I got through 15 flubs going more-or-less in order (which became tricky after I took a hiatus from the project and the page was rearranged). I took my time choosing the final entry. Many of the remaining "Counterspin" attempts concerned alleged talking points that weren't worth defending, and the justifications looked like they'd be at least ball-park accurate. If the author (T. J. Templeton, as I understand it) sticks with the type of material represented by most of the recent additions, it will count as an improvement.
But on to business.
The alleged talking point:
The use of white phosphorous in Fallujah doesn't count as a chemical weapons attack
Well, it can definitely be used as a weapon, and it's definitely a chemical ... but so is lead, depending on the definition we use.
Pentagon Document Described White Phosphorus As ‘Chemical Weapon’
The unclassified Dept of Defense Source Document that identifies white phosphorus as a chemical weapon. See section II C and the definitions at TAB A
Two URLS, and they'll be treated in order.
To downplay the political impact of revelations that U.S. forces used deadly white phosphorus rounds against Iraqi insurgents in Falluja last year, Pentagon officials have insisted that phosphorus munitions are legal since they aren’t technically “chemical weapons.”
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."
(ThinkProgress)
This citation ultimately bases its case on an internal Pentagon paper. I'll get to that at the end.
In short, the Pentagon statement is exactly right, and the internal paper is irrelevant.
A Bit of History:
The attack in Fallujah, in this case, occurred in November of 2004. The stink at the time was an allegation from an Italian journalist that white phosphorus had been used to target civilians in Fallujah. How one can make that claim when insurgents wear civilian clothing and commonly use civilians as shields in order to wage media war ... is a good question.
One particularly important thing to remember is that military forces circled Fallujah before attacking, and allowed substantial time for civilians to leave the city.
The assault on Fallujah that was to occur in November 2004 was among the most widely telegraphed attacks in American military history. The US and Iraqi forces had no chance of executing any major surprise, though, as you will see, they did achieve some surprise. For its part, the enemy since April had the time to regroup, reorganize, dig in, resupply, reinforce and prepare. Debriefing reports from our troops and embedded reporters reflect that the enemy did all of that, and did it very well. As you will see, the Americans had time to prepare a very detailed plan of attack, and had the time to acquire intelligence that would hold US forces in good stead when the time came to attack.In short, considerable pains were taken to avoid civilian casualties. Surprise was forsaken for the sake of civilians.
Official estimates, confirmed by many Iraqis who remained in the city, were that about 75 percent of the population had left, heeding the American and Iraqi government warnings of impending doom (some say as many as 90 percent left; hard to tell). If you accept a population figure of 300,000, and the 75 percent evacuation figure, that would leave something on the order of 75,000 people left in the city.
(talkingproud.us)
It should not surprise if the insurgents deliberately kept civilians near their positions in order to wage media war.
But then POAC isn't really concerned about that aspect of the attack. Templeton is apparently convinced that white phosphorus is a chemical weapon.
Here's what the BBC reported:
And here's the text of of Protocol III:WHITE PHOSPHORUS(BBC--see embedded sidebar)
- Spontaneously flammable chemical used for battlefield illumination
- Contact with particles causes burning of skin and flesh
- Use of incendiary weapons prohibited for attacking civilians (Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons)
- Protocol III not signed by US
Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III). Geneva, 10 October 1980.
Article 1
Definitions
For the purpose of this Protocol:
1. "Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. (a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances.
(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:
(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;
(ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.
2. "Concentration of civilians" means any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or groups of nomads.
3. "Military objective" means, so far as objects are concerned, any object which by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
4. "Civilian objects" are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 3.
5. "Feasible precautions" are those precautions which are practicable or practically possible taking into account all circumstances ruling at the time, including humanitarian and military considerations.
Article 2
Protection of civilians and civilian objects
1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.
(Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons)
First, note that the United States has never ratified Protocol III (objecting that it is overbroad to the point of potentially forcing the military in some instances to allow greater civilian casualities because of its prohibitions).
Second, note that the U.S. arguably stayed within the bounds of the treaty anyway. The white phosphorus used in Fallujah was used primarily for screening, and secondarily to flush insurgents out of hiding. Both are permissible uses under the CCCW.
And, obviously, white phosphorous is not a chemical weapon according to the laws of war, or else it would not be covered under the CCCW.
So, what about this Pentagon paper? Well, it was an "information report." In essence, some guy phoned his "brother" in Iraq and the guy told him that "phosphorus chemical weapons" had been used in Iraq following the Gulf War.
The term is apparently not a Pentagon designation, but the terminology chosen by the source of the information. The term did end up in the summary title of the report.
In any case, the Pentagon doesn't decide what is and what isn't a chemical weapon according to the laws of war.
***
Now for another Pentagon document, courtesy of the second URL. This one is apparently based at least in part on the document we just considered.
Templeton thinks that sections IIc and TAB A show that white phosphorus is a chemical weapon.
Soon after the cease-fire, US forces began to receive reports from Shiia refugees that described Iraqi government attacks on their cities. Some reports indicated that the government used mustard (a blister agent), as well as napalm and white phosphorus against the Shiias.[9] Other reports denied that government forces had used chemical warfare agents against their city, but claimed they had used weapons containing napalm and white phosphorus.[10] One refugee report provides a compilation of accounts from 150 Shiia refugees and alleges the use of all these substances, as well as hydrochloric and sulfuric acid.[11] Unfortunately, none of the refugees provided a technical or otherwise accurate identification of the weapons that were used by the Iraqi government, whether they contained a chemical warfare agent or not. In addition, many of the refugees had no training or technical understanding of weapons. As the compilation report indicates, these refugees generally categorized the weapons as "chemical."[12] This fact, coupled with the difficulty of accurately translating these reports, complicated our attempts to determine the accuracy of the allegations of chemical warfare agent use by the Iraqi government.There's nothing there that enables a logical conclusion that white phosphorus is a chemical weapon. Read it 20 times and that won't change--unless you're hallucinating by that point.
(IIc)
Well, how about TAB A?
This tab provides a listing of acronyms and abbreviations found in this report. Additionally, the glossary section provides definitions for selected technical terms that are not found in common usage.
Acronyms and Abbreviations
CIA Central Intelligence Agency CW chemical warfare CWA chemical warfare agent DIA Defense Intelligence Agency MASH mobile army surgical hospital NBC nuclear, biological, and chemical SITREP situation report US United States USAMRICD US Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense USCENTCOM United States Central Command (TAB A)
Blister agent A blister agent is a chemical warfare agent that produces local irritation and damage to the skin and mucous membranes, pain and injury to the eyes, reddening and blistering of the skin, and when inhaled, damage to the respiratory tract. Blister agents include mustards, arsenicals like lewisite, and mustard and lewisite mixtures. Blister agents are also called vesicants or vesicant agents.[48]
Blood agent A blood agent is a chemical warfare agent that is inhaled and absorbed into the blood, carrying the agent to all body tissues where it interferes with the tissue oxygenation process. The brain is especially affected. The effect on the brain leads to cessation of respiration followed by cardiovascular collapse.[49]
Chemical warfare agent A chemical warfare agent is a chemical substance, excluding riot control agents, herbicides, smoke, and flame, used in military operations to kill, seriously injure, or incapacitate though its physiological effects. Included are blood, nerve, blister, choking, and incapacitating agents.[50]
Conventional weapon A conventional weapon is a weapon that is neither nuclear, biological, nor chemical.[51]
Mustard A mustard agent is a blister chemical warfare agent that produces local irritation and damage to the skin and mucous membranes, pain and injury to the eyes, reddening and blistering of the skin, and when inhaled, damage to the respiratory tract.[52]
Nerve agents Nerve agents are the most toxic of the chemical warfare agents. Nerve agents are absorbed into the body through breathing, by injection, or absorption through the skin. They affect the nervous and the respiratory systems and various body functions.[54]
Riot control agent A riot control agent is a chemical that produces transient effects that disappear within minutes after exposure and rarely require medical treatment. Riot control agents are effective in quelling civil disturbances and in preventing unnecessary loss of life.[55]
White Phosphorus White phosphorus is a form of phosphorus which creates spectacular bursts when used in artillery shells and is very damaging to the skin since it burns on exposure to oxygen.[56]
The first thing to notice is the definition of "Chemical Warfare Agent." The definition gives us no reason to include white phosphorus--but it could be argued that it provides no strong reason to exclude it, either. The definition does specify the inclusion "blood, nerve, blister, choking, and incapacitating agents" but one might argue that the list does not exclude additional categories.
On the other hand, "Blister Agent," "Blood Agent," "Mustard" and "Nerve Agent" are all specifically defined as chemical warfare agents. The "White Phosphorus" entry includes no such distinction.
There is no reasonable evidence in this document that white phosphorus is considered a chemical warfare agent by the Pentagon, even if we were to suppose that the Pentagon had some role in defining the term for purposes of the international laws of war.
***
Congratulations, Project for the Old American Century. You're on the Bad Blogs' Blood bad blogs blogroll.
No comments:
Post a Comment