Well, I’m with Geek and Rike on this one.
Using WP *to flush out enemy combatants* and then kill them with HE sounds like it’s WP used as an anti-personnel ordnance. Which I’m okay with, btw.
But that’s not what Gen. Pace said.
A back issue of Field Artillery magazine had an article by a JAG officer that makes a point that you can use WP in accordance with the Laws of War so long as it doesn’t cause ‘undue suffering’.
Which the HE round would take care of.
What’s clear, though, is that the US didn’t drop a crap load of WP indiscriminately on Fallujah.
.
John Cole
Using any weapon against civilians is illegal, even if they have this extra special permission from Bush/Rumsfeld (a line of crap that is particularly amusing).
Claiming our soldiers used WP against civilians is a smear, any way you try to weasel out or around the charge.
Al Maviva
Geek, the call to use WP or not is made typically by a Sergeant or a Lieutenant, maybe a captain. On rare occasions, a battalion commander might make the call. This isn’t a big deal like torture, or decisions to go to war, or to carpet bomb Dresden. Troops carry WP grenades on their hips, in little launchers on tanks and tracks and hummers. Mortar crew have a basic load of maybe 1 in 5 shells of WP – I don’t know I wasn’t 11M. Every third or fifth machine gun projectile is coated with it. The proper concentration? If that is a question, then you have to worry about the number of machine gun projectiles going down range, the grunts popping smoke, etc.
How ’bout this – when I was a buck sergeant in GW I, we popped smoke from an M-113 – that’s right, we deployed WP rounds right at the enemy – to cover our movement. War crime? Immoral? How do you subject that decision made in the heat of the moment to legal review? Jeeezus. Using WP is about like using a jacknife to open an MRE. It is what soldiers do, and if they didn’t do it, they’d illum the battlefield with sequential rounds of High Explosive, which is much more deadly then WP, especially to civilians, and much less effective at lighting the battlefield or providing smoke for cover. Not to mention the “danger close” casualties it causes, so it’s much more dangerous to our own troops. If it has come down to this, that people really think that a decision to call for 6 rounds of illum, versus 12, is subject to legal review ex post facto to determine if it is of “proper density”, then we should quit the military business and just resign ourselves to getting attacked by people, because we are in essence too stupid to live. Might as well have troops fill out a NEPA statement and Clean Water Act filings before they take a piss in a slit trench.
Please pardon my incredulous tone, but I can’t believe something as trivial as WP use in a city where civilians were directed to, and mostly did, evacuate, has become the subject of so much moral outrage, and that otherwise intelligent people are taking up the cudgels here.
And no, you couldn’t achieve a nice even brown roasted color on people by using WP, it would take a density that could not be achieved on a battlefield. First off, the flesh would be gone entirely, not a little cooked – if the WP actually was burning the flesh, it would take it off, it burns at a very high temp. Second, it would be a splattery burn, not a nice basted brown.
Bill Hicks
Great argument John so I will respond in kind; no it is not a smear against the troops. I never made any claims but I defend the people who did. They were not trying to smear the troops and did not even indirectly smear the troops. Why are you not smearing the troops by pointing out that the responsibility for the abuses of detainees in Iraq should primarily rest at the top? Seriously, how is your behavior different?
Steve S
What if WP was used in a random fashion which could have hit civilians?
That seems to be the claim made here. That’s certainly what the Italian documentary alluded to, even if I do question it’s sources of information.
And I’ve said this before. It doesn’t matter what you think, or what I think, or what anybody at the most radical leftist or rightist blog thinks. It only matters what the people sitting on the ground in Iraq today think.
If they believe the US used weaponry in Fallujah in a random manner, then really no amount of factual information is going to change that impression.
Again, I bring up Waco or Vince Foster, or Whitewater. Any number of Clinton “scandals”. They were investigated thoroughly, and when the facts didn’t match what the Republican wingnuts believed, they accused the investigators of trying to cover up.
Humans are the same all over this world. If they’re capable of believing irrational crap in the US… then I’m pretty sure they can in Iraq too.
The only way to confront that, is to not be there to begin with. Or to have a damned good reason behind what you are doing. Both of which are the fundamental failures of our Iraqi policy.
RTO Trainer
Analysis of civilian fatality figures.
To my mind it’s suffers from some steep generalizations, but the overall idea is meritous.
RTO Trainer
We never have.
Confederate Yankee
A quick explanation of “shake and bake”:
WP is fired as close as possible at an enemy position.
The enemy, knowing the primary use of WP is as a screening agent, panic, thinking they are about to be overrun by heavily armed and armored U.S. Marines.
The enemy, unable to see, fearing an attack, panics, and breaks from their fixed positions.
Mortar and artillery fire aimed just to the rear of the enemy position then catches the panicking enemy exposed as they flee, in the open, with airbursting high explosive fragmentation rounds.
WP as the article states, is a potent PSYCHOLOGICAL weapon.
It was. It scared the terrorists in Fallujahg to their deaths.
RTO Trainer
Which, as a Native Kansan, I find execrable. Arkansas named a university after John Brown, the US proto-terrorist.
RTO Trainer
That wasn’t the DoD. One of the reasons they go it wrong.
Jason Van Steenwyk
Actually, WP is used against US troops with some regularity. It’s not unusual for US troops to get mortared, or encounter an IED made from a White Phosphorus round.
Personally, I wish to God they would use nothing but WP rounds. It would be a much safer battlefield for us.
RTO Trainer
…no matter how many times it’s been explained that it doesn’t work that way.
RTO Trainer
If those are the choices, then GEN Pace needs the cource on clarity.
I’ll look to see if there is a transcript. I’d bet cash right now that it is addressed more clearly but that statement simply wasn’t quoted.
RTO Trainer
Then there would be a problem and those soldiers who did it would bear the responsibility.
Bill Hicks
Abusing/torturing detainees is also illegal yet it appears to have been authorized at the top and carried out at the bottom. John, You smeared the troops by pointing out that the responsibility for detainee abuse should be primarily directed at the top!
John Cole
RTO- see the updated story from defenselink.
RTO Trainer
Follow the link in John’s OP.
See the photo on teh BBC page? Read the caption.
They are wrong. The same image is used in the RAI24 documentary.
What this photo actually depicts is the backblast from rockets launched by a slow moving helicopter.
Note the 4 puffs at the top of the photo. Those are the launch points. The streamers are spent propellant falling from those points. The propellant produces mostly smoke and light, but not much heat. Chances of secondary fires from these embers are not zero, but are small.
The helicopter is not visible because it is a nightime photo.
An airburst WP munition owuld depict a much larger origination point and descending smoking trails that are larger, heavier and omnidirectional, not arcing down in one general direction.
A groundburst WP munition would look much the same but would be blowing upward arcing down radially rather than simply downward.
RTO Trainer
What makes it appear that way?
RTO Trainer
I’d loose some money. From teh Defeselink transcript:
Q Mr. Secretary, in its lead editorial this morning, The New York Times takes issue with you and the Bush administration for the way the United States is waging this war, and particularly —
SEC. RUMSFELD: They have done that almost every day since it started. We’re not going to hang our hats on that, a New York Times editorial! My goodness, Ivan!
Q (Off mike) — in particular —
SEC. RUMSFELD: I’m stunned! (Laughter.)
Q Well — only because we’re both familiar with the newspaper.
But in its final paragraph or so, it takes particular issue with the use of white phosphorus in urban areas. And based on what we have learned so far, have you banned the use of “Willy Pete” or are you considering banning it? Or will it continue to be used?
SEC. RUMSFELD: General Pace.
GEN. PACE: White phosphorus is a legitimate tool of the military. It is used for two primary purposes. One is to mark a location for strike by an aircraft, for example. The other is to be used — because it does create white smoke — to be used as a screening agent so that you can move your forces without being seen by the enemy.
It is not a chemical weapon, it is an incendiary (sic) [It is not an incendiary weapon as defined by the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons], and it is well within the law of war to use those weapons as they are being used for marking and for screening.
Q But you and I have both seen the results of “Willy Pete” in Vietnam. And when it’s on the skin, it doesn’t stop burning until it goes all the way through or runs out of oxygen. It’s a pretty tough weapon. Do you want to use it in urban areas such as Fallujah?
GEN. PACE: No armed force in the world goes to greater effort than your armed force to protect civilians and to be very precise in the way we apply our power. A bullet goes through skin even faster than white phosphorus does. So I would rather have the proper instrument applied at the proper time as precisely as possible to get the job done in a way that kills as many of the bad guys as possible and does as little collateral damage as possible. That is just the nature of warfare.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Let’s see if there’s a New York Times editorial quoting General Pace tomorrow. Unlikely.
Bill Hicks
RTO, what makes it appear that way? Well I’ll let John Cole defend me on this one. Quotes from previous posts about Abu Ghraib:
“I simply find it hard to believe that others higher up in the chain of command were not in theknow. It just defies my own personal experiences.”
“Many of you have stated that you think this is nothing more than the Nuremberg defense, and that the lower level soldiers are the only problem. I am not buying it.”
“We know (roughly) what abuse happened, and while I disagree with the fact that only a few low level enlisted personnel (and one Guard Colonel) have been punished, I see no reason to flood the airwaves with another round of pictures. It can wait until after the prosecutions that are under way are complete.”
Want more?
rilkefan
RTO:
Do you then agree that the confusion/suspicion on the part of us non-military types is reasonable? I thought we had all agreed to call WP an incendiary, and the quote above quibbles. Pace seems quite clear. I hate to be wrong, and I hate worse to be wrong when given sufficient data to be right, but the other guy needs to get his story consistent.
RTO Trainer
Depending on what is being suspected, sure.
I’ve stated tit palintly enough and so have nay others, teh stuff was used.
This could easilly be a case wehre GEN Pace simply hadn’t had the use anit-personnel of WP specifically confirmed and didn’t want to say it was when it hadn’t or vice versa. Dunno. Possible.
My boss has to make mealy mouthed statements to his boss sometimes until he comes and asks me specifics too.
And maybe he simply wasn’t clear. Ascribing motive seems beyond the pale when there is plenty or room for other explanation.
RTO Trainer
Bill, a Brig. General also took it in the chops.
I acribe some responsibility higher than that, but only indirectly. ther was a change in teh empahis on how teh standards applied in DoD during this timeframe. The standards were lowered and the emphasis was wrongly placed on the detainees not being covered by the Geneva Conventions (i.e, not POWs).
However, nothing in DoD policy before, during or since allowed what went on or made it correct, proper, condoned…, it was illegal and it is illegal. The change, possibly, created an environmet of confusion. Or an environment where confusion could be exploited.
Proper emphasis on the UCMJ has been reinstated. Specifically this applies the provisions of the Third General Article of the Geneva Conventions to all detainees (despite the CG not expressly applying to them in its own right, and this what make the GC “quaint” it doenst envison this kind of conflict and creates no standards for their conduct) just as the UCMJ always had and did even in the period of the abuses at Abu Ghraib.
Obviously this is the case or they could not prosecute the offenders at all.
Confederate Yankee
Negative. You are most likely looking at exactly two 155mm M825A1 white phosphorus shells, or a similar munition from 105mm howitzers. That is all they show in the Rai documentary. Like many other aspects of this film, the “helicopter” attack is a fake.
Anyone who also reviews the film with a critical eyes will notice Ranucci uses the exact same shot of these two M825A1 (or equivilent) rounds at a distance twice, and then they show a cropped and zoomed version of the same film twice more.
You will also note the film they show of the two rounds is of open landscape, not of the dense urban battlefield that was Fallujah. I’m guessing it is film of another battle entirely, or even training footage, but the lack of buildings in an urban battlescape is, to say the least, highly suspect.
Steve S
Or Obviously these grunts are taking the fall for bad leadership.
No offense, but if Abu Ghraib had simply been a failure of discipline we wouldn’t have 14 million rabid Republicans defending it as proper treatment of prisoners.
NOTR
You can view the Italian documentary that started all this by using the link I provided in my post in my blog entry: http://rofasix.blogspot.com/2005/11/pushing-lie-of-chemical-warfare-in.html
HamsterHuey
Some are fixating on “shake and bake”. “Shake and bake” refers to hitting POL sites with HE rounds to rupture fuel containers, and then lobbing WP or more HE into the spill to set it on fire.
It doesn’t refer to “shaking babies out of buildings” and then “baking them with WP”. As long as you aren’t conducting environmental warfare, and you are attacking a legitimate target, then it’s legal, by the Int’l Law of War and the GC.
Proportionality refers to the mass effects in response to attacks. Destroying a village because someone killed one of your troops. You can use a 500 pound bomb to kill one person. Sort of wasteful, but not illegal. We could send a Marine through a door and have him get shot, or we could blow a hole in the side of the building with a TOW. The misconception of proportionality would make the latter illegal.
Also, NVGs work off ambient light. It’s a common practice to use illumination rounds (either from 203 or mortar illumes or “WP on the deck” from artillery) to enhance the ambient light.
cranky
Shake and bake, going back to Vietnam, (my era) refers to napalm not WP.
You are right John, that it is about time the military stood up for itself and refuted statements of the uninformed non-uniformed ‘experts,’ incorrect stories, and/or outright falsehoods. We are winning militarily in Iraq but badly losing the propaganda war.
demimondian
Most don’t any more. LAG’s do, but most NVG systems today use FLIR, which is not only not assisted by WP, but actually impaired by WP.
RTO Trainer
And this what happens when commenting out of one’s lane.
Thanks for the correction.
Jack
During World war II, American and British bombers dropped WP bombs on Dresden and Hamburg (those are German cities, for all of you college kids) during the fire storm raids in 1944, when hundreds of thousands of German civilians were killed. It was used again in Korea and in Vietnam. War is a brutal business, and the primary objective in any war is to destroy the enemy’s will to resist. As bad as WP may seem to the touchy-feely crowd, it will not kill you any more or any faster than a 500 pound bomb or a 50-caliber machine gun bullet.
TBone
In reference to a comment concerning Night Vision Goggles and the need for ambient light, demimondian said:
Have you worn a pair of NVG’s lately? Ever look through a pair of PVS-7’s, ANVS, or any of the other personal NVG systems? There is no FLIR on any of the goggles I wear. Aviation NVGs are probably the best ones out there and they only give you a 40 degree field of vision, and best visual acuity of about 20/40 if you’re lucky. On dark nights you can’t see worth a damn with them. Additional light will overload the goggles if you are close and look directly at it, but it sure helps you to see when it is gently floating down towards the bad guy who is hiding in the shadows.
Get your facts straight before you run your pie hole. That is the problem with most of the armchair-pundits making comments in here. You parrot someone else’s bullshit, but really don’t have a clue. Watch, look, and learn; then shut the hell up until you know the facts.
Al Maviva
Yeah, I saw that T-Bone. FLIR… Forward-Looking InfraRed? Funny. Last time I checked, only recon airframes mounted FLIR. And last time I checked, NVGs/NODs operated off ambient light, meaning you need a little light. Around the time I got out, they had just come out with circuits that would cut off the NODs for a second if there was a blast of light, to protect your eyes and to protect your goggles, thereby allowing the use of flashbangs and such in tactical assaults in urbain terrain environments.
That comment about infrared. Funny. If the “expert” who says NODs operate using IR had ever looked at an IR source *through* a pair of NODS, he’d know that it looks like an enormous bonfire. Given that the enemy is able to come up with at least older generation NODS, using infrared on the battlefield would be very, very unsafe for U.S. forces, the equivalent of standing up and waving around a flashlight. The really old NODS systems, pre-Starlight Scope, did use an IR spotlight. But we’re talking Korean war vintage equipment.
demimondian
Al, T-Bone–I was careful: some systems do use light amplification. Most versions do not. FLIR systems are deployed to infantry, although, as you say, many are airframe-borne, due to technology limitations.
Here’s a thought for you for future reference. Be really careful about calling somebody an “armchair expert”. You will be right, of course, because the real experts can’t talk. You would do a lot better to read carefully, and respond politely; there have been arguments here where I’ve read you make blanket misstatements about ordnance, equipment, or tactics in areas where I am an expert. I can’t refute you in those areas, precisely because I know what I’m talking about. In those cases, you’ve abused your status as soldiers to tell lies. Those lies will not be refuted, because the people who know enough to refute them will not become involved, or, if involved, won’t divulge the secrets with which they’re entrusted. Is that what you wanted to do?
You should make a point of reminding yourselves, if not other people, that when it comes to classified material, the ones who know, don’t talk, and the ones who talk, don’t know. If you’re talking, then you’d better be just as much an armchair expert as any moonbat or yellow elephant who’s never seen combat.
Al Maviva
Fine Demi. You have me there. You have secret knowledge, that nobody else can share, that proves I’m a dishonest liar. And dishonorable to boot. Well, who can argue with that?
I’ll be happy to stand by the truth as I know it based on my experiences as a soldier. I am aware of the fact that one soldier’s knowledge of the battlefield is imperfect, as if viewing an elephant through a straw. But it’s still a much more accurate view of the elephant than the third hand rumors based on a biased account from a guy who knew a guy who maybe saw an elephant once, or then again it may have been a duck.
Fine, call me dishonorable, whatever. One thing I wondered about though, Oh Mr. Strong and Silent and Knowledgeable One, you say
>>>>You should make a point of reminding yourselves, if not other people, that when it comes to classified material, the ones who know, don’t talk, and the ones who talk, don’t know
Are you referring to Joe Wilson, Richard Clarke, and Michael Scheuer here? Or to Jason van Steenwyk, Lt. Smash, and Colby Buzzell?
And are you saying that the generic discussion of the capabilities of our defense systems, based on open source materials, constitutes the disclosure of classified information?
TBone
demimondian,
I’ll start out by apologizing for the tone of my post. I get tired of hearing folks pretend to be experts about subjects they have no experience or knowledge of. I get frustrated I suppose. Did your feelings get hurt a little?
In your post you said:
What? Is that why you mischaracterized information about NVGs? Because you can’t talk about it? The “real experts” can’t confirm or deny certain information because it is classified and/or sensitive. However, some information in the public domain can be discussed. The NVGs we use aren’t classified, so if I made any deliberate security compromise, make sure you let me know so I can correct myself in the future. I’m certain I haven’t said anything that was not easily accessible in the open source.
Lastly, I don’t claim to be an “expert” on many things, but I challenge you to show me where I made “blanket misstatements about ordnance, equipment, or tactics” in my posts. I use the ordnance and equipment on the battlefield. I see the tactics in action. If I talk about any of those subjects, my statements represent my experience and subjective opinion. If I misrepresent something, please make sure to correct me with facts.
I suppose you aren’t tactical because you haven’t worn NVGs any time recently. What are you? An intel analyst? SCI TK/G/H ORCON SAP SPECAT shave and a haircut two-bits…so what? Looking at a computer all day doesn’t make anyone an expert on all ordnance, equipment, or tactics. So don’t get bent out of shape if someone calls you an armchair expert…be proud.
demimondian
Well, you certainly can’t with your accuracy, can you? And, you know what? That isn’t fair. I know what I know, I can’t tell you what I know, and I’ve going to ask you to trust that. You can choose to do so or not.
On the other hand, it doesn’t prove anything, and, even if it did, it wouldn’t prove you’re a liar. It merely asserts that you’re wrong. Is it dishonorable to present yourself as an expert in a case where you are not? Certainly not usually, but, given that you are taking a position of special authority as a soldier, maybe it does in this case. What do you think?
At the end of the day, “Generic discussion based on open source materials” is not illegal in this coutry — that’s what you fight for, and what I worked and work on so that others could and can fight for. What I want you to remember is that you are engaging in generic disussion, and that when you do so, you’re an armchair expert. There’s a lot you *don’t* know, and some of us do, sometimes.
If you go around throwing out military acronyms, great. Cool. I know you’ve been on the ground. You’re for real. Awesome. You’ve seen it. It’s tough, and because I can’t serve, I can’t know how tough. I accept that, and I don’t talk about combat conditions, per se, because I don’t know them.
I’m hoping that you won’t try to use that knowledge and experience to intimidate people unless you are dead sure (that is, you’d bet a teammate’s life on) what you’re saying. You’ll intimidate the non-experts, and the experts will stay quiet. That isn’t what you want to do.
demimondian
Shit. John, I hate your f-cking editor!
That’s not what I meant to say. What I mean to type was “Well, you certainly can’t argue with its accuracy, can you?” My point is: you don’t know what I claim to know, you don’t know where I claim you’re wrong, and so you can’t argue that whatever I think you’re wrong about is, in fact, right. I was setting up for the next sentence: that’s not fair.
Cecil Turner
I’m not sure what’s the latest and greatest, but surely most NVGs are light amplification (though they’re now better than T-Bone described . . . ANVIS-9 are 20/25 on a bad day). I’ve used targeting FLIRs and navigation FLIRs in aircraft, and “thermal sights” (on laser designators, TOWs, and tank sights), which I guess are a type of FLIR. I’ve heard of improved versions the SOC guys were using, and I see advertisements for small thermals, which suggests there are some nice new sexier versions out there . . . perhaps that’s the issue.
Al Maviva
From open sources I just looked up:
On the merits: first off, I will note that FLIR is used on standoff weapons, such as the Apache: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/apache/ which can strike from safely outside of small arms range. This is not a piece of infantry equipment, though sometimes they land among infantry troops or infantry troops occasionally drive by them in rear areas.
Second, IR is not used as a lighting source in general in the tactical area. The most prevalent tactical systems available to the infantry and armor are “passive” NODs that magnify ambient light. For example, the PVS-7, characterized by its manufacturer as a “starlight system. http://www.imaging1.com/nightvision/AN_PVS.html. Yes, it does have an IR lamp, as do the “blackout lights” on many tactical vehicles. However, IR light sources on the battlefield are a no-no for deployed infantry, since anybody else with any kind of NOD – whether it is an IR-based goggle or a starlight system – will immediately spot the light source. The IR lamp on the goggles is touted as being suitable for “map reading or other closeup work.” I have looked at even modest IR sources through a number of systems, including looking at the modest IR sources on existing goggles and blackout lights, and it looks like a globe of light emanating from the source. Since older generation NODs are widely available it would be incredibly foolish to try to rely on IR to provide tactical lighting; the enemy would catch on to it quite easily with even third rate old mil surplus NODs.
Third, I will note that FLIR sometimes is attached to other systems, such as thermal imaging systems. Again, not classified, I looked it up on the web and the manufacturer has details posted. And once again, it’s like lighting the IR systems on military vehicles, if you want to remain unseen, you do not use the white lights or the IR blackout lights in the tactical area. It is simply asking to be shot at. There is precisely one set of goggles made with FLIR; they are not in active military use (except perhaps maybe if some commander has used local purchase authority) and again, the system is part of a passive thermal imaging system, and not suitable for main battle, due to IR emanations. While there is such a thing as a FLIR scope that might currently be in military service, it is a rather large thing and suitable for use in extreme weather conditions (i.e. sandstorm) and not for use by each of the grunts looking at a target. The manufacturer claims it is not suitable for battle use, but is useful for special ops and for securing facilities. Again, the problem with this and with all other NODs systems, is that it is like looking down a pipe, wide area surveillance is not feasible, and you can’t exactly run or lowcrawl while looking through the damn thing.
Fourth, and hopefully finally, here is GlobalSecurity.org’s writeup on the most common artillery WP projectile. Please note the “rain of fire” alluded to by another commenter consists of 116 pieces of felt impregnated with 12 pounds of WP.
I was no artilleryman but that is the stuff I remember seeing fired. Was I lying to say that when the stuff airbursts, burning bits that look spectacular but don’t burn a whole lot drop off? Was I revealing classified to discuss how this works? Or was current artillery officer Jason van Steenwyk (“Jason”) doing so?
I guess I do have a fifth point to make. Is it possible that people who have “been there” get upset at inaccuracies, and try to correct them to the best of their ability, even if their knowledge is flawed and restricted by the scope of their experiences and technical expertise? I post here because, believe it or not, I am trying to inject some rationality into some of these discussions, and believe it or not I like John and some other folks who hang out here. I don’t look down on people who haven’t been there, y’all are fellow Americans, and if there’s nothing clear from the past five years it’s that we need to think of ourselves more as a pack than as a herd. But I do look down on people who haven’t, who make claims that I know to be false even based on my own limited experience and perspectivally flawed viewpoint. We have a duty to learn, and if somebody is wrong on a point of consequence we have a duty to step up to correct them. Bring facts strong enough to refute mine and I’m cool with it. And I apologize if my tone is heated, as usual, the people at the far ends of any argument tend to set the tone, unfortunately.
demimondian
Not only is it possible, it’s what I think to be true. I wouldn’t bother to say anything if I thought you were just a blowhard, would I?
The problem is that my hands are tied. You have the right of free speech. I don’t, any more. I signed it away on a Monday morning back in the early nineties, and I’ll never get it back. That’s ok — I knew what I was doing when I did it, and…well, hell, I was a grown up. If I were a FLIR expert…I wouldn’t be able to say anything about what you posted.
Think about it. Let’s suppose A is an expert on X, where X is the basis of a weapons or sensor system that’s deployed right now. A would not only know how X works, but what the limitations on X are. If he was worth his salt, A would know how to *defeat* systems that use X. Do you want him to post that? Hell, no!
Problem is, it’s far too easy to start down the path of a friendly conversation, and wind up saying something which makes you think “Oh, holy shit! That was bad.” We’ve all done it, and people who do classified work are no different. That means that we shut up when a discussion verges on territory where we might, just in some vague way, have privileged knowledge. (Or we change the subject, if we want to continue participating.)
Trust me, I understand the frustration you feel, although for different reasons. Think about how often I read a comment and think “Oh, bullshit! That’s not how works!” Unlike you, I don’t even have the release of going to the web, or to _Jane’s Defense Leak-ly_ and finding evidence. I have to sit on my hands.
RTO Trainer
AN/PVS-14s (which we have now) are passive IR devices. They have a weak IR LED for “close in work like map reading” but you still have to get under a poncho. The LED can also be used for signalling or IFF if you are very quick and precise about it.
Land Warrior
Robbie,
Your a pussy!
Land Warrior
Hmmmm. “Too great of concentration”…..Maybe we should apply a high concentration of uranium next. Oh and Robbie, and Geneva is a whore.
Land Warrior
How about seeing through the side of a cargo trucks walls and finding a terrorist hiding among the cargo? I bet that dude was surprised when he was pulled out by his kafiya!
“Bailif, Wack his pee pee!”
Land Warrior
Where were your morals when the terrorist were cutting off the heads of civilians? Let’s see, using a weapon of war against a deeply entrenched enemy with fanatical beliefs that would cut the head off of any american, military or civilian, without the fear of MORAL PERSECUTION. I see that as justice done.
“Good men sleep peacibly at night because brave men are willing to do violence on there part.”