White phosphorus is a chemical that painfully melts away human flesh, poisons the blood and destroys human lungs from the inside. I once met a veteran who had been hit by white phosphorus; his face and hands had been viciously burned, and two decades later he considered it a triumph that he could play a few piano pieces with the remaining stubs of his fingers. When distributed in the air, it can cause massively destructive casualties.
So when reports began to surface of the U.S. military using white phosphorus in battle, many began to question why Americans would be using a chemical weapon in a war meant to put a stop to the use of chemical weapons.
The Bush administration’s response?
First they said the military wasn’t using white phosphorus in battle at all.
Then they said they were just using white phosphorus as a flare, and not as a weapon.
Then they admitted that white phosphorus was being used as a weapon in battle, but that they weren’t hitting civilians with it.
Then they revised that comment, noting that they hadn’t specifically targeted civilians, leaving open the possibility that a number of civilians were hit with white phosphorus.
Through this all, the military has insisted that white phosphorus is not a chemical weapon. A chemical, undoubtedly. A weapon? Yes. But not a “chemical weapon,” the military chided reporters.
Get ready for the next revision:
We owe a huge tip of the pen to the folks at Think Progress, who have uncovered a document in which the Pentagon clearly classifies white phosphorus as a chemical weapon.
From the declassified September 1, 1995 Pentagon document 22431050.91r:
SUMMARY: IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. KURDISH RESISTANCE IS LOSING ITS STRUGGLE AGAINST SADDAM HUSSEIN’S FORCES. KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES’ PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS AND PERCEPTIONS ARE PROVIDED.
TEXT: 1. DURING APRIL 1991, THE SOURCE TELEPHONED BROTHER (SUBSOURCE) [ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ][ (b)(7)(D) ] DURING THIS PHONE CONVERSATION, THE SOURCE WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON THE PRESENT SITUATION IN KURDISH AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS –
A. IRAQ’S POSSIBLE EMPLOYMENT OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS — 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. THE WP CHEMICAL WAS DELIVERED BY ARTILLERY ROUNDS AND HELICOPTER GUNSHIPS (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME).
You’ve got it from the horse’s mouth: white phosphorus is a chemical weapon. The United States is using chemical weapons in combat.
What’s more, the U.S. military gathered information about Saddam Hussein’s use of the chemical weapon white phosphorus as part of a rational for a war against Iraq!
When Saddam Hussein uses white phosphorus, it’s a chemical weapon, but when America uses white phosphorus as a weapon, it’s not a chemical weapon? I don’t think so!
Pingback: Irregular Times: News Unfit for Print » Blog Archive » Second Govt. Source: White Phosphorus is Chemical Weapon
So, why can’t we use them? Is there a law against it? I don’t see the point…
Amazing. If there’s not a law against using chemical weapons, anonymous doesn’t see the point.
First of all, there IS a law against using chemical weapons.
Second of all, even if using chemical weapons were allowable under the law, it would be WRONG. You know… morally wrong?
Third, white phosphorus is a weapon of mass destruction. And why did Bush start this war? That’s right, because Saddam Hussein, Bush said, had weapons of mass destruction, and that proved Hussein was eeeeevil and must be destroyed.
What’s the point, you ask? Come on. No wonder you wrote your message anonymously.
Anonymous, do you actually not see why using chemical weapons on a city is wrong? If it wasn’t wrong, why do you suppose the U.S. military lied about it?
Frutaka laid it out pretty well. It’s just plain Sunday School morally wrong to attack a city with chemical weapons. Isn’t it?
Or is it OK for the U.S. but not for Saddam or Al Qaeda?
Sure, YOU may think that being American gives us the God-given right to use WMD in urban combat. But do you really think the Iraqis are going to buy it? The reality in Iraq is this: Iraqis’ opinions matter, Americans’ don’t. Don’t blame the liberals, that’s the reality of the situation Bush put us in. We didn’t want this.
We can not win this war militarily, only politically. Our political effort to create a stable Iraq under U.S. stewardship will fail if we do things like using chemical weapons on Iraqi cities.
Do you really not see the point? What’s not to get?