Times Set To Question Story Of U.S. Using Phosphorous In Iraq, Officials Scrambling

[Gold9472]

Times set to question story of U.S. using phosphorous in Iraq

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Times_set_to_question_story_of_1120.html

11/20/2005

The New York Times has slotted a story for Monday editions regarding an Italian documentary broadcast earlier this month which alleged the U.S. military had used white phosphorous in Iraq, killing numerous civilians, RAW STORY has learned.

The story will question the documentary's claims and probe the Pentagon's response to the allegations. Editors have decided not to run the story on the front page.

White phosphorous is an incendiary weapon sometimes used for battlefield lighting which causes severe external and internal burns on human targets. The U.S. has since admitted using the substance, which it says is employed for illumination; the British say they used it to create smokescreens.

The Times article is likely to kindle debate among the online liberal community which has trumpeted the reports. It comes just on the heels of a report in the UK Telegraph which revealed that a British colonel had trained his troops in using the grenade to "smoke out" insurgents.

"The star of the show was the new grenade which had only been on issue since the previous summer," Col. Tim Collins wrote in his autobiography. "It absolutely trashed the inside of the room it was put into."

"I directed the men to use them where possible with white phosphorus, as the noxious smoke and heat had the effect of drawing out any enemy from cover, while the fragmentation grenade would shred them," he added.

The paper says Collins' book "contradicts claims by the Ministry of Defence that the chemical was only ever used to create a smokescreen."

The Times identifies that white phosphorous is not a chemical weapon, an inaccuracy in the film. Deployed from a grenade, white phosphorous burns for about a minute at a temperature of 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit, casting a cloud of heavy smoke.

The Italian documentary showed Iraqi civilians with gruesome burns and made comparisons to America's use of napalm during the Vietnam war.

"The half-hour film was riddled with errors and exaggerations, according to U.S. officials and some independent military experts," the Times is to report.

But the State Department and Pentagon have so bungled their response "that the charges have produced dozens of stories in foreign media and on the Web suggesting that the Americans used banned weapons and tried to cover it up."

[Partridge]

Defense of Phosphorus Use Turns Into Damage Control

By SCOTT SHANE (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=SCOTT%20SHANE&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=SCOTT%20SHANE&inline=nyt-per)
Published: November 21, 2005
WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 - On Nov. 8, Italian public television showed a documentary renewing persistent charges that the United States had used white phosphorus rounds, incendiary munitions that the film incorrectly called chemical weapons, against Iraqis in Falluja last year. Many civilians died of burns, the report said.

The half-hour film was riddled with errors and exaggerations, according to United States officials and independent military experts. But the State Department and Pentagon have so bungled their response - making and then withdrawing incorrect statements about what American troops really did when they fought a pitched battle against insurgents in the rebellious city - that the charges have produced dozens of stories in the foreign news media and on Web sites suggesting that the Americans used banned weapons and tried to cover it up.

The Iraqi government has announced an investigation, and a United Nations spokeswoman has expressed concern.

"It's discredited the American military without any basis in fact," said John E. Pike, an expert on weapons who runs GlobalSecurity.org (http://globalsecurity.org/), an independent clearinghouse for military information. He said the "stupidity and incompetence" of official comments had fueled suspicions of a cover-up.

"The story most people around the world have is that the Americans are up to their old tricks - committing atrocities and lying about it," Mr. Pike said. "And that's completely incorrect."

Daryl G. Kimball, director of the Arms Control Association, a nonprofit organization that researches nuclear issues, was more cautious. In light of the issues raised since the film was shown, he said, the Defense Department, and perhaps an independent body, should review whether American use of white phosphorus had been consistent with international weapons conventions.

"There are legitimate questions that need to be asked," Mr. Kimball said. Given the history of Saddam Hussein's (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/saddam_hussein/index.html?inline=nyt-per) use of chemical weapons in Iraq (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/index.html?inline=nyt-geo), he said, "we have to be extremely careful" to comply with treaties and the rules of war.

At a time when opposition to the war is growing, the white phosphorus issue has reinforced the worst suspicions about American actions.

The documentary was quickly posted as a video file on Web sites worldwide. Bloggers trumpeted its allegations. Foreign newspapers and television reported the charges and rebuttals, with headlines like "The Big White Lie" in The Independent of London.

Officials now acknowledge that the government's initial response was sluggish and misinformed.

"There's so much inaccurate information out there now that I'm not sure we can unscrew it," Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Defense Department spokesman who has handled many inquiries about white phosphorus, said Friday.

The State Department declined to comment for the record, but an official there said privately that the episode was a public relations failure.

The Italian documentary, titled "Falluja: The Hidden Massacre," included gruesome images of victims of the fierce fighting in the city in November 2004. American and Iraqi troops recaptured the city from insurgents, in battles that destroyed an estimated 60 percent of the buildings.

Opening with prolonged shots of Vietnamese children and villages burned by American use of napalm in 1972, the film suggested an equivalence between Mr. Hussein's use of chemical weapons in the 1980's and the use of white phosphorus by the American-led forces.

It incorrectly referred to white phosphorus shells - a munition of nearly every military commonly used to create smoke screens or fires - as banned chemical weapons.

The film showed disfigured bodies and suggested that hot-burning white phosphorus had melted the flesh while leaving clothing intact. Sigfrido Ranucci, the television correspondent who made the documentary, said in an interview this month that he had received the photographs from an Iraqi doctor. "We are not talking about corpses like the normal deaths in war," he said.

Military veterans familiar with white phosphorus, known to soldiers as "W. P." or "Willie Pete," said it could deliver terrible burns, since an exploding round scatters bits of the compound that burst into flames on exposure to air and can burn into flesh, penetrating to the bone.

But they said white phosphorus would have burned victims' clothing. The bodies in the film appeared to be decomposed, they said.

In their first comments after the Nov. 8 broadcast, American officials made some of those points. But they relied on an inaccurate State Department fact sheet first posted on the Web last December, when similar accusations first surfaced.

The fact sheet said American forces had used white phosphorus shells "very sparingly in Falluja, for illumination purposes, and were fired "to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters."

The Americans stuck to that position last spring after Iraq's Health Ministry claimed it had proof of civilian casualties from the weapons.

After the Italian documentary was broadcast, the American ambassadors to Italy, Ronald P. Spogli, and to Britain, Robert H. Tuttle, echoed the stock defense, denying that white phosphorus munitions had been used against enemy fighters, let alone civilians. At home, on the public radio program "Democracy Now," Lt. Col. Steve Boylan, an American military spokesman, said, "I know of no cases where people were deliberately targeted by the use of white phosphorus."

But those statements were incorrect. Firsthand accounts by American officers in two military journals note that white phosphorus munitions had been aimed directly at insurgents in Falluja to flush them out. War critics and journalists soon discovered those articles.

In the face of such evidence, the Bush administration made an embarrassing public reversal last week. Pentagon spokesmen admitted that white phosphorus had been used directly against Iraqi insurgents. "It's perfectly legitimate to use this stuff against enemy combatants," Colonel Venable said Friday.

While he said he could not rule out that white phosphorus hit some civilians, "U.S. and coalition forces took extraordinary measures to prevent civilian casualties in Falluja."

[Partridge]

Oh imagine my shock! More NYT psuedo-journalism. He said, She said, and of course we trust our military, who didn't lie, they just got things a bit muddled up, poor souls.


It incorrectly referred to white phosphorus shells - a munition of nearly every military commonly used to create smoke screens or fires - as banned chemical weapons.

Wheras, the leading expert on such issues, Pete Kaiser of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (which is the watchdog group for the Chemical Weapons Convention), based in The Hague says:



"No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement."If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

The New York Times itself says, quoting the Defense Department spokesman Colonel Venable.


Firsthand accounts by American officers in two military journals note that white phosphorus munitions had been aimed directly at insurgents in Falluja to flush them out and according to Col. Venebale: "It's perfectly legitimate to use this stuff against enemy combatants."

Way to go NYT. Always such great investigative reporting! Renew my subscription today!

[Partridge]

Also:


But they said white phosphorus would have burned victims' clothing. The bodies in the film appeared to be decomposed, they said.

According to Wikipedia:


Burns usually are limited to areas of exposed skin because only the larger WP particles can burn through personal clothing.

[Partridge]

Exclusive: Classified Pentagon Document Described White Phosphorus As ‘Chemical Weapon’
Think Progress (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/21/phosphorus-chemical/)

To downplay the political impact of revelations that U.S. forces used deadly white phosphorus rounds against Iraqi insurgents (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111600374.html) in Falluja last year, Pentagon officials have insisted that phosphorus munitions are legal since they aren’t technically “chemical weapons.” (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1875728,00.html) The media have helped them. For instance, the New York Times ran a piece today on the phosphorus controversy. On at least three occasions, the Times emphasizes that the phosphorus rounds are “incendiary muntions” that have been “incorrectly called chemical weapons (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/21/international/21phosphorus.html).”

But the distinction is a minor one, and arguably political in nature. A formerly classified (http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/) 1995 Pentagon intelligence document titled “Possible Use of Phosphorous Chemical (http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_22431050_91r.html)” describes the use of white phosphorus by Saddam Hussein on Kurdish fighters:


IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. […]

IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES’ OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ.

In other words, the Pentagon does refer to white phosphorus rounds as chemical weapons — at least if they’re used by our enemies.

The real point here goes beyond the Pentagon’s legalistic parsings. The use of white phosphorus against enemy fighters is a “terribly ill-conceived method (http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2005/11/trying_the_hole.html),” demonstrating an Army interested “only in the immediate tactical gain and its felicitous shake and bake fun.” And the dishonest efforts by Bush administration officials to deny and downplay that use (http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=914257&ct=1611327#4) only further undermines U.S. credibility abroad.

To paraphrase President Bush, this isn’t a question about what is legal, it’s about what is right (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/26/bush-legal-right/).