Shocking Tally of Iraq Civilian Causalities

[Occhidiangela]

But anyway, your statement "I know for a fact that Willy Pete is not a bomb munition. Once again, the media get it wrong." was a bit premature. And the one" "The risk to civilians of unguided bombs is too great. " was indeed right but nobody cared about it at that time.

[right][snapback]95047[/snapback][/right]

eppie, you are again mistaken.

WP is not a bomb munition. A bomb is what an aircraft drops from its bomb racks, onto things on the ground. When a bomb hits, an explosion occurs, or doesn't if the bomb is a dud. The rocket link I sent to you described a rocket munition. A rocket is a propelled explosive, typically guided by fins. (Some rockets have exotic guidance packages and are more correctly called missiles, as in guided missiles.)

An artillery shell is not a bomb. It is an explosive projectile that is propelled like a rilfe's bullet: one charge, off it goes. (The RAP round is an exotic exception.) It generally has no fins, and no exotic guidance package. (Copperhead is an exception.)

The article says artillery shells with WP were used for spotting, etcetera, in Fallujah. I believe it. I am familiar with Naval Gunfire Spotting methods. I was trained to spot fall of shot from Naval Vessels using their guns. ( You could call them Naval Artillery, or a floating battery. Before firing for effect, it was a common procedure to fire a spotting round or two with WP, back in the early 80's when I was practicing stuff like that.

I actually know something about weapons and bombs. Many journalists and laymen don't bother to learn. It's OK for the layman, but for the journalist such imprecision is unprofessional.

WP is should not be used carelessly, which I believe is the message the Italian journalist is trying to send with his story. He went rooting around, as I see it, looking for a story that could shine an unfavorable light on American operations in Iraq. He found what he thinks is one, or he would not have written the article.

Whether or not WP was used carelessly in Fallujah is not something I could judge without knowing a great deal more than I do right now, so once again, I have reached the limit of my knowledge.

On an emotional level, I confess that I sincerely hope Zarqawi's goons choked on plenty of WP, hot lead, shrapnel, etcetera, on their way to meet Allah. :angry:

You, on the other hand, I hope you never have to deal with WP on the receiving end. Beer and pizza for you, and good Edam cheese. :)

Cheers.

Occhi

[jahcs]

I think that you may be a bit deluded as to the level of threat that the average field reporter faces in Iraq...  they're certainly not sipping lattes.  I have no opinon on the specific topic - why would I, I know nothing about it - but I think that you may be doing a disservice to many people who, according to your logic, DO deserve to have an opinion.
[right][snapback]95062[/snapback][/right]

Oh, I'm well aware of many of the embeded field reporters in Iraq. Unfortunately most of them file reports that are then filtered down to a sound byte or two made for ratings, not to tell a story, by the afforementioned press pool monkeys. It takes a lot of courage to be a combat cameraman (or woman).

[Occhidiangela]

Oh, I'm well aware of many of the embeded field reporters in Iraq.  Unfortunately most of them file reports that are then filtered down to a sound byte or two made for ratings, not to tell a story, by the afforementioned press pool monkeys.  It takes a lot of courage to be a combat cameraman (or woman).
[right][snapback]95065[/snapback][/right]

For jahcs and Chaeropon:

Never forget that the embedded reporter and the war correspondent is a human being. He has an agenda, which he may not consciously filter into his work, or he may. His editor also has an agenda, which colors his editing process. It also colors what is NOT reported as well as how what is reported is packaged.

This holds true for those whose agenda is pro, or con, or somewhere in between.

If you haven't read Chris Hedges' book "War is a Force That Ggives us Meaning" I recommend highly. It is a very insightful look into war, war corespondents, and also the use of symbols in covering war, not to mention use of symbols to advocate war for one reason or another.

I don't agree with all of his conclusions, but I find his book, which is short, yay, to be very insightful. Good read.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

With did not sign the treaty, I meant the part that the US did not sign the part that bans the use of white phosphorus in combat.  (that is what I heard on the news here) So in that sense WP is not illegal no...although a lot of other countries wanted it to be.

[right][snapback]95047[/snapback][/right]

eppie

I want to thank you for highlighting this topic. I'll be frank with you, I am as puzzled as the author of the article below, and you, regarding why the forces in Fallujah used WP. With any amount of wind, the prospects for "collateral damage" (killing or injuring non combatants who you had no intention of harming during a fight) would seem to me rather high for that particular weapon. I wasn't there at the time, I had left a month prior, so I don't know what went into that choice of munitions. Given how incredibly tight the RoE was when I was there, and the extraordinary sensitivity to "collateral damage," something at the political level must have changed where a decision was made to accept higher risk of "collateral damage."

Christian Science Moniter of 18 Nov (see below) is a fairly objective piece. (That's rare.) The 1980 convention is related to the "ban land mines" idiocy. The people who use land mines irresponsibly (not surveyed or marked) are not the folks who sign treaties. That is why mines are such a menace, their irresponsible use. The professional forces are not the problem, since they survey and know where they lay mines. The treaty is an exercise is stupidity.

Furthermore, banning "incendiary devices" is an attempt to ban fire. I hope you understand how ludicrous a professional military man would find such a position, and the derision with which it was met by some in 1980. That said, I admire the hard work the Disarmament and Arms limitation committees pursue. Their motives are good, although I wonder sometimes at their ability to apply common sense to their work, given that war is bloody and brutal by its very nature.

To misquote Diablo: "Not even a treaty can save you from me!" :lol:

Here is the article, with a few comments

Christian Science Monitor November 18, 2005

Arms Controversy In Iraq

Civilian fatalities in Fallujah raise concerns about US military's use of phosphorous munitions.

By Mark Sappenfield, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON - The allegation that civilians in the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004 were burned to death by the United States military's use of white phosphorous has highlighted a weapon that dates back to before World War I.

For decades, gunners on the battlefield have used white phosphorous rounds as a way to set enemy positions on fire - as well as to provide smoke to cover advancing troops. Although they involve a chemical process, white phosphorous rounds are not classified as chemical weapons, and they are seen among weapons experts as no more inherently sinister than any other conventional weapon.

Yet the claims made by an Italian television station - that women and children were found with melted skin despite the fact that their clothes were unharmed - are consistent with the action of white phosphorous, scientists say.

In an offensive that involved targeting insurgents who were hidden in a city of 500,000 inhabitants, the allegations - if true - do not prove or disprove military malfeasance.

(*Occhinote* This is misleading. There was a weeks long information effort, leaflets, radio broadcasts, etcetera, advising people to leave since the Marines were coming back (They'd been fighting there in March/April of 2004). A lot of people left, and as one Marine described Fallujah in Nov 2004, it was more ghost town than city. (See Defensetech.org, links to thermobaric weapons used in Fallujah, comments.) The city may have had half a million people in it before April 2004, but it is not a "city of half a million today." It wasn't when I was over there.

But they do raise the issue of the military's judgment. Because fires can burn out of control during a battle, the Convention on Conventional Weapons in 1980 banned the use of incendiary devices, like white phosphorous, in heavily populated areas. America, however, did not sign the agreement.

Note: Neither did Soviet Union, China . . . but it really isn't as simple as that one liner asserts. Some major nations reserved the right to continue using WP. For better or worse.

http://www.nawcwpns.navy.mil/~treaty/CCWC.html

While supporting states view the Ottawa Convention as establishing a new legal norm to address the serious humanitarian crisis caused by landmines, many countries, including the United States, Russia and China as well as states in regions of tension such as the Middle East and South Asia, remain outside the Ottawa Process.

The United States (has decided that it) must retain its ability to employ incendiaries to hold high-priority military targets at risk in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality that governs the use of all weapons under existing law. The use of white phosphorus or fuel air explosives are not prohibited or restricted by Protocol II.

A review conference for CCCW will be held in 2001. It is anticipated that new initiatives restricting the use of cluster bombs, requiring self-destructing fusing for all exploding ordnance, and proposing new restrictions on landmines will be entertained by the conference.

Occhinote: The US signed on to some Protocols, and not others, etc. Likewise others. The statement "the US did not sign it" is incorrect in that it is incomplete.

In a war that has already brought grotesque evidence of prisoner abuse and is subject to conflicted opinions at home, the reports are another blow to the military and a reminder of the brutal nature of war - and they could heighten the question of whether the American public has the will to continue.

"The problem is war," says Ivan Oelrich, a weapons expert at the Federation of American Scientists here. "Appalling things happen in war, and that's the bigger issue."

This week, the Pentagon acknowledged that it used white phosphorous rounds against insurgents during the battle of Fallujah last November. To some, its use in the middle of a city - even if America didn't sign the 1980 conventional-weapons pact - is irresponsible.

"If white phosphorous [is to be] used as an incendiary, the military has to do so in a manner consistent with our obligations to not unnecessarily harm civilians," says Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association here. "The evidence available suggests that that may not have been done."

Pentagon officials insist that the weapon was not used against civilians. If civilians were indeed killed, as the Italian report alleges, the military will have to determine if the appropriate precautions were taken.

To determine the facts, some observers have called for an investigation, and the Iraqi Health Ministry has already started one of its own.

Yet regardless of what lies ahead, the report has the possibility of becoming to the Iraq war what the famous picture by Nick Ut was to the Vietnam War. In that black-and-white photograph, a young girl runs naked from a napalm attack in Vietnam.

"Obviously, napalm was not [intended] to bomb little girls," says Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va. "But war is a chaotic affair."

Some experts find it curious that white phosphorous should be so demonized. While it can have terrible effects, it is not seen within the military world as more dangerous or cruel than any other weapon. "Every military uses white phosphorous," says Dr. Oelrich.

If it can be proved that a member of the US military knowingly used it against civilians, it would be a clear violation of international standards. But cries that equate America's use of white phosphorous with Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons strikes some as inappropriate.

"It's clear that the European media want to have a fight," says Michael O'Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution here. "The instinct for America-bashing is not helpful."

[jahcs]

But they do raise the issue of the military's judgment. Because fires can burn out of control during a battle, the Convention on Conventional Weapons in 1980 banned the use of incendiary devices, like white phosphorous, in heavily populated areas.
[right][snapback]95235[/snapback][/right]

Perhaps the decision to use WP was partly determined by the building materials used in the city? It seems to me that fires would not easily spread in cities like Fallujah.

[Occhidiangela]

Perhaps the decision to use WP was partly determined by the building materials used in the city?  It seems to me that fires would not easily spread in cities like Fallujah.
[right][snapback]95275[/snapback][/right]

The "Ban" is the usual attempt to make war more humane by rule. That approach is not always practical.

The WP being used on stone houses would hardly start a lot of fires, but that is not what causes "collateral damage" casualties among civilians: the effects of WP itself does.

I also wonder sometimes at the classification of a casualty of "women and children." It carries an assumption, politically loaded, of conventional war which guerilla war most certainly is not. In a guerilla war, combatants can indeed be women and/or "children." A 14 year old with a gun is a combatant, not a child, but the journalists will report it as a child if someone has conveniently wandered off with the gun. Same with a woman, though my gut feel is that most Arabs wouldn't send their women to fight a guerilla war. I may be wrong about that, and of course the recent capture of the 35 year old woman suicide bombing (failed) for Zarqawi makes me wonder further, since Fallujah is one of his favorite places to fight.

Grains of salt required, regardless of who is reporting.

Occhi

[jahcs]

Agreed Occhi.

WP is not a pretty weapon, at least it's effects aren't.* War is not pretty. War is not humane. Even the good guys' (usually determined by who the victor is) actions are not. Most folks will say "do the ends justify the means?" We musn't forget the other side "do the means justify the end?"

I didn't notice the International Press in an uproar over the bombings of Shiite mosques near the Iranian border over the last couple days. The question has been raised of bringing the U.S. to trial for war crimes in regard to the use of WP. I wonder, does the same hold true for those folks actively targeting civilians? I'm sure the civilians killed in those mosques will be added to the total number of civilian deaths resulting from this war, even though they can't resonably be attributed to the U.S. actions in the war.

There is no way, in war, to ensure 100% weapons accountability, 0% risk of collateral damage, and 100% truthfull reporting of the facts. The only way to make this happen is to not engage in war in the first place, and it's a bit late to run along that line of thinking.






*IMO, the cloud of smoke created by WP munitions with the brightly lit streamers trailing off it is rather majestic - but only when employed over an empty field, and not in anger.

[Doc]

Congress is voting tonight for an immediate pull out of all troops in Iraq.

What huh?

[jahcs]

Congress is voting tonight for an immediate pull out of all troops in Iraq.

What huh?
[right][snapback]95292[/snapback][/right]

It looks like they want to vote on it so they can shoot it down and show most of Congress is still in favor of remaining in Iraq.

Unfortunately giving the issue such an official stance will only make it easier to continue talk of this nature. A unilateral withdrawl will not help anyone, except the insurgents.

[Occhidiangela]

Congress is voting tonight for an immediate pull out of all troops in Iraq.

What huh?
[right][snapback]95292[/snapback][/right]

Posturing for the 2006 election. We have been in Endless Election since 2000 and the Florida "I am too stupid to use a ballot" and "what do you mean count all the votes?" nonsense.

Occhi

[Guest]

Its a "gag" vote.


The Republicans made this vote happen just to show that not even Democrats actually agree with what Murtha said on Thursday.
(Murtha is a House Rep. who made a rather out landish call for the immediate removal of troops from Iraq and is getting an undue ammount of media attention for it.)

[Occhidiangela]

Its a "gag" vote.
The Republicans made this vote happen just to show that not even Democrats actually agree with what Murtha said on Thursday.
(Murtha is a House Rep. who made a rather out landish call for the immediate removal of troops from Iraq and is getting an undue ammount of media attention for it.)
[right][snapback]95330[/snapback][/right]

I am not sure Murtha didn't make this motion out of a sense of exasperation. Given his experiences in Viet Nam, and what has been shown over the past 30 years of research on the political military interface and how decisions, good and bad, get made, his speaking up is not unexpected.

THen again, one might want to investigate how he voted on the 2002 "use of force authorization" to consider what is going on, political tactics wise.

I still find VP Cheney's response to be cavalier.

Occhi

[Guest]

I live in PA and have been listening to him all my life.

He is normally a hawkish and fairly conservative Democrat. But he is also a consumate politician - hes the "best" Pork barreler on the hill.
My take is it was a political ploy.

Worth noting is that that last week the senate and house were both shown a new withdraw plan laid out by the Pentegon.
If you compare what he said and what the plan says it looks like he just took the Pentegons plan massivly exagerated the parts the would be popular with the public. He likely thought it would never fly but that is would make him look good and probaly encourage implentation of the Pentgons plan.

[Occhidiangela]

I live in PA and have been listening to him all my life.

He is normally a hawkish and fairly conservative Democrat. But he is also a consumate politician - hes the "best" Pork barreler on the hill.
My take is it was a political ploy.

Worth noting is that that last week the senate and house were both shown a new withdraw plan laid out by the Pentegon.
If you compare what he said and what the plan says it looks like he just took the Pentegons plan massivly exagerated the parts the would be popular with the public. He likely thought it would never fly but that is would make him look good and probaly encourage implentation of the Pentgons plan.
[right][snapback]95343[/snapback][/right]

Right. Posturing for the 2006 election. :D

Occhi

[Vandiablo]

eppie, you are again mistaken.

WP is not a bomb munition.  A bomb is what an aircraft drops from its bomb racks, onto things on the ground. 

Please, sir, I have an interest in pre-WWII planes...

Can you tell me what kind of plane the British were using at Fort McHenry during the battle that inspired our Sacred National Anthem about our Sacred National Emblem?? You know, the one with the "bombs bursting in air?"

Seeing as how this song was written sometime in the early 19th century, I find it curious that it uses a word that (assuming you are correct, and the Wrights were the first to fly) had no meaning for another 70 years or so.

Perhaps the word also allows usage by hot air balloons? Did the Brits have a secret weapon during that war?

-V
Stablehand
The Forsaken Inn

[jahcs]

Teminologies and word usages differ between countries and time periods. An example of this is the M203 grenade launcher. It is that large tube under the barrel of an M16 that you see in movies occasionally. The U.S. calls most of the projectiles it fires grenades. The British, who also have the M203 in their arsenal call them bombs.

[Fragbait]

Washington Post November 16, 2005  Pg. 16
U.S. Used Phosphorous Munitions In Fallujah

The U.S. military confirmed yesterday that it used artillery rounds containing white phosphorus against insurgents during the assault on Fallujah last November, but said it did not use the highly flammable agent against civilians as claimed in an Italian television report.
Occhi
[right][snapback]95046[/snapback][/right]

What really bothers me is the change from 'We did not use it at all, except to >>illuminate enemy positions at night<<.' to 'Yes, okay. We used it alright, no sweat. But not on civilians, of course!'

The State Department initially denied that U.S. troops had used white phosphorus against enemy forces. "They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters," a department Web site said.

The department later said the statement had been incorrect.

from cnn article about the use of white phosphorous

It's so easy to state: The former statement was incorrect. The current statement is correct. Please believe us, we're telling you the truth, the whole truth.

The U.S. are continuing to repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot by not revealing the full extent of such things immediately. People begin to think:
'Yeah, sure. The complete truth - until something new is discovered. Hypocrites.'


Greetings, Fragbait

[Occhidiangela]

Dear Sir:

A "bomb" as a generic explosive device is a vague term. You could, in your confusion, ask if the Americans were strapping WP to their bodies and delivering that ordnance via suicide bomber, since it is a "bomb."

We are not fighting the war of 1812, and a 21st century journalist is not a 19th century poet. . The tools of war and the terms that apply to them have progressed since 1812, or hadn't you noticed?

In other linguistic news, fag no longer just means cigarette, nor does faggot merely mean bundle of sticks. SCUBA is a word that didn't exist in Francis Scott Keys' day, but it is currently in common usage. A dick used to refer to a policeman or private detective, or bank security officer. It no longer is used that way. (See WC Fields' film The Bank Dick. It was not about the loan officer.)

Since the reporting is being done in 2005, terms that fit today should be used by a journalist writing in the present. Lack of precision in expression leads to lack of understanding and clear thinking. I'll suggest the journalist was delibarately vague, in his effort to find a controversial presentation for the story he was working on. That is both disingenuous and unprofessional, but is what I have come to expect from the media regardless of their bias.

Or should I refer to malaria as bad air, rather than a disease spread through the blood, with mosquitos as the vector? A few hundred years ago, the former was its meaning.

If you have any further questions on the difference between clear and muddy descriptives, and precision in expression, please forward them to me, written on the back of a 20 dollar bill. You have used up your free lesson in say what you mean, and mean what you say. I did note that a layman is not held to the same standard as the journalist, or did you speed read past that? :wacko:

A journalist, if he is to be professional, should use clear descriptives and understand the words he is using. Once again, there is no bomb given the context of the original article, armed with WP in the US inventory, so the man's assertion is both false and irresponsible. My initial attempts were initially made to add some clarity to the discussion at hand. Yours seem to aim at confusion and muddy thinking.

F.S. Key, being a poet rather than a journalist, can be forgiven for poetic license, whatever the century. The Itialian journalist who wrote the initial article claimed that WP was being delivered as a bomb. He was sloppy. If he's a journalist covering a war, he should clearly describe the weapons involved in the fight. Or should he remain sloppy and imprecise, and report the Shock and Awe campaign as artillery fire? Should he refer to some fine marijuana as "good sh**" would you, Sir Stablehand, assume he was smoking what you are shoveling? :blink:

Capisce? ;)

Occhi

Can you tell me what kind of plane the British were using at Fort McHenry during the battle that inspired our Sacred National Anthem about our Sacred National Emblem?? You know, the one with the "bombs bursting in air?"

Seeing as how this song was written sometime in the early 19th century, I find it curious that it uses a word that (assuming you are correct, and the Wrights were the first to fly) had no meaning for another 70 years or so.

Perhaps the word also allows usage by hot air balloons? Did the Brits have a secret weapon during that war?

-V
Stablehand
The Forsaken Inn
[right][snapback]95378[/snapback][/right]

[eppie]

Since the reporting is being done in 2005, terms that fit today should be used by a journalist writing in the present.&nbsp; Lack of precision in expression leads to lack of understanding and clear thinking.&nbsp; I'll suggest the journalist was delibarately vague, in his effort to find a controversial presentation for the story he was working on.&nbsp; That is both disingenuous and unprofessional, but is what I have come to expect from the media regardless of their bias.

That is true. In the before we mainly saw very positive news about the Iraq war and about the reasons to go there. Now, when Bush is already taking a beating, the media dares finally again to be critical. We needed them earlier I would say.

[Occhidiangela]

Good points, Fragbait.

1. The information campaign has been crap from the beginning.

2. I don't understand the "we didn't use it" comment, since the LTC observed that WP is a legal munition. I have since heard about "shake and bake" tactics, which make some tactical sense: do something to get the enemy to move, and hit him while he is moving. That is good fire and maneuver technique.

3. As this story unfolds, I remain puzzled as to what provisions in the RoE permit WP in a MOUT setting, given the well understood reservations of its use in general. This is not a new concern, which I will elaborate with a personal anecdote.

In 1983, I was undergoing training as an airborne Naval Gunfire Spotter. A US Marine Captain, Field Artillery, was teaching our class. We were doing a classroom exercise on an immense board, a super duper micro armor sand table, about 6 meters by 4 meters in dimension, prior to our live fire training.

The board depicted a beach area and 10 or 20 kilometers depth of hilly land. My turn came to spot the fall of shot, which was indicated by a brief flash of light and sometimes a bit of smoke on the board. I was to call for fire on a position, by grid, call for corrective spotting rounds, and then full "fire for effect." WP spotting rounds were indicated by slightly thicker columns of smoke on the board.

The target was a Command Post. (Red Forces ;) ) I corrected a few rounds, trying to walk the fire into the target, and then called "fire for effect" with 6 rounds of WP, with which we had been spotting. I even considered wind drift.

The instructor stopped the lessaon, a quizzical look on his face. He had a teaching point to make.

Instructor:
"WP is a spotting round, did you forget to change munitions to HE, Lieutenant?"

Snickers from some of my classmates for my goofing up the call for fire.

Me: "No sir, I figured WP, even if we missed, would force the personnel in the CP to abandon their position. Mission kill."

The captain gave a mirthless laugh and remarked that I had a sick sense of humor. He commented that liked lateral thinking but generally preferred adherence to doctrine.

At this point he banged the podium he was teaching from, his words were to the effect of:

"Once again class, the shell used against personnel in soft cover in the open is High Explosive; WP is NOT to be used as an antipersonnel weapon. Marine artillerists and Naval Gunners will call "check fire" if anyone calls for WP "fire for effect."

WP's use, according to the captain, violated doctrine and was against US policy. (1983). With that bit of egg on my face, I re did my final call for fire "with six rounds, HE, fire for effect." The whole class got to learn a lesson at my expense. I also had to buy the first round of drinks at the Officer's Club that afternoon, since I had committed the day's greatest act of buffoonery.

At that time, I had not read the 1980 CCW agreements, nor was I as clear on RoE and LOAC issues in general. I have since become better educated.

That experience, and the incredibly tight RoE we had to work with last year, makes me wonder what subtleties in RoE, or other legal guidance, has changed. My gut feel is that rules on WP itself have changed little. This brings me to the limit of my competence on "Why was WP used in MOUT?" (House to House fighting, or, "Military Operations in Urban Terrain.") In that regard, you and I are sitting in the same barstool.

Occhi

What really bothers me is the change from 'We did not use it at all, except to >>illuminate enemy positions at night<<.' to 'Yes, okay. We used it alright, no sweat. But not on civilians, of course!'

from cnn article about the use of white phosphorous

It's so easy to state: The former statement was incorrect. The current statement is correct. Please believe us, we're telling you the truth, the whole truth.

The U.S. are continuing to repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot by not revealing the full extent of such things immediately. People begin to think:
'Yeah, sure. The complete truth - until something new is discovered. Hypocrites.'
Greetings, Fragbait
[right][snapback]95399[/snapback][/right]