Monbiot: The US used chemical weapons in Iraq - and then lied about it

Guardian ^ | 11/15/2005 | George Monbiot

[Senator Bedfellow]

Did US troops use chemical weapons in Falluja? The answer is yes. The proof is not to be found in the documentary broadcast on Italian TV last week, which has generated gigabytes of hype on the internet. It's a turkey, whose evidence that white phosphorus was fired at Iraqi troops is flimsy and circumstantial. But the bloggers debating it found the smoking gun.

The first account they unearthed in a magazine published by the US army. In the March 2005 edition of Field Artillery, officers from the 2nd Infantry's fire support element boast about their role in the attack on Falluja in November last year: "White Phosphorous. WP 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 [high explosive]. We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."

The second, in California's North County Times, was by a reporter embedded with the marines in the April 2004 siege of Falluja. "'Gun up!' Millikin yelled ... grabbing a white phosphorus round from a nearby ammo can and holding it over the tube. 'Fire!' Bogert yelled, as Millikin dropped it. The boom kicked dust around the pit as they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call 'shake'n'bake' into... buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week."

[saquin]

Monbiot is, of course, a moonbat who thinks the U.S. is eeeevil and believes every piece of negative propaganda so I believe it's significant that in this article (full of anti-U.S. propaganda) even he admits the Italian documentary was crap:

The proof is not to be found in the documentary broadcast on Italian TV last week, which has generated gigabytes of hype on the internet. It's a turkey, whose evidence that white phosphorus was fired at Iraqi troops is flimsy and circumstantial.

[Cliff Dweller]

Let me see... we use WP to flush out armed insurgents in a city that was surrounded and opportunities were afforded to non-combatants to leave before the Marines and Army went in.

Hmmmmm. Yes that was obviously unfair. These armed insurgents had every right to NOT be exposed to WP.

George needs to get a life.

[DK Zimmerman]

I may mis-recollect, but I thought WP was considered an incendiary as opposed to an explosive munition? (But definitely not a chemical weapon in the form applied here.) As such, I'm not entirely sure it doesn't have a reduced application, vis a vis .50 cal.

Reportedly, .50 cal rounds are not supposed to be legal as anti-personnel rounds. Only anti-materiel. Not entirely sure how the new sniper rifles or for that matter, even the Vietnam era use of M2s in single shot mode with Starlight scopes square with that.

[dead]

Come to think of it, lead and copper, both of them, are chemicals.

The soldiers themselves are loaded with chemicals.

[nicko]

"You smell that? Do you smell that? Napalm, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of napalm in the morning."

[bobsatwork]

WP was considered an incendiary ....Bingo! WP is not explosive, but will auto-ignite at 86 deg F. Been used by the military forever, for fire bombs, tracer bullets, nighttime practice targets, etc.

[PISANO]

And this is TRUE because the LEFTISTS say it is so! FACTS are just minor details that can be brushed aside at will.

[Salgak]

And, God forbid, but DOD ALSO uses Dihydrogen Monoxide. It's gotta stop NOW !!! ;p

[DK Zimmerman]

Unfortunately, I was only half right. (WP = incendiary is right)

While I KNOW I was trained that .50 cal was illegal in anti-personnel role (we weren't aiming at the guy, CPT, but his helmet and boots!). Apparently, it is incorrect. .50 cal IS legal for enemy troops.

On the other hand, WP use is unrestricted, but I've noted several places where it is explained that "the US has reserved the right to use WP" or words to that effect. Sounds like it is possible that in an extreme case, someone might be able to claim its application crossed a line.

[Godzilla]

We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."

[HawaiianGecko]

	Oh Lord

 

 

[ArrogantBustard]

Explosive? Not really ... needs a small bursting charge to spread the chunks around. It's a very effective incendiary and obscurant, though.

Calling it a chemical weapon (and raising images of Mustard Gas or VX) is the height of yellow journalism. This nonsense is coming from the same mental midgets who rant and rave about depleted uranium.

[ArrogantBustard]

Uranium, plutonium, and tritium are chemicals ...

< evil grin >

[roaddog727]

All weapons are chemicals.

C4 is a chemical.
B3 is a chemical.
RDX is a chemical.
Copper-jacketed lead is a chemical.
PETN is a chemical.
AMPHO-slurry is a chemical.

We certainly use these a lot in combat with out any issues at all.

[Little Ray]

Ummm, WP is not a "chemical weapon" any more than explosives are chemical weapons. WP is an incendiary and a smoke round. Technically, you're not supposed to use it on people, but equipment is OK.
AKs and RPGs are equipment...

[Little Ray]

It is ok to use 'em against equipment. AKs, RPGs, and bandoleers are equipment ;)

[Senator Bedfellow]

White Phosphorous is not a chemical weapon.

Sorry, this is the Guardian - it's a fact-free zone....

[Senator Bedfellow]

Barking Monbiot ping.