Italian TV station RAI News 24 will broadcast an “expose” tonight of the use of phosphorus shells as a weapon when US forces attacked and took the rebel stronghold of Fallujah in Iraq. From A Kos diarist who didn’t bother to link to any original story in English. Here’s a link to an English language news video via Americablog. And this is a story in The Independent giving the one side of the story that is currently out there:
Powerful new evidence emerged yesterday that the United States dropped massive quantities of white phosphorus on the Iraqi city of Fallujah during the attack on the city in November 2004, killing insurgents and civilians with the appalling burns that are the signature of this weapon.Ever since the assault, which went unreported by any Western journalists, rumours have swirled that the Americans used chemical weapons on the city.
On 10 November last year, the Islam Online website wrote: “US troops are reportedly using chemical weapons and poisonous gas in its large-scale offensive on the Iraqi resistance bastion of Fallujah, a grim reminder of Saddam Hussein’s alleged gassing of the Kurds in 1988.”
The website quoted insurgent sources as saying: “The US occupation troops are gassing resistance fighters and confronting them with internationally banned chemical weapons.”
“Ever since the assault, which went unreported by any Western journalists,...”
You know what? He’s right. There wasn’t a single reporter covering this story. Not one.
Uh huh.
Be that as it may, the government acknowledged using white phosphorus shells for illumination only:
“Some news accounts have claimed that US forces have used ‘outlawed’ phosphorus shells in Fallujah,” the USinfo website said. “Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. US forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes.“They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters.”
A “former American soldier” is quoted as saying:
“I heard the order to pay attention because they were going to use white phosphorus on Fallujah. In military jargon it’s known as Willy Pete.
That particular quote doesn’t confirm anything except what the military was saying; that they were going to use white phosphorus on Fallujah. Any more proof? The soldier is identified as ex-Marine Jeff Eglehart. Eglehart identifies himself in the video on the RAI 24 website as “former US military.” While he may in fact be everything he says he is, I can’t recall an ex-Marine identifying himself as anything but a Marine – “ex” or otherwise. The pride those people take in belonging to the Corps lasts a lifetime.
That said, the 2 1/2 minute snippet on RAI’s site shows Mr. Eglehart as the only American military eyewitness. There may be others quoted in the full program.
Also in the video are some shocking scenes of dead bodies so be forewarned: VIDEO CONTAINS GRAPHIC DEPICTIONS OF DEAD BODIES.
Provided by the Studies Centre of Human Rights in Fallujah, dozens of high-quality, colour close-ups show bodies of Fallujah residents, some still in their beds, whose clothes remain largely intact but whose skin has been dissolved or caramelised or turned the consistency of leather by the shells.A biologist in Fallujah, Mohamad Tareq, interviewed for the film, says: “A rain of fire fell on the city, the people struck by this multi-coloured substance started to burn, we found people dead with strange wounds, the bodies burned but the clothes intact.”
Would a biologist be an expert or even know anything about wounds made by white phosphorus shells? I don’t know about you but that struck me as odd. I mean, couldn’t RAI 24 find a military expert who could have confirmed from the pictures whether or not the wounds were caused by battlefield weapons?
There is also night video of the phosphorus shells exploding a couple of hundred feet off the ground and what appears to be some kind of anti-personnel effect as shards of the shell fall by the dozens, burning even after they hit the ground. I can see where some would conclude that these shards were in fact designed to kill people on the ground. But I can also see where low level explosions of these shells would be desirable in an urban setting. The closer to the ground the illumination, the shorter the shadows caused by buildings on the street. This would make sense for night fighting. What doesn’t make sense is the fact that our troops fighting at night should be equipped with night vision goggles. Any illumination from a white phosphorus shell would temporarily blind them.
Many questions and I’m afraid my expertise is very limited when trying to write about the tactical use of 40mm white phosphorus shells.
There is also a charge that the Marines used a napalm-type shell:
The documentary, entitled Fallujah: the Hidden Massacre, also provides what it claims is clinching evidence that incendiary bombs known as Mark 77, a new, improved form of napalm, was used in the attack on Fallujah, in breach of the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons of 1980, which only allows its use against military targets.
Could a house full of people shooting at you be described as a “military target?”
So far, only lefty bloggers are writing about this with predictable glee. I would hope that some military fellows will post on this today. Watch for updates as the day goes on and I will link to whatever I find.
UPDATE
James Joyner gives some details about the use of WP, linking to the SF Chronicle article:
Some artillery guns fired white phosphorous rounds that create a screen of fire that cannot be extinguished with water. Insurgents reported being attacked with a substance that melted their skin, a reaction consistent with white phosphorous burns. Kamal Hadeethi, a physician at a regional hospital, said, “The corpses of the mujahedeen which we received were burned, and some corpses were melted.”
Joyner also has links to information on the legality of WP. It is, in fact, legal but not against civilians. The fact that civilians were hit was a tragedy. But who was the target? Only those predisposed to believe the worst about the military could believe they would “target” civilians. That would be a waste of munitions to begin with not to mention morally wrong.
One thing is clear; the WP was used for more than “illumination.”
John Cole agrees with me I about the anti-personnel nature of the rounds. He also disabuses those so inclined of the notion that the weapon is “chemical” in nature. It is considered a conventional round.
UPDATE II
Here’s an email I got from chris@lenape.com:
I’m a Marine with combat service from the 1st Persian Gulf War. I was an 1833 AAV (Amtrack) operator in 1st Marine Div. batallion 3/9 who has some direct knowledge of the weapons and tactics described above.
1st White phosphorous or Willy Peet (WP) is a marker used to direct artilery, mortar or tank fire. Trust me you don’t want to be in the area when stuff is employed.
2nd If you are unlucky enough to be in the way of WP it will burn your close and anything else for that matter. It doesn’t carmelize anything it burns the crap out of whatever it touches.
3rd Consider the above. We don’t use WP when our troops are any where near its intended impact zone. Unless we’ve adopted some new tactics, killing our own people, since I got out in 1992.
4th The USMC does not use poison gas. Not only is it a violation of international law but it is a major pain in the ass. Once you’ve dooshed an area with gas you can’t send in troops because even Marines protected by NBC gear would need to decontaminated. Any Marine or Soldier who has any experience with decon knows what a major tedious slow down that is.
5th Marines rely on fire power and close air support to overwhelm the enemy. These two tools best fit the strategy of closing with and destroying the enemy. As stated earlier gas slows you down. Marines move quick they have no time for gas or similar bull s**t.
The RAI piece sounds like a load of bull. Perhaps they should learn a little bit about USMC tactics before they run their cake holes on something they obviously know nothing about.
Semper Fi!
11:40 am
It’s perfectly clear that “the assault, which went unreported by any Western journalists” refers to the use of WP as a weapon, not the battle of Fallujah. And what do you know, the news stories you link to don’t mention anything about WP-as-a-weapon. You’re just being deliberately obtuse here.
3:23 pm
War is hell. The enemy is trying to kill you with whatever resources it has. The enemy in Iraq are terrorists that do not respect any warring convention. i.e. what does the Geneva convention has about car bombs and suicide bombers. As far as I’m concerned that leaves it completely open for our forces to use whatever means necessary to wipe out the enemy. Only the leftist idiots would try to moralize that.
4:04 pm
Criticism of the United States is reasonable. We need to be held to account where our actions are wrong or unethical. I would suggest the Italian journalists do a follow up story to this one. The follow up story would discuss the nature of Islamic Jihad and what their goals are. It would also discuss the nature of how Islamic Extremists use the Koran to justify their acts. I’m not holding my breath waiting for this to happen. In other words the main stream media needs to stop shilling for Islamic Extremists. If the media would present a fair and balanced picture of this war, people could reach a conclusion based on all of the relevant facts. As it is we only get one side from the main stream news media, the side of that says America is evil. Finally it needs to be understood that the Islamic Extremists are very very powerful. This is not a case of poor little Arabs against the big bad USA.
11:04 pm
Western Infidels, even if your interpretation were the correct one (and I doubt seriously that it is), it would still be wrong.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/11/10/MNG6P9P3ER1.DTL
Some artillery guns fired white phosphorous rounds that create a screen of fire that cannot be extinguished with water. Insurgents reported being attacked with a substance that melted their skin, a reaction consistent with white phosphorous burns.
Kamal Hadeethi, a physician at a regional hospital, said, “The corpses of the mujahedeen which we received were burned, and some corpses were melted.”
So the reporter either didn’t do his research or is lying. Since he calls WP “chemical weapons”, I’ll opt for the latter.
11:16 pm
There’s a breaking story….
....that the US used chemical weapons in Fallujah. Don’t believe it. It…
10:23 am
“Western Infidels, even if your interpretation were the correct one (and I doubt seriously that it is)...”
Of the two possible interpretations, one is clearly incorrect (that no one covered the battle of Fallujah) and the other is clearly correct (that there was virtually no coverage of the chemical/incendiary weapons aspect of the battle of Fallujah). You’ve chosen to believe that the clearly incorrect interpretation is the intended one, for no reason that you’re willing to state. You’ve further decided that the accuracy of the whole report is called into question because they got this point wrong. You’ve already made up your mind about the whole issue, and you’re re-interpreting the reality around you to preserve your comfortable complacency. That’s irrational.
“it would still be wrong.”
The story you linked to wasn’t one of Rick’s links, and it’s only a single paragraph amid a veritable firestorm of press coverage on Fallujah. How exactly is the writer of a followup piece supposed to find such a tiny mention?
The point being made was that this aspect of the battle of Fallujah went almost entirely unnoticed by the Western press. That point stands unscathed by the discovery of a single paragraph of text. Find a dozen more like it, find a few headlines, and you might have something. One might even view the triviality of this coverage as the exception that proves the rule; there were people over here who knew we were using Geneva-banned chemical/incendiary weapons in Iraq – yet no one cared enough to make a ruckus.
6:03 pm
The guy in the video discussing the WP order coming over the radio doesn’t refer to it as Willy Pete – he twice refers to it as “whiskey Pete”.
10:10 am
I am not sure if the documentary is accurate or not. What I do know is that we need to address this issue head on. The only way it can be proven false is to get the US side of the story out in the media in a big way. It doesn’t matter if it is not true if people believe that it is the damage is done.
1:31 pm
Fosforo rosso – Round-Up
Scott Burgess’ analysis (The Daily Ablution) on RaiNews24’s lies – reported also by Wellington in his latest, amazing post – ha aperto il vaso di Pandora’s Box. And the right side of American blogosphere is now flooded with reconstructions and comme…
4:47 pm
Make love not war. Or just kill a republican, either way i’ll be happy.
12:06 am
You may want to share this with your readers. This is not a professional work, but just an informal analysis.
I had this conversation yesterday regarding this news story about WP being used as a chemical weapon.
I am a former fire support officer, who was trained to travel with infantry and armor units and be the eyes of the artillery to call for fire.
I read the article from the Italian news source, and let me state unequivocally that what it claims is physically impossible. A white phosphorous round used for illumination is a base ejecting projectile that “opens” in the air and floats down under a parachute. The projectile casing does continue down range, but fire direction officers and fire support officers along with the maneuver commanders clear this impact area as part of the calculations. The projectile casing itself could kill a person, as any bullet would, but it is not possible to use it as a chemical warfare attack.
The flare itself floats down and you would pretty much have to chase after it and position yourself under where you project it will land to even get burned. It is possible although very unlikely that this flare could hit a building and could cause a fire, but the injury wouldn’t be a chemical burn, but a burn from the building fire. I have never seen anything close to this happen.
The flares come down slowly and usually burn out first, but since they are the brightest thing in the sky, it would be easy to avoid one if it landed while burning. I have seen a few flares land on the ground while burning, but this is much different than a chemical attack.
The only way you could purposely harm anyone with this is if you direct fired at a short range. The projectile most likely wouldn’t eject the flare (it has a timed fuse) and it really wouldn’t matter if you fired Cheetohs at someone at that range, the concussion would kill them.
An artillery unit wouldn’t use direct fire unless it was being attacked. And even then it would use their organic direct fire weapons and if necessary, another type of projectile. To use a WP for direct fire would be entirely counterproductive to the security of the battery even in self defense.
This Italian news story is nothing but a lie.
After being asked repeatedly to analyze the “Italian News Story†(gag), I analyzed the video, here are my thoughts
I analyzed the video and am pleased to announce that it is junk. There are many things I could point out, but here is what sticks out.
1. The fire raining down from the helicopter was the part that concerned me. I had to watch it repeatedly to figure it out. It is the back blast from a missile being fired the other direction. Those are harmless, tiny incendiary particles that looked like balls of fire. They are basically burning propellant. This is because it is night and it is hard to get perspective at night, with or without night vision equipment. Taken out of context, it is easy to make it look like fire raining down on the city.
2. The voice over states “contrary to the claim by the state department that WP was used in open fields, this was not true because tracer rounds were used to illuminate the enemy” Nothing could have spelled out liar any bigger than that one statement. Tracy rounds are never used to illuminate the enemy. The glow from a tracer round lasts tenths of a second and travels hundreds of miles an hour; it could not possibly be used for this function, again a claim that defies all practicality. Tracer rounds are used to see where your bullets are going so your fire can be adjusted, flat out. And quoting the State Department about a military function?
3. The pictures of dead bodies while hideous provide no analytical value. Contrast the opening from Vietnam, with the burned little girl, running from a napalmed village. That is conclusive evidence. Nothing about these dead bodies looked any different to the many dead bodies I have seen analyzing other videos (of dead bodies) that were all made that way (dead) by Saddam’s regime and then by Jihadists. There is no way to determine what killed these people by looking at pictures, except maybe by a forensics expert.
4. The soldiers, this is more complicated:
I find the taller guy, I think his name was Garret, credible. His story rang true and is tragically repeated. But this is not a war crime or a chemical attack, but bad target identification and a complete human tragedy, assuming the “civilians” were indeed non combatants, it is very hard for the soldiers to tell. Although I do question his motives that is irrelevant to this analysis since he provides no “evidence†of chemical weapons.
The other guy Jeff was a liar, to the point I would need to see his orders to believe he was in Iraq. He states, (paraphrasing) “the orders unequivocally came from the pentagon to wait until after the election”.
How does he know this? Was he CENTCOM commander at the time? Did the CENTCOM commander call him up and tell him that? Even if it was true, that fact in itself is not nefarious.
The re-election of Bush would be a crushing blow to the Jihadists in Fallujah, and let me tell you, I have seen their own videos recovered from there and the place was crawling with them. It would make tactical sense to wait, if you were pretty confident that Bush would win. They call this tactical patience.
Also, the timing of the attack was heavily influenced by the Iraqi Provisional Authority. The U.S. had just helped them form and wanted to get them involved with running their country as soon as possible. That is why the first battle of Fallujah was ended, because the new Iraqi government wanted more time to talk with the Jihadists. That is until the new Iraqi government officials figured out that they were now the primary target of the Jihadists and told the U.S. effectively, go get them (the Jihadists in Fallujah) as soon as you can.
Jeff states (paraphrasing), that the U.S. was using chemical weapons because we used WP. Hogwash. The video itself showed the flares floating slowly to the ground and the ground itself gave perspective. Now I am not saying I would want WP on my skin, but I wouldn’t want Drano on my skin either and I am not declaring chemical warfare on my home. Now a person could make the argument that you could take that Drano and throw it on your neighbor and that would be a chemical attack. True, but, you can not spew WP from a deployed flare because if it is burning, it is burning the WP. You wouldn’t want to put your mouth over it, of course, and you wouldn’t want to purposely hold it to your skin, but you would have to go out of the way to hurt yourself with a flare.
(Note: I can not stream this video right now, but after thinking about it, I think he was asked by the voice over:
“Did the Americans use chemicals?â€
and he replied
“Yes, they used WP.â€
Did he even actually say we used chemical weapons?)
c. He states (paraphrasing) when they used the stuff (WP) they would come over the net and say the WP is coming or “bombs away” or something.
Bombs away? Who was on the net giving this sitrep, Clark Gable? That’s about the last time anybody used this term. This guy is a clown. And notice he makes claims and then says, oh, I didn’t see it, but I heard about it. Come on….dude.
5. The real tip off about the credibility of this “news story†is the pictures of dead animals.
The voice over said, paraphrasing: that several animals were found dead with no visible sign of trauma.
First off, did they examine the animals? If so, they didn’t show it. Sure something is not visible, if you don’t look! Animals die everyday from natural causes, hunger, disease, or even getting hit by cars or possibly by conventional weapons.
And get this, they show people who appear burned and claim this to be a sign of a chemical weapon, then they show animals with no injuries in the context of this discussion to imply they died of a mysterious chemical weapon. Their “facts†not only fail to support each other, but they directly conflict with each other. Yet they choose to throw them at the viewer with full understanding of the emotional impact of these images.
6. A human rights group based in Fallujah? For crying out loud, that was Saddam’s power base. That is were the people burned four contractors and hung them from a bridge.
By introducing these “facts†in the context of a chemical weapons discussion, yet not having any supporting evidence, I can only conclude that not only are these charges false, but this was done with the documentary creator’s full knowledge that they were baseless charges. In other words, they purposely lied, which goes to their credibility.
After I wrote this, I was informed of more “supporting evidence†linked on the http://www.Dailykos.com:
“”WP [i.e., white phosphorus rounds] proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired ‘shake and bake’ missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out.”
—Field Artillery Magazine, via Steven D
My analysis:
I don’t mean to speak for the author, but this is evident
“”WP [i.e., white phosphorus rounds] proved to be an effective and versatile munition.”
Very true and widely known among redlegs (artillerymen). Nothing interesting here.
“We used it for screening missions at two breeches …”
The kind of projectile they are speaking about here creates smoke. It is widely, commonly, and legally used by every army to conceal their men. Usually, if an obstacle needs to be breeched, the smoke is delivered by artillery in between the obstacle and the enemy observer. It can also be placed on the enemy to confuse and scare them. The smoke itself is uncomfortable, but not dangerous, unless you want to sit on top of the projectile and breathe it. I know because I have experienced it.
“and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE.”
Notice he said psychological weapon and not chemical weapon. This is because the smoke would confuse the enemy and conceal our movements and would indeed, scare them.
“We fired ‘shake and bake’ missions at the insurgents”
A poor choice of phrasing because it is not technically accurate and does give the wrong impression, but this is a soldier and not a politician or a marketing strategist. (After further consideration, I think if the reference is to the projectile itself and not to the effect on flesh, it could be accurate. The HE would shake the ground and the material that creates smoke does so by burning (baking) but you would pretty much have to try to set yourself on fire by rolling around in it.)
“using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out.”
This takes a little bit of imagination. Imagine you are in a fighting position and the enemy is dropping smoke near your position. You ask yourself “why are they dropping smoke here?” the answer “because they are coming right through here.” So, you haul butt out of your defensive position and expose yourself to HE.
This statement has absolutely nothing to do with the “dual use†of smoke (WP) as a chemical weapon. It is stating that WP can have a psychological effect as well as a tactical use. That is the only “dual use†here.
-Ray Robison is a Sr. Military Operations Research Analyst with Scientific Applications International Corporation at the Aviation and Missile, Research, Development, Engineering Command in Huntsville Alabama. His background includes over ten years of military service as an officer and enlisted soldier in the Medical Branch, Field Artillery and Signal Corp including the Gulf War and Kosovo operations. Most recently he worked as a contractor for DIA with the Iraqi Survey Group.
3:34 pm
The Pentagon itself now confirms the use of WP as an incendiary/anti-personnel weapon, confirms “shake-and-bake” style tactics, and is defending it all.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051116/pl_nm/iraq_usa_phosphorus_dc
So the timeline here is:
1) Shake-and-bake is used in Fallujah
2) It gets minor mention in Western Press, then nothing
3) Italian TV does a “Holy crap, that shake-and-bake stuff is NASTY!” story
4) Pentagon denies ever using shake-and-bake
5) Right-wing commentators denounce Italy as a nation of liars, claim that shake-and-bake isn’t even POSSIBLE with munitions in the US arsenal, declare boycott of pasta and pizza.
6) Pentagon comes out of closet, says: Shake-and-bake? Absolutely we did! And we’re not ashamed anymore, either!
7) Right-wing commentators ashamedly renounce their traditional reality-circumvention cognitive techniques, stop trusting US media, meekly resume ordering plain old “spaghetti” instead of “freedom pasta.”