US used Chemical weapons in Iraq [Archive]

RileyDove

16th Nov 2005, 22:58

Max - The definition of a chemical weapon is based on it's use and effects . The purpose of white phosperous is effectvely to smoke people out with drifting clouds of the stuff . Used against civilians it's deemed as a chemical attack. Regards depleated uranium - it's used to bombard artillery shells to alter the molecular structure and effectively increase it's hardness.
The long term effects of the inhalation of depleated uranium
round dust is a matter of concern. The Mod in the case of GW1
veterans was more than strident in denying the possible effects
on servicemen charged with inspecting Iraqi tanks that had been targeted with DU rounds
Regards the difficulty in targeting insurgents when mixed with the civilian population - that doesn't in anyway justify the use of WP directly against civilians. If you argue the point that you cannot tell the difference between the civil population and the
insurgents you get yourself into almost the same position of Saddam Hussain. He is going on trial for the murder of failed
asassins and villagers back in 1982 - can he use the same defence that he couldn't tell the difference between the two but it was vital to retain his sovereign rights and the security of the nation.
Tony Blair got us into this war - his men really need to get a grip of the media and try and make something positive out of this mess.

Lima Juliet

16th Nov 2005, 23:06

How about this then Riley:

PARIS (Reuters) - French security forces fired tear gas to disperse youths in Lyon on Saturday in the first sign of unrest in a city center after more than two weeks of civil disturbances in outlying suburbs of towns and cities.

Are they using chemical weapons against there own populace? By the way the grenades get quite hot and can burn the flesh...

LJ:confused:

Load Toad

17th Nov 2005, 00:53

> Riley Dove

'Regards depleated uranium - it's used to bombard artillery shells to alter the molecular structure and effectively increase it's hardness.'

I don't think that's right is it? I thought DU rounds were a very specific armour piercing round. Made from DU which is harder / denser than tungsten and reacts exothermicaly with armour?

The issue with DU rounds was the 'dust' created as a side effect of their use on armour. The argument being this dust was hazerdous to health. I'm not sure if it is proven that the dust is harmful or if it is suspected that the dust is harmful.

A better informed person on here can prolly clarify.

PPRuNeUser0211

17th Nov 2005, 07:47

Load Toad:

Yes, DU is used in armour piercing sabot rounds from MBTs, such as the Chally 2 or ABRAMS. It is used in the direct fire role (i.e. from tanks, not artillery) and it is never (AFAIK) used in artillery shells, as all such shells are explosive in nature, rather than relying on kinetic enerygy.

Good article about the concern over dust from DU:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/09/iraq-030904-04092003185213.htm

Quick summary: In short, the problem arises in that DU is radioactive (can't remember whether its alpha particles? A-level physics was a long time ago!) but the emissions are effective over only an extremely short distance and easily stopped (thin sheet of metal, or anything really...) and hence the problem arises when it is inhaled or ingested and results in cancer of the lung or similar.

Pierre Argh

17th Nov 2005, 09:27

I don't profess to be an expert on DU, but recall reading an article in the "serious press" which stated something like DU had caused more deaths of Iraqi civilians Post GW1 that had been killed by Saddam's regime... effective medical treatment was stopped from getting into the country under the terms of the UN blockade. Now, while the radioactive effect of DU may be perceived as easily controlled, if you're an Iraqi civilian wandering through an area containing shell debris... you are unlikely to consider wrapping yourself in tin foil.

But this is getting off the point about Phospherus... which you probably couldn't give a FCUK about whether it's classified a "chemical weapon" or not if youre on the receiving end.

Dave Martin

17th Nov 2005, 09:29

Soddim,

Assuming that is a troll, but if not -

So what is wrong with the use of weapons against those civilians who are insurgents or terrorists?

Using WP (and the reports we have seen are likely just the tip of the iceberg) in a city, where some 150,000 people remained (males of fighting age were NOT allowed to leave), but where anyone who did remain was automaticly declared to be an insurgent.....get my drift.

Then of course, something about us holding the moral high ground, setting an example, proving ourselves to be a world apart from Saddam, etc etc.

The media should remember that it is civilians who pose the current threat to our western democracies.

On second thoughts, this clearly is a troll. Well done! :D

Dan Winterland

17th Nov 2005, 13:23

White phosphorus as a weapon comes in more than one guise. The 'Willie Pete' grenades of the Vietnam era used the phosphorus as a weapon itself. Lumps of the stuff flew every where, stuck to the enemy and spoiled their day. These are now banned. However, WP is used legally in smoke grenades by most armed forces. The smoke is harmful to breathe which is why it's not used in training.

DU is mostly used for it's mass. It's nearly twice as dense as lead. More mass = greater energy = greater kill probablility. It is also very hard and has a tendancy to splinter into sharp shards on impact. It is pyrophoric and will burn if exposed to temperatures above about 700 degrees C. DU is also used in armour, the keels of sailing boats, formula 1 cars and the mass balances of aircraft including the B747 which has aboout a tonne of the stuff! Undisturbed, it can sit around being harmless for ages (it has a half life of 4.5 billion years!), it doesn't give out much radiation . But smack it hard into something or ignite it and it can release some of its mass into energy - i.e. radiate again. Alpha, Beta and Gamma radiation will be released, but not in large values. the major danger comes from the Alpha particles. If concentrated in a small space, such as a burned out tank they are massively dangerous - especially if someone subsequently enters the tank for a look and pinch a bit for a souvenir. Although Alpha particles have a hard time penetrating the outer dead layer of your skin, if ingested they can really damage your health.

ExGrunt

17th Nov 2005, 14:56

To DW

I am afraid I have to disagree, we had - and AFAIK still have- three types of grenade:

the L2A2 HE Grenade
the No.80 White Phosphorus Smoke Grenade
the No.83 Coloured Smoke Grenade

The No.80 is a bursting WP grenade producing an instant smoke screen by 'bursting' a lump of WP. It has been in service since at least WWII. The coloured smoke grenades are used for signalling as in:

Hello AlphaWhiskey Blah this is 20Bravo, smoke my position.
AW blah: I see yellow smoke.
20B: Yellow is correct.

For those of you with an extensive vid collection the australian film The odd angry shot has a text book use of the No.80 grenade as an anti-personnel weapon.

Every army in the world uses WP for smoke because it produces an 'instant' screen. Its AP effects are equally well understood. IIRC WP is classed as an incendiary and not a chemical weapons, so the report is technically inaccurate.

Turning to the issue that started this thread, targetting rules apply to any weapon including if they existed 'health and safety approved fluffy bullets'.

The rules actually say (paraphrased):

Military operations must be directed only against military objectives, and indiscriminate attacks, as defined, are prohibited.

Recognising that there may well be some civilian casualties arising from attacks on military objectives, the law stipulates that attacks are indiscriminate if they may be expected to cause civilian losses, either material or personal, which would be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage

As the law stands the USMC were perfectly entitled to 'shake & bake' the insurgents. That innocent civilians were harmed is an unpleasant reality of war that western forces more than anyone in the world take steps to avoid.

EG

OFBSLF

17th Nov 2005, 16:24

Unbelievable. People are trying to claim that smoke grenades are chemical weapons? And they say that with straight faces?

Clearly they've gone completely around the bend.

JessTheDog

17th Nov 2005, 18:21

Since when has surrounding a town, ordering the occupants to leave - except "males of military age" - and pounding it with explosive and incendiary artillery been proportionate?

It appears more akin to a 18th century siege or the Second World War tactics of the Nazis.

Well done the US of A! Of course it's not the politicians whose backsides are on the line as a result of deceitful and incompetent decisions now, is it?

:yuk:

brickhistory

17th Nov 2005, 18:34

quote:

Since when has surrounding a town, ordering the occupants to leave - except "males of military age" - and pounding it with explosive and incendiary artillery been proportionate?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see, so the tactics against the MLA during the "Emergency," or in Yemen, or Aden, or several other post-WWII contingencies were perfectly fine (including the use of WP), but because the "US of A" does it, it is automatically bad.

Hmmm.......

RileyDove

17th Nov 2005, 21:18

Brickhistory - I don't think its a matter of comparing our colonial wars to your escapades. The 'War on Terror' and it's ofspring
'The War On What We Think Saddam Has' - has always been
based on the principles that Saddam used chemical weapons against civilians - developed WMD's and tortured people.
The coallition so far seems to be keen on ticking all the boxes - torture has happened by the U.S and U.K - White Phosperous rounds certainly appear to have been used without
proper thought of the consequences - all we are lacking to rival
Saddam is WMD's .
We are fighting some really nasty people- the secret is to either admit that we have to become barbaric to fight on their terms or decide it's time to leave.

brickhistory

17th Nov 2005, 21:40

Riley,

I would think that some of your media and/or "other side" in some of your conflicts might disagree. BTW, I don't find fault with your conflicts, just the so tiresome "USA all bad, all the time" that runs through this forum so often. Surprising to me, perhaps I'm just simple......

While good natured ribbing is welcome, simply because one is from the US and even, gasp, serves in her military, does not make one comparable to Saddam and his regime (or other really nasty governments of past times).

For this thread, if we are at war (not if we should be or how we got there), then use what we have to to accomplish the mission and/or minimize our casualties. You'd be a piss-poor tactical commander if you didn't.

For your comments about 'ticking all the boxes - torture, using WP without thinking it through, blah, blah, blah:

War is a bloody business (Yeah, I know it's not original). Collateral damage, civilian deaths are to be avoided at all costs and NOBODY feels worse than the grunt or the aircrew that missed and took out mama and baby, but if it's war, it's gonna happen.

Torture? Name one conflict where it doesn't happen, however the acts of a few idiots forever smears the rest of the conflict. Hmm, Malmedy, some stuff in N. Ireland, May Lei (sp?), are all examples of things that shouldn't have happened, but humans being what they are, it's gonna. Not excusing it, but when the 24/7 newsies HAVE to fill the air, what's bad gets a lot of mileage.

Rant off.

Load Toad

18th Nov 2005, 04:11

Are any of the sensationalist media taking up the issue of civilian deaths, beheadings etc with the insurgents? Some in depth and embedded investigative journalism would make great reading.

teeteringhead

18th Nov 2005, 08:04

DU is mostly used for its mass. It's nearly twice as dense as lead. .... exactly so! Used to be used for that reason as blade-tip balance weights in the mighty Wessex for many years .....

....... and I still managed to father 3 (fairly) normal children ...... that I know of!:E

Maple 01

18th Nov 2005, 10:00

So if WP is a chemical weapon and Saddam had WP............

Either that ligitimises GW2 for those who are still sulking about it, OR WP isn't a chemical weapon, in which case the whole story is 'a crock o' s*ite' as they say in the old country - which is it to be?

brickhistory

18th Nov 2005, 10:11

I vote for the latter position!

Dave Martin

18th Nov 2005, 10:18

The article is a red-herring, persuing the angle of WP being chemical weapons. It clearly isn't.

The point is it emphasises the US not being a signatory to a weapons protocol, which while being quite within their rights, further degrades any pretense of holding a moral superiority.

No matter what the legal standing is, we have a weapon whose effects are little different from that of chemical weapons. How do we explain.

We abhore Saddam's use of chemical agents in Halabja, yet accept something far worse than a blistering agent being used indirectly into an urban environment?

Al Qaida and the Iraqi insurgency don't need to make up their propaganda, we create it for them.

Maple 01

18th Nov 2005, 10:34

Which is it to be then Dave?

Yes, Yanks using WP in Iraq is worse than Halabja :rolleyes:

And of course, they are useing this CW stuff in direct fire against unarmed women and children - ooops, no, sorry, that was saddam again wasn't it?

Have a look at the ARRSE site for the views of people who actually work with the stuff.......

Dave Martin

18th Nov 2005, 11:16

Nope, never said it was worse than Halabja.

But is the distinction between the US and the insurgency simply "well, we do it, but the insurgency do it worse than we do"? Is that a distinction you are happy with?

As for your last point, yes, that is exactly what is achieved when you bomb an urban environment where people have not been allowed to escape.

You are trying to excuse the inexcusable.

The whole story is not a crock of sh1t for the reasons I gave. It is arguable that WP is a chemical weapon, but not likely to hold up really. The fact is, we use WP where civilian will get hit. Charming.

Maple 01

18th Nov 2005, 14:12

Why is WP any worse than any other way to kill an 'insurgent'?

that is exactly what is achieved when you bomb an urban environment where people have not been allowed to escape.

And of course you have some evidence of that, or are you just repeating the bleating of a biased and discredited media?

Dave Martin

18th Nov 2005, 15:53

Because it is a means of slowly burning the flesh of someone, or where inhaled, a means burning the lungs and causing suffocation. In otherwords a slow and painful death where the substance cannot be removed.

The best comparison I could think of would be an acid attack.

If we are going to do that then we might as well employ mustard gas.

But afterall, they were all insurgents in Fallujah and insurgents can be killed any way we see fit, correct? Even those women and children found burnt. Probably goign to grow up to be insurgents anyway.

What part of my statement is discredited out of interest?

Maple 01

18th Nov 2005, 17:22

Dave Martin,

let's start off with the phrase 'bombing,'

Seeing the original article included an interview with an Arty Obs who spoke of 'shake and bake' arty tactics against dug-on insurgents, smoke to clear the trenches, HE to kill those fleeing - and just because the journo that started all this didn't understand - or more probably wanted a 'shock-horror' story doesn’t make it anything more than SOP against 'the bad guys' – bombing implies aircraft – so perhaps the US has been using fleets of B-52s with non-combatant seeking warheads?

If you have any proof US forces are DELIBERATELY targeting non-combatants why not present it to the Hague? - unless you don't have any first-hand knowledge and you're just one of those happy to parrot any anti-US propaganda

Moving on
I think you said civilians weren’t permitted to leave Fallujah - any proof?

The Guardian reported that

200,000 to 300,000 residents fled the city before the assault

(As you know the Guardian is a viciously pro-war neo-con newspaper)

- can't see anyone being in

an urban environment where people have not been allowed to escape.

Still looking for the slide presentation that showed 60% of Mosques were used as defensive strongpolints and arms dumps.....

Epsilon minus

18th Nov 2005, 17:23

Riley Dove
The purpose of white phosperous is effectvely to smoke people out with drifting clouds of the stuff

White phos has been used many times in training. It's primary purpose was to obscure the target allowing friendlies to either move or retreat, If it also inhibited the enemies ability to kill you that was a bonus. Cost effective weapons material then.

The US have used this weapon in battle, you do not apply wishy washy PC ideals to an operational situation like this. Not nice but then war isn't I'm afraid. :}
EM

soddim

18th Nov 2005, 19:11

There are a few posters here who need to grow up along with the media. The people in the theatre concerned are torturing each other, suicide bombing each other and killing our troops. If a little smoke grenade (albeit filled with willie peat) is used to flush some of them out in the open where they can be dealt with, avoiding as far as possible harm to those innocents who they have been sheltering amongst, why not applaud such tactics instead of falsely accusing USA of using chemical weapons.

RileyDove

18th Nov 2005, 20:14

Load Toad - Yes it would be great to have some good investigative journalism . I do however think that the place is too dangerous even for Roger Cook!
As for the definition of what is a chemical weapon and what's not . The point is that the U.S government denied it's use apart from smokescreens . This was then directly contradicted by the 'Shake and Bake' article. If you use questionable weapons fine - either own up and face the consequences or make sure you can cover it up without looking like arses.
In terms of the escalation in insurgents - maybe not disbanding the Iragi Police Force and the Armed forces would have been a good idea. I guess securing the bomb dumps instead of the oil ministry would have also have been a good move. However we are reaping what we have sown .

Dave Martin

18th Nov 2005, 20:40

Right-o Maple 01,

For starters, you are being very innacurate in your interpretation of "bake" used in this arty terminology.

Insurgents aren't going to get up and run just because of WP is obscuring their vision. If WP was being used purely for smoke, why launch it preceeding a secondary arty barrage at all? Troops weren't running in after this WP attack, not to mention the difficulties the FOO party has directing proceedings with WP smoke obscuring the target.

In reality, no one (apart from yourself and soddim it seems) really disagrees that the WP in this case was used because it holds certain abhorant properties on contact with skin or mucus membranes. Given the defence put forward by the Pentagon on this issue, blatently stating they have the right to employ WP as an anti-personel device, the US military are admitting as such.

Or are you even disputing this?

Further, if the best you can do is pick holes in the symantics of using the term "bombing" when referring to arty then you are well wide of the mark. If you have in fact watched the documentary you will be aware it is an Italian documentary but we have an English voice over....I hope you get my point. I'd agree the RAI documentary was innacurate on a number of issues, from square one claiming Kim Phuc was a "he", not a "she" and that the napalm used to injure her, while being manufactured in America, sold by America and deployed from an American built A-1, was launched by an American pilot rather than the South Vietnamese one as it actually was (phew, the US was was almost responsible, eh?).

However, the documentary does carry a lot of merit in other areas and reports backed up fact on the most important issues which it is trying to address. The deployment of WP arty in an anti-personal context on fallujah is illustrated and not denied, apart from people desperately trying to justify its use.

Moving right along; as for targetting civilians, have a think about this:

I have stated from the start that US forces prevented men of fighting age from fleeing Fallujah, not to mention those who didn't have the capacity to leave (as the corpses of women, children and elderly found in the mopping up with testify). This was even reported on FOX news so before you fire up the tired line of leftie newspapers providing biased antiwar reporting....

Now, if SUV owning, Americans with access to constant weather updates on their TV sets won't seek refuge inland from incoming hurricanes, do you really think largely imobile Iraqi civilians are going to get up and move because the US again threatens to bomb them? They have been bombed ever since GWI. The unpalletable truth is many civilians couldn't or wouldn't leave.

Fallujah is (or was) a massive city of about half a million residents -- I don't disregard the fact that 300,000 fled, BUT, an infant could probably tell you that 500,000 - 300,000 doesn't equal an empty city......or are we talking 200,000 Fallujah residents in fact being insurgents? 30%-40% of the population?

Thus we come to the real crux of the issue. The US claimed that anyone left in Fallujah after all the ample warning to escape was to be deemed an insurgent. I don't claim the US was deliberately targetting civilians. They were never going to, because by definition it was simply impossible for anyone they killed to be a civilian. No civilians remained in Fallujah. Convenient?

All this is academic.

We have used weapons which maybe not by the letter of the law (didn't Bush state his administration would not just obey legal definitions, but would take aboard moral definitions?), but in practical terms are no different from chemical or biological agents. We are happy to employ these weapons where there are guaranteed to be civilians. We invaded Iraq on a whole pretext of the absolute evil of chemical/biological weapons and the hideous affect they have on humans.

Perhaps, you could for a fleeting moment find it within yourself to support the aims of the invasion, to support George Bush, to support your military, but to also realise that in some areas our forces at every level have utterly overstepped the mark, our aims having been completely undermined and any claim we have of a moral high ground in the eyes of those we are trying to win over being reduced to laughable hypocracy.

But I guess not. It doesn't matter what you or I think, it's what the Muslim population of the world thinks. Just think for a moment, what they are thinking when they hear of us employing these weapons.

brickhistory

18th Nov 2005, 22:52

quote:
We have used weapons which maybe not by the letter of the law (didn't Bush state his administration would not just obey legal definitions, but would take aboard moral definitions?), but in practical terms are no different from chemical or biological agents. We are happy to employ these weapons where there are guaranteed to be civilians. We invaded Iraq on a whole pretext of the absolute evil of chemical/biological weapons and the hideous affect they have on humans.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. I admit I'm only middling in the foodchain from our CinC, but I am fairly sure that the Pres has never specified a weapons load for any of our aircraft (nukes excluded!), much less directed a small ground unit to use WP, but as I said, I could be 'just out of it.'
1a. Oh yeah, we are the evil ones who, all of us, go around offing innocents just for the hell of it.

quote:
It doesn't matter what you or I think, it's what the Muslim population of the world thinks. Just think for a moment, what they are thinking when they hear of us employing these weapons.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And what do they think when we do things like food/helos/$$ for hurricane/disaster relief? Same f***ing thing, so your point is moot. I would hazard that your mindset is along those same lines, so why bother trying?

quote (actually not all of it):
Now, if SUV owning, Americans........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WTFO? If you are trying to present a rational arguement, this just detracts from any points you might make. Also, ain't it great that I can afford to own/drive one! (oh, and I own a gun, several in fact! Hopefully, that just sent the 'ping' meter into the red.

Now, let me ask a question to you: what have you DONE about any of this? If you don't like it, have you written your MP? Have you written/called/e-mailed your PM's office? Attended a legal protest? Or is it easier to just snipe from the comfort of home?

Final question: assume for a moment, you are in charge. The situation is as it is, what would you propose strategically and tactically? Should the Coalition just leave right now? Ok, what happens then?
Small unit matters: should the troops 'play nice' and not use the weapons available to them?
Do you have any solutions or is it just easier to snipe from the comforts of home?

(edited for some gross spelling errors)

soddim

18th Nov 2005, 23:07

If all you accuse the US troops of doing with willie peat was true, Dave Martin, why have we not seen the evidence of phosphorus burns vividly displayed on our TV screens - the insurgents would not miss a propaganda coup like that.

Are you working for Ahl ul-Sunnah Wa al-Jamma?

Dan Winterland

18th Nov 2005, 23:44

The Chemical weapons Convention allows WP to be used as an obscurant, but not as a weapon. The use of WP as an anti -personnel weapon is therefore prohibited, and therefore it's use can be construed as use of a chemical weapon if so used.

The Mk80 smoke grenade has only been intended as use as a smoke grenade - although getting spattered with WP will spoil your day. Previous versions of WP grenades designed as anti - personnel grenades are illegal.

In my time, we didn't use the the Mk80 for training. Anyone know if this is still the case?

Melchett01

19th Nov 2005, 00:15

With every passing day and news report on the fiasco that is Iraq, I become more and more disheartened about how things are going. Nothing to do with what's actually happening in theatre, but the way that ill-informed media types, politicians, do-gooders and armchair SACs that think that because they've read Bravo Two Zero & Tornado Down, they are the authority on everything and spout utter drivel ...... "Army using grenades and smoke shocker! Chemical weapons on the battlefield!" Well yes, WP grenades are the preferred method of generating smoke - it's a lot safer and quicker than sending a couple of squaddies over the top with a few damp branches and leaves and a box of matches.

The real question as far as I can see is this: Are we now going to spend the next 3 years going over every decision made, every action taken in minute detail, pulling it apart and passing judgement on why that grenade was used in this situation or that assault was made on Al MAK?

We need to accept the fact that war is a pretty ****ty business that involves some pretty nasty weapons and hardnosed tactics/decisions. If you don't want to step up to the colours and take part, don't criticize those that do on YOUR behalf to keep YOUR pretty little pink body safe.

Thirty years ago we used to worry about whether or not we'd win a war; now we worry about whether we will win perfectly. That is an unfortunate mindset that has been plastered all over the place and rammed down our throats thanks to the 24/7 media presence on the battlefield. You want to ban nasty weapons that might hurt someone, or criticise decisions made in the heat of the moment? Fine but to me that is a compelling argument for media black outs on ops - should put an end to uninformed and incorrect drivel such as we have seen in the media in recent months.

brickhistory

19th Nov 2005, 01:00

Shack! Bull's eye! Spot on! Maggie's Drawers! Insert your favorite phrase for 'exactly right' here.....

Clockwork Mouse

19th Nov 2005, 08:18

Well said M01.

WP is an essential battlefield tool for the Infantry and armour as it generates instant and dense smoke to provide cover from observation and so from direct enemy fire; because of the heat created it also shields against IR and TI observation. Tanks and APCs used to, presumably still do, use it in their smoke dischargers to shield them when they come unexpectedly under fire.

If you have seen the difference in effect when the artillery fire chemical smoke, which takes ages to build up and is seldom an effective screen, and WP, which is instant and voluminous, you would not doubt its usefulness in reducing own casualties in battle.

It is also very effective as an anti-personnel weapon in clearing bunkers and rat holes where HE grenades may not be so lethal. The Paras used a lot of it at Goose Green for example.

Like all effective weapons of war the results of its use are unpleasant. I would certainly think twice about using it as a weapon, as opposed to providing cover for movement, in a built-up area where there could be non-combattants.

However, to ban it deprives the soldier of yet another effective tool for doing his job while staying alive. As an ex-infantryman I deeply resent the banning of AP mines for protecting defensive positions from covert infiltration or direct assault by enemy infantry. Well done the sainted Diana.

If the civilian press, politicians and tree-huggers want their wars to be fought using paint-ball guns, let them fight their own bloody wars and choose their opponents very carefully. I'll be happy to attend their funerals.

JessTheDog

19th Nov 2005, 08:53

We need to accept the fact that war is a pretty ****ty business that involves some pretty nasty weapons and hardnosed tactics/decisions. If you don't want to step up to the colours and take part, don't criticize those that do on YOUR behalf to keep YOUR pretty little pink body safe.

Err...how did this war keep safe the pretty little pink bodies of 56 travellers on the London Underground this summer?

In any case, I thought this war had been won. George Bush told us so in 2003. So what are "we" still doing there?

And why are "we" going back to Afghanistan? To maintain the Dear Leader's hard-on for death?

From the Independent:

The debate over the use of white phosphorus in the battle of Fallujah took a new twist when it emerged the US Army teaches senior officers it is against the \"laws of war\" to fire the incendiary weapon at human targets.

A section from an instruction manual used by the US Army Command and General Staff School (CGSC) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, makes clear that white phosphorus (WP) can be used to produce a smoke screen. But it adds: \"It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets.\"

Hmmm....

I would strongly advise those still wearing Her Maj\'s uniform not to follow the US example, otherwise they will find themselves in the dock courtesy of the Attorney-General and the supine compliance of the Chiefs of Staff.

Dave Martin

19th Nov 2005, 09:48

Clockwork Mouse,

I have to take issue with that. As ex-infantry myself I wholeheartedly abhor the use of mines and WP.

More importantly, having spent substantial time in Laos and Cambodia, I would say well done to Diana. If we are there to save "pretty pink bodies" then we would do well to look at not just the immediate effects of the weapons we employ but the long standing after effects (40 years and counting for the above two countries) they have on an entirely innocent young civilian population.

As for the average civilian tax-payer not being entitled to question and oppose our actions. The last time I checked I was paid for and employed by the tax-payer to protect their lives and property. If the civilian populace not only disagrees with the war we are fighting, but the means we employ to fiight it then we should sit up and listen.

I agree completely that war is a horrific business and know exactly the mess the most basic of weapons causes. That is not my issue.

Why is it on one hand we can whole-heartedly condemn and indeed invade a country on the premise they have weapons that can cause untold misery, while we are beyond question when employing similar weapons ourselves.

Iraq is long past the point where hard heavy firepower will win the war, and it was long past that point when the battle of Fallujah erupted.

The need is for hearts and minds but our actions are in reverse when it comes to achieving that, certainly in the American controlled zones.

RileyDove

19th Nov 2005, 10:01

Melchett - You have hit the nail on the head! Ill informed politicians made the case for war stronger and got us into this mess. The Mod and Department of Defence embraced the media and let us have 24/7 war beamed into our houses -war became
'entertainment' . Now things are not going quite so swimmingly
the media becomes not the messenger but part of the problem.
Nothing new in that - the U.S kept it's steadilly increasing involvement in Vietnam on the quiet. By the 1970's the images
of war became starkly more dark and public opinion went against
the participation. Now we have 'ill informed' media types - the same ill informed types who were briefed by the Army on how Basrah had been taken and then it hadn't by confused Army reports. However these 'ill informed' media types were also
ill informed on the 'spikes of activity' previous to the war which in many ways were legally questionable .
Undoubtedly the media will spend the next 'x' number of years disecting the war and it's effects . Would you expect anything else ? The war has resulted in untold civilian deaths
amongst the Iraqi population - in no way can these deaths be used as a justifiable reason for us being 'safe'.
The internet is used by any number of people to put their
point of view across - I think it's patronising in the extreme to describe some posters as 'armchair SAC's ' - maybe if the government took notice of it's population and members of the armed forces we wouldn't be in the biggest terrorist recruiting drive in history.

Clockwork Mouse

19th Nov 2005, 10:46

Dave Martin,

If, as you say, you are an ex-infantryman but abhor the use of mines and WP, then all I can say is that you must have led a very sheltered existance as an infantryman and were clearly never put in a life-threatening position in which the use of either was necessary for your continued survival.

Banning something because it is misused is not necessarily a sensible solution. Since Dunblane, possession of hand-guns is now prohibited in the UK and so our Olympic pistol team has to train abroad., but you can still buy a pistol illegally on the streets of most UK cities. Knives cost untold lives every year. Why don't we ban them too and make do with forks?

I find your remark about civilian tax-payers illuminating. You imply that, if the well meaning but ill-informed (by the equally ignorant media) civilian doesn't approve of the way we fight his wars, then we soldiers should take heed of his opinion and fight nicely. Paint-balls! If that's how you want the job done, democratically, then do it yourself but don't expect the professional PBI (who also pays taxes) to risk his life unnecessarily for you.

The reasons behind the invasion of Iraq are not relevant to this post. Most of us are grown up and realise the WMD excuse was phoney, but the leaders we voted into power made the decision for us and we, and the Iraqis, have to live with the consequences till we can sort the resultant mess out. To equate the use of WP by the americans, even in FIBUA, with Sadam's use of nerve gas against civilians, is naive and, frankly, rather silly.

It also emphasises the anti-americanism which shines through many of your posts. This does not help your arguments.

To summarise, WP is not a chemical weapon. The americans tend to be more robust in their application of force than we careful brits, but they have suffered a great many more casualties. The mistake the US military made was initially to deny it was being used and then to try to justify it rather clumsily. The media, sensing conspiracy, strike. Tree huggers embrace the cause. Result, more obfuscation than WP could produce, assisted by the likes of DM.

Zoom

19th Nov 2005, 11:25

Nicely put, M01, especially your comment about winning perfectly. I would rather win imperfectly than lose perfectly. In fact, I spent many years training to win imperfectly, using nukes, napalm and other assorted nasties, and the only objections I heard at the time were from the members of the CND. I am just glad that PPRuNe wasn't around in those days because I would have been sick of the earache.

RileyDove

19th Nov 2005, 11:35

Clockwork Orange - Couple of definitions for you:

Kitchen knife - great for preparing dinner .

Stab someone with it - a weapon.

Pesticide - great for getting rid of green flies

Spray it in someones eyes - a weapon.

White Phosperous - clearly a chemical - ideal for creating smokescreens . Fire it directly against people - is it being used
for the purpose it was designed for ? If there was no perceived problem with the use of White Phosperous - why was the DoD
at pains to point out that it was used for air bursts only - this was subsequently contradicted by the Artillery Magazine . Who was ill informed ? The media or the Pentagon ? It's a bit embarrasing when you don't read your own forces magazines!
As for land mines - yes great for defending fixed positions
and a technology that dates from the first part of the last century.
However with increasingly sophisticated motion sensors I guess
it's easier to have silent threat alerts than explosions in the night
that only add to the confusion of battle. A pity for those that have lost their jobs making them - I doubt many in Africa are mourning their passing however.
As for commenting on how our battles are fought - that's the right as a citizen . The fighting man is constrained by the laws of the land - choose to deviate from those rules and in many instances you become worse than the people you are trying to defeat. The law has never been far from the front line - it's now far easier for abuses to be reported and indeed images to be used to convict. Whether we like it or not should we allow members of our forces to retain their liberty if their idea of holiday snaps look like torture pictures taken by Saddam's henchmen.

Dave Martin

19th Nov 2005, 12:01

Brickhistory,

...but I am fairly sure that the Pres has never specified a weapons load for any of our aircraft (nukes excluded!), much less directed a small ground unit to use WP, but as I said, I could be 'just out of it.'

Undoubtedy so. And your point is?

Oh yeah, we are the evil ones who, all of us, go around offing innocents just for the hell of it.

Well, not exactly all of us. I certainly haven't killed any innocents as I recall, and neither would most soldiers. Those that do, those that authorise and order the use of WP in urban areas, those that set the policy that makes all inhabitants of a city fair game on the other hand....
All acceptable stuff though when wrapped in the flag of winning a terror war isn't it? Great stuff!

And what do they think when we do things like food/helos/$$ for hurricane/disaster relief? Same f***ing thing, so your point is moot.

So those dictators we prop up, the years of bombings in Iraq and elsewhere, the invasions based on lies and the resulting death, destruction and upheaval will all be excused because in times of natural disaster we make a big show of sending support? Good to see the propaganda machine is working on someone.

For crying out loud, even the most pathetic nation seems to be able to send aid in times of disaster. That doesn't exactly wipe the slate clean does it?

I think you didn't quite catch the gist of my SUV reference. If mobile Americans (or pick any developed nation of choice) can't move out of harms way, what makes you think Iraqis existing in much more difficult conditions have the means to evacuate a town under seige?

Now, let me ask a question to you: what have you DONE about any of this? If you don't like it, have you written your MP? Have you written/called/e-mailed your PM's office? Attended a legal protest? Or is it easier to just snipe from the comfort of home?

All the above and more. In a bit of spare time I quite enjoy putting across an alternative viewpoint to the homogenous group mentality that prevails on PPRUNE. Far from sniping, aren't you happy to be presented with an alternative and very real picture to the one you perceive? Anything I post on here will have as much of an effect as writing to my local MP, so is it more a fact that my views offend your sensibilities?

what would you propose strategically and tactically?

The short answer, theoretically put, is I don't subscribe to the Machiavellian mentality that has prevailed in Brzezinski inspired US foreign policy over the last few decades. Without that we wouldn't be in half the mess we are today. It is that simple. Unfortunately it persists and continues to dig a deeper and deeper hole. I wouldn't support an organisation on the principal of my enemies enemy being my friend, but we see this in support for Karimov in Uzbekistan and the MEK in Iran (not to mention internally within Iraq), which will undoubtedly come back to bite us just as Saddam Hussein and the Afghan Mujahadeen did. For a laugh, perhaps the US/UK should publicly come clean over the real reasons why they went to war - this might go a long way to redressing the hypocracy we stand accused of.

As for now. There are elections, they haven't gone the way we want them, they were never going to. Accept it. Stop trying to direct Iraqi affairs and accept the fact that the encumbants have a big chip on their shoulder towards us, as do much of the populace and are NOT secular and pro-western. We never are going to be garlanded as we stroll down Haifa St as Rumsfeld promised, and denying we ever used WP as an anti-personal device isn't going to help that.

Tactically? I certainly rate the softly-softly approach of UK forces over that of the US military. WP does not fit that category. The overall problem though isn't a question of tactics and grand strategy. It is with the political reasons for us being there...this will undermine whatever is done on the ground.

Should the Coalition just leave right now?

This is difficult because I never approved of their being there in the first place. No we shouldn't just get up and leave. However, as I have said from the start, if a lot more work had been done in the first place at building a REAL coalition, and most importantly operating on a legitimate basis for military action, the country wouldn't be the basket case it is now. The operation could have been turned over to troops a lot more favourable to the Muslim world. As it is, we are the problem and the solution at once.

should the troops 'play nice' and not use the weapons available to them?

Yes. Arty on urban areas is not acceptable. Available weapons includes nukes, FAEs in urban areas. We are trying to win a war, not save the city by destroying it.
If you are a believer in the "gloves are off" approach all well and good. But don't come crying to me when the enemy use similar tactics against us.

Soddim,

The footage is there to be seen. Maybe if your news diet consists of FOX news or embedded reporters you aren't going to see it....any idea why that might be?

More imporatantly though, yes! I am clearly Ahl ul-Sunnah Wa al-Jamma. Now if you were a good responsible citizen having uncovered my darstedly plot, you would get on the phone right now (anti-terrorist hotline 0800 789 321) and report me in. If you are lucky the Met might just give you a junior deputy badge and a certificate for mummy to hang on the wall.

brickhistory

19th Nov 2005, 12:50

DaveMartin,

What was I thinking? Your impeccable logic and well-reasoned arguements have completely won me over and made me 'see the light.' We ARE the bad guys in all things at all times. The gents who formerly gassed their own people and shot many,many thousands should be put back. Can we just call it even?

The masked men who blow up civilian, public places are doing good work and we should support them. And our troops shouldn't be able to use anything remotely nasty because we should be playing fair.

And, of course, I should have realized the power of pprune (silly, non-thinking American I am!). Posting something to stir up a few bored folks is so much more effective than doing something constructive like letting your elected government know your opinions. Maybe, just maybe, both your and my current administrations wouldn't have been elected, twice, if we had only harnessed the power of pprune to make the world right.

Thank you, brother, for helping me get to the promised ideological land.

Clockwork Mouse

19th Nov 2005, 14:12

RileyDove,

Thanks for the definitions. May I add a couple?

1. Pistol - great for shooting at targets.
Shoot at people - not on. An offensive weapon Ban them all.

2. AP mine - great for defending infantry positions.
Chuck them about where civilians might step on them - not on. Offensive weapon. Ban them all.

So logically:

3. Kitchen knife - great for cooking dinner.
Stab someone with it - not on. An offensive weapon. Ban them all.

Thank you also for the advice that landmines are last century technology so no use any more. But wait a moment, so are rifles, and how about planes, cars etc, so should we bin them all too? But as an aircraft engineer you are, of course, an expert on infantry weapons and tactics.

And you argue that WP was designed to make smoke so it is immoral to use it for another purpose, such as killing the enemy in battle. An interesting viewpoint. A shovel is designed to dig holes, but if that was all that remained between me and a hairy-arsed oppo on the battlefield, I would not expect to face criticism from the likes of you for belting him with it.

By the way, who is Clockwork Orange?

soddim

19th Nov 2005, 14:45

Dave Martin,

My news diet is obviously much more balanced than yours but I have yet to see an example of phosphorus burns from the recent anti-insurgency operation that gave rise to this thread - quote me such an example.

Or in other words, piss or get off the pot.

RileyDove

19th Nov 2005, 14:57

Clockwork Mouse - How remiss of me to describe you wrongly!

Indeed there are some nasty people over there. They live there - we want to make their country peaceful and law abiding. It doesn't look like they want to give up the fight - so we blast them with whatever we have . It's a matter of life death either I die or they do. Who gives a stuff if they are showered with a chemical that burns to the bone . All's fair in love and war.
Of course this doesn't drive the insurgency - the families -the brothers and sisters think it's all fair . Their parents were tortured and killed by Saddam's men - the same is happening again. It's a self sustaining process - the more you kill - the more feel agreeved about it - the more recruit.
As for land mines - well America didn't sign up to the convention on them so I guess they are perfectly happy that we get attacked and they don't ? Or isn't it happening that way? They don't seem useful in any way to defend the green zone -
maybe Kabul is easier ? Of course you can read my profile and submise that being an aircraft engineer I will naturally know absolutely nothing about anything apart from aircraft.
Assumptions are fine - you can rightly assume that I abore the
world trade in the land mine and the indiscriminate mutilation it causes in Africa . Thousands were planted in the Falklands by the Argentinian forces - little was gained by them apart from tragic
consequences for some that encountered them. Start your campaign to bring them back - I don't think you will need many sheets of A4 for the signatures.

Soddim - the use of WP was one year ago when the U.S forces surrounded Fallujah . It didn\'t exist as a topical news story until
the Pentagon and a U.S forces artillery journal contradicted each other .

Dave Martin

19th Nov 2005, 15:18

Brickhistory,

No problem, glad to have helped! :ok:

Soddim,

Clearly if you haven't seen the burns then you have neither reviewed the RAI documentary that this entire thread is based upon, nor read the independant accounts coming out after the attack on Fallujah. It's pretty simple stuff - look for it yourself. Unfortunately since it is Muslim tradition to bury their dead within a day, and non-embedded journlists were not allowed into Fallujah until long after it is difficult to come up with much more evidence.

Is not the admission that WP was used as an anti-personal weapon not enough? Definate case of burying ones head in the sand I think.

Clockwork Mouse

19th Nov 2005, 15:43

DileyRove - no offense taken old Bean!

You clearly feel very strongly about the moral aspects of the delivery of state violence. Good for you. Warfighting must not be allowed to go completely out of control, as has frequently happened in recent history. Please continue to fight your corner, but (I do not mean to be patronising) I suggest you use more logic and knowledge and less emotion. And don't expect the likes of me necessarily to agree with you.

A balance has to be drawn between what is morally acceptable in war (but acceptable to whom?) and what is not, and that will never be easy. The soldier will favour that which will do most harm to the enemy while protecting his own skin. The general public will want it to be as gentlemanly a business as possible so as not to offend its delicate susceptibilities when shown on telly. The media want a story, which implies it has to be bad news, conspiracy etc. The politician wants power and to win the next election.

The art of warfighting in whatever environment, land (jungle, desert, built-up area: tanks, infantry, armed hels etc), air, sea, is incredibly complex and very technical. Soldiers are not mindless automatons, nor are they blood-thirsty monsters. They are highly skilled technicians and deserve honour, respect and support from the society they defend at the risk of their lives. It is easy for the non-expert to draw false conclusions about how battles are fought. The crap produced by Hollywood doesn't help.

Knowledge and wisdom are needed in addition to moral principles in achieving a balance and emotion clouds the judgement. Get the balance wrong and the soldiers/sailors/airmen will consider the risks and rewards of their dangerous trade unacceptable and will become civilians. Then where will we all be? Defenceless.

soddim

19th Nov 2005, 15:58

No, Dave Martin, it is not enough to assume that just because willie peat was used that it caused the death of "innocent civilians".

If you believe what the natives of that part of the World say you are as naive as the prosecutors in the recent Courts Martial of the British soldiers.

I have no doubt that the insurgents would have made the most of any imagery they could have produced - if there was any.

RileyDove

19th Nov 2005, 16:42

Clockwork Mouse - I agree on many points ! I do suggest however that the forces are in the case of Iraq a victim of their superiors deciding to have a media war . Accidents, mistakes and sheer horendous events which are unpalatable to a viewing public can be either edited out or shown with greatly differing
views taken of them in the public's mind.
The conventions in terms of what can and what cannot be used are very much out of date . Maybe the time is right for a review of current weaponry and some ammendments to be made
regards their use.
My views are not anti the war as such - I am anti the spin that
got us into the war in the first place and the seeming lack of any direction that dismantled the corrupt but working police and state security services in Iraq.

Two's in

19th Nov 2005, 18:28

Melchett, good point:

"The real question as far as I can see is this: Are we now going to spend the next 3 years going over every decision made..."

History (remember, that's the thing we never bother to learn from until after the event) shows that when it's a clear case of Good Guys vs Bad Guys, it's "rah, rah, team, see everyone sausage side", and off we go. The Sun can't get enough coverage of "our boys" and every stinking politician in Christendom takes personal credit for NOT slashing the Defence Budget and thus helping win the war. The Falklands and Gulf War 1 being examples of this. Nobody (apart from the usual crowd) dared to raise any type of inquiry into the Conduct of Warfare during those actions, only afterwards of course.

However, when it's Good Guys vs hard to identify brown people in strange countries (who can be sometimes good, sometimes bad, and often both) things get a bit tricky. Politicians and their fawning sycophants need to nail their colours to the winning team, and these ba$tards keep changing both sides and the rules. So how is a chap to know whether he is supporting a righteous and noble cause, or just being a lacky for George W? It's a tough problem for those with no moral fiber or backbone, so the answer is to keep raising enough questions about the legality and validity of the conflict to be seen as the voice of reason, but never go too far that you can not subsequently execute a sharp u-turn and claim to have always been in the opposite camp.

Nobody in Downing Street or the Whitehouse has been able to make a convincing case for this morass being labelled as a righteous and noble cause (despite the rhetoric) so we can expect much more inspection and review of just what the Good Guys are doing to the "Bad Guys" until they come home, or Joe Public is suddenly and miraculously persuaded that this was in terms of morally justified warfare, right up there with getting Port Stanley and Kuwait back. I'm not holding my breath for either.

nutcracker43

20th Nov 2005, 17:26

Dave Martin,

Your naivety is unbelievable...I cannot believe you were ever a fully trained infanteer. You assume that since WP was used it must therfore have caused the death of 'innocent civilians'. We are fighting a uniformed army are we? They all look like civilians, guilty and innocent alike therefore difficult to say who the enemy are and any mistakes can hardly be laid at the feet of the military

Your assertion that Muslims normally bury their dead on the same day is substantially correct. However, do you not think they would have made any evidence available to the media. in order to capitalise? I suggest there was none.

You seem to believe what the locals have to say without any qualms. I personally would not believe what a single Muslim said in this regard. In these circumstances where Muslims are supporting Muslims, especially in a war, lying is sanctioned by this religion; it is called al Tawkiya (my spelling is at fault here before anybody starts criticising it...there are many ways of spelling the concept )

Suggest you take a more balanced view of things because what I have read in your mails is generally unsustainable.

Thank you!

NC43

RileyDove

20th Nov 2005, 20:29

Nutcracker - Interestingly enough - when we started the war against Iraq we didn't really have any great problems identifying
the enemy. They were either Iraqi armed forces or government forces. By dismantling the standing Iraqi army we actually created a void for the insurgency. So in many ways we are a victim of our own success.

brickhistory

20th Nov 2005, 21:38

Ah NC43,

When will you give up your dealing with the facts as they are?
Please come join brother Martin and I in the poppy fields of "how they should be." Where all things done by the military and/or the government are bad, doubly so if it is the Americans.

In your world, the terrorists are simply ruthless, bloody minded thugs. In ours, they are fighting to rid their country, nay, the world of oppression from the nasty Western Civilization.

Please, come join us. You save oh so much time not dealing with reality. It really is quite lovely here.

Dave Martin

20th Nov 2005, 23:43

NC43,

In one breath you dispute that civilians were killed and in the next you try to justify it. Ironicly, you are only denying what the Pentagon has already admitted.

Despite always ending up repeating myself, I reiterate: men of fighting age were not allowed to leave Fallujah. Many other men, women, children, elderly or ill simply could not. Some 50,000 - 100,000 residents were left in Fallujah at the time of the attack (some 20% to 30% of homes in Fallujah were destroyed).

Were they all insurgents? By your rationale, because they dress like civilians/insurgents they are fair game. That is the kind of twisted moral vacuum that permits genocide, and is a far cry from the morality and leadership examples I was taught.

Tell me, just who can we blame for the deaths of civilians not allowed to flee? If it isn't the fault of the people who killed them, who can we blame? Are we not responsible for where our weapons fall?

Press outside of mainstream Western media HAVE been reporting WP use in Fallujah for over a year. Just because it hasn't registered on your radar screen doesn't mean it hasn't been occurring.

A quick search on the internet -

"Dahr Jamail, speaking on Democracy Now!, November 2004:
"I have interviewed many refugees over the last week coming out of Fallujah at different times from different locations within the city. The consistent stories that I have been getting have been refugees describing phosphorus weapons, horribly burned bodies, fires that burn on people when they touch these weapons, and they are unable to extinguish the fires even after dumping large amounts of water on the people. Many people are reporting cluster bombs, as well. And these are coming from the camps that I have been to, different people who have emerged from Fallujah anywhere from one week ago up to on through up toward near the very beginning of the siege.""

At the time the reports as above were coming out they were written off in the same way you apparently write off Muslim comments - biased propaganda. If you had by chance heard them then you wouldn't have believed them would you? You hear what you want to hear.

You seem to believe what the locals have to say without any qualms. I personally would not believe what a single Muslim said in this regard.

No, I maintain a healthy skepticism. But having followed this issue for some time it has been quite apparent for a long time there was substance to the allegations. If you aren't going to believe what someone has to say on account of their religion, then your true bias is showing through more than any I might hold. As an aside, not every Iraqi reporting news is a Muslim, nor every reporter Middle Eastern.

Despite your proclamaition of disbelief, I presume you were quite happy to believe what certain Muslims said about WMD? Is there a selective logic to be employed when believing what a Muslim says? The unpalletable is untrue, the palletable is true?

Suggest you take a more balanced view of things because what I have read in your mails is generally unsustainable.

Perhaps you could strike a bit more balance. I have my views, but in this matter I am not damning an entire nation, army or section of society. I am damning the use of WP in combat as an anti-personel device, and I am damning those who order, carry out its deployment and justify its use in the context it was used.

This is an observation, not a criticism, and although primarily aimed at Mr. Brickhistory, it would equally seem to apply to yourself: You both seem to take the above as being a personal attack on the military and the nation (and apparently even yourselves), even when the terms of reference I am using, the event I am referring to is one apparently isolated incident in time and location. The apparent insecurity and inability to recognise criticism where it is due is astounding, reminiscent of buck-passing of the worst kind.

I would recomend you rise above your OWN biases and look to accept responsbility or at least where blame may lie when a wrongdoing or immoral acts has occurred.

And in response to your first line; rifleman/infantry sig to be precise. I've watched WP flares come down and my own WP trip flares go up. I've carried the stuff for weeks on end. Spare me the macho chest beating of who's been there harder, and therefore has the monopoly on a viewpoint.

Load Toad

21st Nov 2005, 05:54

So in a nutshell; it isn't a chemical weapon in the sense of other chemical weapons but it is a chemical weapon if it isn't used for making smoke unless it is used on enamy combatants and not civillians? And the Pentagon should have known that? That and that any weapon is made of chemicals of some sort unless they aren't? So it's not what you've got but how you use it? And where?

Simple.

Clockwork Mouse

21st Nov 2005, 07:31

DM

"WP flares come down; WP trip-flares?"

WP is not an illuminant, at least not in our Army, and certainly isn't used in trip-flares. Whose Army were you in?

Dave Martin

21st Nov 2005, 08:51

As far as i recall we used Phosphorous/magnesium trip flares....my recollection's a bit hazy though.

Points still stand, and to answer your question, New Zealand.

Clockwork Mouse

21st Nov 2005, 09:45

DM

Magnesium, not phosphorus.

Looking back over this thread I am amazed by the amount of density and obfuscation generated. As the discussions have been about DU and WP I suppose that is entirely appropriate.

There has been a lot of emotion clouding judgement, and some not very pretty inter-national slurs. However, I think that most of us, whichever side we appear to come down on, agree the basic facts and principles:

1. WP is not a CW.

2. Its use on the battlefield is legal, provided it is used in accordance with the accepted rules of armed conflict and non-combatant (note my avoidance of the term "civilian") casualties are minimised when using it.

3. Its use in FIBUA will always be controversial and a tough decision for the leader on the ground.

4. The US Pentagon handled the publicity engendered by the news report very clumsily and made errors of fact.

5. The way the Allies are prosecuting combat in Iraq is in no way comparable to what Saddam Hussein did when he was in power.

6. The US and UK politicians were guilty of deceit and stupidity in the run up to GW2 and were criminally negligent in their lack of coherent planning and preparations for its aftermath.

7. As usual it's the PB servicemen and women who are carrying the can and paying with their lives until the mess created by the politicians is sorted out.

8. The press and civilians know the square root of FA about tactical warfighting and are not QUALIFIED to pass judgement on how it is done.

9. This should not, however, prevent them having their say, and we would all, of course, be prepared to die to protect their democratic right to do just that.

10. However, military decisions affecting soldiers' lives should not be based on public opinion.

Now can we all be friends?

Dave Martin

21st Nov 2005, 13:22

Clockwork Orange,

You may be right, but I distinctly recall phosphorous being referred to with trip flares, plus sand, mud not water being the only way to remove it......M49 I think it was.

Yes, the issue is emotive, but your point 5 is also emotive and not relevent to the facts you put forward wouldn't you agree? I query this as it is often used as a justification.

Regarding the press; a number of reporters are also experienced ex-soldiers, now operating with a greater historical understanding (although subject to editorial policy). Naturally some have no understanding of things military. At the same time I'm sure you'll agree that pure military indoctination can lead to a biased viewpoint in itself, not to mention a heavily censored one. Seeing more sides to the argument than a purely military one may better qualify certain sections of the press to make judgements of proportion. It is more than just letting them have their say - they can have a very important say. The day when the military dictates public opinion and therefore support for a war is not one I look forward to.

nutcracker43

21st Nov 2005, 17:18

DM and Riley Dove.

Thank you Clockwork Mouse. I noted the comment by DM a propos the use of WP flares and wondered about which army DM had served. Certainly I am not aware that the Brit Army has these devices and if DM could tell me where they are to be found and in which army, I should be happy to be corrected.

Riley Dove. I am aware that the enemy had uniforms before and therefore the ident process was simple. Nowadays the enemy are indistinguishable from the rest of the civillian population. Of course this does create a problem and the army are put at a disadvantage. As for DM's comment that: 'In one breath you dispute that civilians were killed and in the next you try to justify it' What I said was that: were these deaths caused by WP I am certain the insurgents would have provided much evidence about these deaths.

DM. ''Were they all insurgents? By your rationale, because they dress like civilians/insurgents they are fair game. That is the kind of twisted moral vacuum that permits genocide, and is a far cry from the morality and leadership examples I was taught''.

We are, in the main, responsible for where our weapons fall and the insurgents are equally responsible for their actions and lurking about mosques and moving about the population at large when doing our lads mischief. They do this because we are responsible people and at least attempt to be selective in our actions. It's the same as putting an anti aircraft gun in a schoolyard or hospital grounds. One cannot ignore the weapon system and regrettably innocent people will be killed as a result. I should have thought that a group of people ('innocent civilians') in the close vicinity of another group of people who are actively intent on doing our people mischief could be injured or killed in any response. My first responsibility would be for the safety of my men; everything else would be secondary. If this meant that I would have to have used WP grenades, then yes, I would have used them. The niceties of whether they should or should not have been used could and probably would be discussed later (they were on issue about thirty years ago). If WP was not used indiscriminately then it is difficult to believe that culpability rests with our people in this instance. If I believed that our people were indiscriminatly killing the Iraqi population do you not think I would be voicing protests along with all the other people you seem to knock?

As for the use of WP. I would actually be surprised if they had not been using it...so what, it is not proscribed and I don't have a problem with it being used but I would have a problem if it were used indiscriminately as you seem to suggest, and I repeat: I think that the insurgents would have certainly found some way of showing that it was respponsible for the deaths that it is alleged to have caused.

As for what Dahr Jamail said or did not say I cannot comment and I would not automatically disregard what had been said...I imagine that would be negligent, but I would have to use my judgement as to whether I believed it, or not. DM. Just for the record...I am biased against fundamentalist Islam, very biased, not because it is another person's religion but because it is a fascist creed, but I am certainly not against Muslims per se (just as I might have been biased against Naziism but not against Germans).

''Is there a selective logic to be employed when believing what a Muslim says?''

My logic in this regard is based on their own writings where lying is sanctioned in Islam (perhaps you did not see the HARDTALK programme on the BBC recently...it would have been quite instructive for you). It is sanctioned in a number of circumstances:
1. During war.
2. In support of one Muslim by another, especially where infidels are concerned.
3. During attempted proselytisation.

If you still think my logic is selective in not believing what they say, I assure you it is not a problem in the slightest degree for me. If you think otherwise in your dealings with them then that could be a problem for you. Consider the points above in any reply and do not take it to mean what you want it to mean...point no 2 is especially petinent.

However, a digression: I was in Somalia serving the UN in 1994 when a Pakistani convoy knocked an Australian vehicle driven by an army n.c.o.off the road. They did not stop and after I checked that the Australian was OK stopped the convoy and asked why they had not stopped to render assistance. They denied they had even knocked the car off the road and every single driver supported the perpetrator. They swore on their Islamic oath...as it happens, a Bangladeshi captain arrived and took control. Despite the UN white paint over the Pak army truck and despite Pak army paint being all over the Australian vehicle they still denied any involvement. I was not the only witness...this was the first time I was alereted to the concept of al Tawkiya (sanctioned lying by Islam), both visually and vocally by the Bangladeshi army officer (who was also of the Muslim civilisation). You seem to conveniently ignore what I did or did not say...I was very careful to use the words: 'in this regard'. Again you write: ''Spare me the macho chest beating of who's been there harder, and therefore has the monopoly on a viewpoint''...don't think I even mentioned it...so, in this regard, DN, I do not hear what I want to hear and certainly not mean things what I want them to mean....that I leave to the Mad Hatter at tea parties and seemingly, to yourself..

As for WMD. It would seem that Saddam was correct when he said he had none at the time. His track record up to that point would suggest him to be the mother of all great liars, TB, GWB, the Clintons, et al, and most of his (SH's) generals disbelieved him as well...they all thought he had WMD. Sure, I thought he had WMD, but it would seem that we were wrong and that the French and Germans were correct. Unpallatable but true.

You suggest that your mail was but an observation of an 'isolated incident in time and location'' and elsewhere that you have 'followed this issue for some time it has been quite apparent for a long time there was substance to the allegations'. Is there perhaps a contradiction here, an obsession perhaps?

Just for the record. I believe I have seen you on TV where you were working on AP mine clearance in Laos as well as in the Balkans, that you, if it is you, are doing a splendid job and one wishes you well. The fact that these weapons were sown so indiscriminately says much about the sowers and their attitudes than about the weapons.

NC43

Dave Martin

22nd Nov 2005, 11:18

Nutcracker,

This is well and trully getting into the realm of Jetblast so my last post on this topic.

Regarding the civ casualties, the point I'm emphasising is we left no room for anything more than a certain proportion of civilians to escape, and placed unrealistic expectations on their ability to do so. What followed in my opinion is a classic case of seeing what we want to believe, and this becoming mutually reinforcing: the only people left in Fallujah were guilty, if not of being insurgents, then supporting them (clearly their willingness to "stay" implicating them in this), and of those "genuine civilians" that remained, their safety quite assured.

I'm being sarcastic there, but the perspective I get of US forces is very much a talking up of "freedom" and avoiding civilian casualties, but the reality seems to be a disregard for the Iraqi populace (a dead Iraqi by default is an insurgent) and an understandin of just how the populace perceives a foreign, let alone American presense in their country. Iraqi animosity is justifiable, understandable and shouldn't earn the contempt of coalition forces, certainly not to the point where Iraqi civilian lives are at risk in the presense of US troops. Much like Vietnam.

We are talking a city in which 20-30% of the buildings were destroyed. Now, the insurgent population being what was claimed and the number of civilians left in the city also being accurate, this kind of destruction does not develop a picture of discriminate use of firepower. There is a fine line to be drawn between what I think you consider to be discrimimate use of force, and what I believe to be sanctioned, but negligent (perhaps ignorant being a better word) use of force.

Again, the civilian populace remaining and possibly numbering over 100,000, compared to the predicted insurgent population (at the time measured as a few thousand, if that) would indicate any use of indirect fire is going to have a dissproportionate effect on the civilian population.

Like you, I am not surprised at all that WP will be used, or any other weapon. I would expect the US to use every means at its disposal, short of NBC weapons.

With regard to WMD, possibly the most chilling element of this whole conflict for me was my complete expectation that WMD was merely an excuse - despite the very well publicised, if scant evidence presented. I'd hoped that my expectation of this was wrong...it wasn't, I wasn't surprised, and sadly it provided a vindication on my views on US foreign policy. Those in the Middle East who had even less reason to trust the US before, who would have felt even stronger about this than I do, and were ultimately proved correct. This who debacle has given anti-Western and anti-American thought the biggest shot in the arm it could ever need. It hasn't just vindicated their views on US foreign policy but also a lot of other views they hold, which are far more disturbing. The effects of WP are just another boost.

There is no contradiction between my WP argument. The thread was about the use of WP in an urban environment. As the fallujah assault unfolded I was reading reports at the time claiming the use of chemical weapons (which was to me laughable), but as the reports "matured", it was quite clear that the picture we were being presented of Fallujah was propaganda and sanitised in the extreme. There was a lot to pick through and a lot of missinformation, but there was certainly a story to be told there.

Some people on this thread have reacted to my comments on this specific context (WP use in urban Fallujah) as a political attack on the US, the military, and seemingly themselves. My broad views might (or might not) be exactly that, but I am here talking about a specific event. Refusing to accept wrongdoing (or even acknowledging an event) on account of what they perceive to be my broader political outlook is sad.

We ARE the bad guys in all things at all times. The gents who formerly gassed their own people and shot many,many thousands should be put back. Can we just call it even?

I mean, do you really think this is what I was saying?

Unless you were watching Crimewatch it wouldn't have been me on the TV, but yes, they are doing fantastic work in Laos - now largely handed over to UXO Laos and indigenously operated, although MAG still has a presence. One for another thread, but the real issue in LPDR is cluster bomb munitions and until reasonably recently, a certain country's (sorry, couldn't resist) refusal to provide render-safe procedures due to the communist nature of government there.