Yesterday, we had a bit of a discussion about the military’s use of white phosphorus, and its possible use as a weapon, and whether or not it constitutes a “chemical” or “inhumane” weapon.
That reminded me of an exchange in one of my favorite novels — David Gerrold’s “A Matter For Men.” One of the characters is helping the other put on a flamethrower.
“…Let me ask you this: what is it that makes a weapon inhumane?”
“Uh…” I thought about it.
“Let me make it easier for you. Tell me a humane weapon.”
“Um– I see your point.”
“Right. There’s no such thing. It’s like Christmas — it’s not the gift, it’s the thought that counts.” He came around behind me and started fitting the pads under the straps. “A weapon, Jim — never forget this; lift your arms — is a tool for stopping the other fellow. That’s the purpose — stopping him. The so-called humane weapons merely stop a man without permanently injuring him. The best weapons — you can put your arms down now — are the ones that work by implication, by threat, and never have to be used at all. The enemy stops himself.”
“It’s when they don’t stop” — he turned me around to adjust the fittings in front — “that the weapons become inhumane, because that’s when you have to use them. And so far, the most effective ones are the ones that kill — because they stop the guy permanently.” He had to drop to his knees to cinch the waist strap. “Although… there’s a lot to be said for maiming –“
“Huh?” I couldn’t see his eyes, so I didn’t know if he was joking or not.
“– but that’s asking too much of both the weapon and its user.”
So, back to the white phosphorus and Fallujah.
Was it used there? Almost guaranteed.
Did it kill people? Entirely possible.
Was it used as a direct weapon? Highly unlikely.
Was it a violation of existing laws and treaties? Highly doubtful.
Let’s take a closer look at those last two questions. White phosphorus, in its current forms and uses, does two things extremely well. It generates smoke, and it gives off tremendous amounts of light. But when used as a weapon directly, those two traits make it extremely undesirable.
When you shoot at something, one key element is seeing just what effect the fire had on the target so you can judge if you need to keep shooting. If you shoot off WP, there’s going to be a tremendous amount of light, heat, and smoke coming out of it — which will screw up visual light, infrared, and night-vision gear and keep you from being able to see just how badly injured or damaged (if at all) your target has been. When used as a flare, WP is fired into the air above the target, not at the target itself. To shoot directly at someone or something with it is pretty damned stupid, and our service members just can not be that stupid. It’s like using a brick as a flyswatter — it just might work, if you’re damned lucky, but it’s far more work than using the right tool, and it’ll most likely cause more problems than it fixes.
Finally, WP is NOT illegal, and NOT a chemical weapon. It does its damage through combustion, not some other effect, so it’s lumped in with gunpowder and explosives. The laws of warfare are quite clear, and WP does NOT fit the bill.
But the point remains: yeah, some weapons are inhumane. Hell, nearly all of them are. But war isn’t a humane process, and the common term for those who try to act as humanely as they can while fighting is “the defeated.”
I don’t know the origination of the video that Peter Poe posted (post # 14) but that is one hodgepodge of various clips. I have serious doubts about the authenticity of the person being question. He referred to “Whisky Pete”. That’s a combination of two different military terms; “Willy Pete” and Whisky Papa”. The first is the carryover WWII era term for White Phosphorus and the one most commonly used today. The second is the current military phonetic alphabet. Combining “Whisky” and “Pete” is a mixing of phonetic terms that would not be indicative of someone practiced in the craft.
If I’m not mistaken, it was the Marines that assaulted Fallujah. It is EXTREMELY RARE for a Semper Fi Marine to turn against the Corps. I just find that to be very uncharacteristic for a Marine.
Too, the interviewee made reference to having speakers in the vehicle. I assume he was referring to a HUMMV. I won’t outright dispute this claim, but it is very unlikely that all HUMMV’s have been uploaded with radios and speakers. A communications vehicle would have several tactical radios, but the speakers are in the radio or the handset (to reduce noise when silence is required). A communications vehicle would not be in the front of an assault; it would be in the rear. I don’t know if that is significant or not. Lastly, the assault was done on foot. HUMMV’s are just too large a target and do not have enough armor to be effective on the assault in an urban environment. They would certainly come up from the rear to resupply the assaulting Marines, but would in all likelihood not be up front on the assault.
I failed to see any helicopter in the film. What I saw was footage of air burst artillery rounds; possibly WP but I’m not sure. We have only the commentator’s word that the target was Fallujah during our last assault. For all anyone could know, it could have been Iraqi artillery under Saddam Hussein attacking the Kurds. It would certainly not follow US tactics to pump air burst artillery fired WP into an urban area under assault by our own troops. The area of impact would be too unpredictable for a close support roll. (Close support is expending munitions very close to troops; usually done by artillery or aircraft.)
The bodies shown were not the results of WP. In fact they were so far off as to actually be comical. The best way to describe a WP wound is to liken the result to having a sphere of molten steel about a half to one inch in diameter land on your arm (or leg or torso, etc.). The burn is very localized and would go through the clothing as well. It would not / could not affect the entire body as portrayed in the film.
The video clip seems to be aimed at one thing; to reinforce some false accusations. I would place zero value in the video.
I’d also like to set the record straight about what constitutes a chemical weapon. A chemical weapon dispenses a chemical agent in liquid or vapor form that attacks either the nervous, circulatory, or respiratory systems, or epidural (sever skin blistering). They are classified as persistent or nonpersistent agents; they either last a long time or disperse relatively quickly. Biological and nuclear weapons should not require an explanation.
OS
Speakers are not typical in Army Humveees, however I have seen them used in Commander’s vehicles, or that of a resourceful NCO.
I’ll add to your post that the Artillery AAR noted troops to be danger close. Not in this one instance, but as a rule for the whole engagement. To use lay terms, that means that the artillery men KNEW they had to be extra careful with the accuracy of their weapons because of the proximity of U.S. troops.
This entire thing stinks. Actually it would be laughable if there weren’t uneducated morons in this country who, for some reason, want so badly to belive this knid of crap.