It was only a matter of time before the ‘WP’ debate leaped from left-wing anti-war activists to left-wing blogs to the foreign press to the NY Times editorial page, so this was to be expected:
Now the use of a ghastly weapon called white phosphorus has raised questions about how careful the military has been in avoiding civilian casualties. It has also further tarnished America’s credibility on international treaties and the rules of warfare.
White phosphorus, which dates to World War II, should have been banned generations ago. Packed into an artillery shell, it explodes over a battlefield in a white glare that can illuminate an enemy’s positions. It also rains balls of flaming chemicals, which cling to anything they touch and burn until their oxygen supply is cut off. They can burn for hours inside a human body.
The United States restricted the use of incendiaries like white phosphorus after Vietnam, and in 1983, an international convention banned its use against civilians. In fact, one of the many crimes ascribed to Saddam Hussein was dropping white phosphorus on Kurdish rebels and civilians in 1991.
Pretty impressive. Overstating what it does, misstating precisely what it is, and packing in the Saddam/Kurd canard. All in two paragraphs.
The Pentagon says white phosphorus was never aimed at civilians, but there are lingering reports of civilian victims. The military can’t say whether the reports are true and does not intend to investigate them, a decision we find difficult to comprehend. Pentagon spokesmen say the Army took “extraordinary measures” to reduce civilian casualties, but they cannot say what those measures were.
They also say that using white phosphorus against military targets is legal. That’s true, but the 1983 convention bans its use against “civilians or civilian objects,” which would make white phosphorus attacks in urban settings like Falluja highly inappropriate at best. The United States signed that convention, but the portion dealing with incendiary weapons has been awaiting ratification in the Senate.
If the NY Times wants to elevate the debate to a question of moral issues, I have no problem with that. But not in the context of false charges, in the context of calling our troops war criminals, and in the context of overstating and misrepresenting the usage of WP. As I stated the other day, using charges of war crimes and indiscriminate use of ‘chemical weapons’ by our troops on innocent civilians as a vehicle to discuss the ‘larger issue’ of the ‘moral’ use of a weapon is tantamount to accusing an innocent man of rape to raise the ‘larger issue’ of ‘sexual assault.’
These are technicalities, in any case. Iraq, where winning over wary civilians is as critical as defeating armed insurgents, is no place to be using a weapon like this. More broadly, American demands for counterproliferation efforts and international arms control ring a bit hollow when the United States refuses to give up white phosphorus, not to mention cluster bombs and land mines.
The United States should be leading the world, not dragging its feet, when it comes to this sort of issue – because it’s right and because all of us, including Americans, are safer in a world in which certain forms of conduct are regarded as too inhumane even for war. That is why torture should be banned in American prisons. And it is why the United States should stop using white phosphorus.
‘Technicalities,’ sometimes referred to as ‘laws,’ are what govern warfare. If you don’t like those ‘technicalities,’ pressure to have them changed, and if you’ll notice, the NY Times even knows where to have that done- the US Senate, which has chosen not to ratify the ban. But let’s stop with the sophistry- what makes the use of a bullet legal is the choice of the target. That is what some might call a ‘technicality.’ Same with WP.
Furthermore, to equate the use of a legal conventional weapon with torture, which is illegal (unless Cheney has his way, it appears), is also an unfair comparison. And I will give you readers a chance to guess why the US has not signed the land mine ban- it isn’t because we like limbless orphans.
At any rate, at least Gail Collins and company managed to get through this with out calling WP a ‘chemical weapon’ or calling our troops war criminals.