Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

The BIGGER war crime in Fallujah

by DoDo Thu Nov 10th, 2005 at 12:27:55 PM EST

Lest we forget, there was much more war crime last November than the now much discussed use of phosphor bombs. (Which of course were war crimes. Of course they were chemical weapons - why treat 'incendiary' and 'chemical' as mutually exclusive? Who protests calling them WMD? Those who accepted the Bush & Bliar governments' expansion of the term even to battlefield ABC weapons should stick to it. And for us who protested this spin, area weapons - which kill anyone whether or not s/he was foolish enough to risk his own life in a conflict, and whether or not s/he waves a white flag - are bad enough.)

There was worse - and it didn't involve women & children, it involved men.

To see that, you have to combine this:

The military says keeping men aged 15 to 55 from leaving is key to the mission's success.

...with this:

The US-backed government put rebel losses at more than 2000, although unit commanders later revealed their troops had orders to shoot all males of fighting age seen on the streets, armed or unarmed, and ruined homes across the city attested to a strategy of overwhelming force.

Fallujah was converted into an extermination camp.

If you think that is too strong a word, sit back, think it over: it was exactly that what the word means.

This also indicates that at some level, US commanders were aware whom they were fighting - they knew that it's not a mythical Zarkawi, but most of the population that was against them.

Oh, yeah, Zarkawi - the claimed reason for invasion, whose handover they demanded from the leaders of Fallujah like that of WMD from Saddam. Here are two opposed claims from a WaPo article that reads like a dark satire of a real Washington "we censor ourselves for the powers that be" Post article:

...Zarqawi apparently did not use Fallujah as his base of operations... U.S. military officials suggested that Zarqawi might be in the northern city of Mosul.
...A U.S. intelligence source said that while much of Zarqawi's organization was based in Fallujah, he apparently divided his time mainly between Baghdad and Ramadi.

The first is consistent with prior information of an Arab (most likely Jordanian) secret service (and leaked to the US papers that also play self-censorship).

Display:
The BIGGER war crime in Fallujah | 29 comments (29 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Re: The BIGGER war crime in Fallujah (4.00 / 3)
Just a quick dig in my own archives. I have much more.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Nov 10th, 2005 at 12:28:59 PM EST
Let it stink. (none / 1)
Please, open the cesspit on everything you got. Falluja is fastly becoming a symbol that the immorality of the Iraqi operation has gone above and beyond.

You put the finger on something that bugged me since I heard about the WP bombings: why aren't incendaries classed as chemical weapons and made illegal? Why wasn't there an "upgrade"? Subclauses, my ass.

by Nomad (Bjinse) on Thu Nov 10th, 2005 at 04:01:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Incendiaries are chemicals, but -- (none / 1)
Please don't further confuse language and thought by seeking to redefine well-understood terms used in international treaties. If burning people alive is worth banning, it's worth banning even if we don't call the fuels "chemical weapons". Not all horrors need to share the same name.

This redefinition could easily backfire. Gasoline is chemical -- and it's an incendiary, easily made into stuff that works like napalm. If we redefine chemical weapons to include incendiaries, then arguments in the next year or next decade are apt to run like this: "We can't ban gasoline, so chemical weapons can't be banned, so abandon futile treaties against chemical weapons and stock up on nerve gas."

</ theme-of-the-week>

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.

by technopolitical on Fri Nov 11th, 2005 at 01:30:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Slippery Slope (none / 0)
Your first point is humbly understood, more below. I don't buy your second one as it smells of a slippery slope. It's one step to go from classifying gasoline on the same grounds as a chemical weapon, and quite a giant step to saying, "Let's start using ricin, all together now!!" Something went kaput in the clockwork of logic there.

Secondly. Of course we should ban burning people alive, but in that case, pretty much all wars are illegal and convential bombs should be banned alike. The devil lies in the details. I'm not a fully trained chemist, but materials are classed on their hazards and their potential to do harm. It's really not that hard to list those classes in a treaty under the name "chemical weapons". My point is not about re-defining; it's about upgrading the list of chemicals which should be universally forbidden in warfare.

Riddle me this: Why was WP not on that list? Since that's where my logic fails.

by Nomad (Bjinse) on Sat Nov 12th, 2005 at 08:20:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Slippery Slope (4.00 / 2)
Ok, let's have a look at the text of the Chemical Weapons Convention:
Article II
Definitions and Criteria
For the purposes of this Convention:

1. "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:
(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;
(b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;
(c) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in subparagraph (b).
2. "Toxic Chemical" means:
Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.
(For the purpose of implementing this Convention, toxic chemicals which have been identified for the application of verification measures are listed in Schedules contained in the Annex on Chemicals.)
3. "Precursor" means:
Any chemical reactant which takes part at any stage in the production by whatever method of a toxic chemical. This includes any key component of a binary or multicomponent chemical system.
(For the purpose of implementing this Convention, precursors which have been identified for the application of verification measures are listed in Schedules contained in the Annex on Chemicals.)
4. "Key Component of Binary or Multicomponent Chemical Systems" (hereinafter referred to as "key component") means:
The precursor which plays the most important role in determining the toxic properties of the final product and reacts rapidly with other chemicals in the binary or multicomponent system.

There was a recent diary on DKos (sorry, no link) making the point that chemicals which have important non-weapon uses are likely not subject to verification and hence need not be listed in the Annex. So, what are the peaceful uses of WP?

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Nov 12th, 2005 at 08:34:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You got to be kidding... (none / 0)
Not subject to verification if it is important for non-weapon use?!? Phosphorous is one of the most important elements on this planet. You wouldn't eat your bread without it.

From the CDC website:

Phosphates are generally used in the fertilizer industry, food and beverage industry,
industrial and institution cleaning compounds, water and waste treatment, animal diets and in metal
treatment (CMR 1991; van Wazer 1982). Small amounts of white phosphorus are used in roach and rodent poisons (van Wazer 1982). In military use, white phosphorus is used as an ammunition for mortar and artillery shells and hand and rifle grenades (EPA 1989).

Thus that solves the question. Now I'm back to redefining the definition of chemical weapons. If we can make up rules how to behave in warfare, we should better do it right. So what would be wrong with banning to use certain chemicals in warfare? (I'm not talking about stocking up or producing, that's probably a different chapter...)

by Nomad (Bjinse) on Sun Nov 13th, 2005 at 07:44:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, YOU have got to be kidding (none / 1)
Phosphorus is an element that occurs in many substances that are essential to life.  

White phosporus--an isomer of the pure element--is thoroughly harmful to life:  It is unstable and burns in air with great light and heat to give combustion products that are thoroughly poisonous.  

Yes, you can poison rats with it, but this technique is no longer considered the height of wisdom.  

You don't want verification of phosphates?  I am making no argument here on that, but you still can't covert it into WP and burn people with it--legally.  

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Sun Nov 13th, 2005 at 07:59:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: No, YOU have got to be kidding (none / 0)
As assential to life as cells store their energy in Adenosine Triphosphate.

Coincidentally, Adenosine is one of the 4 letters of the genetic code, which goes to show that life is just a big tinkertoy game. The same few pieces get reused over and over again.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 14th, 2005 at 07:29:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: No, YOU have got to be kidding (none / 1)
To bring Gaianne's point home:

Applications of Phosphorus

Concentrated phosphoric acids, which can consist of 70% to 75% P2O5 are very important to agriculture and farm production in the form of fertilizers. Global demand for fertilizers has led to large increases in phosphate (PO43-) production in the second half of the 20th century. Other uses;
  • Phosphates are utilized in the making of special glasses that are used for sodium lamps.
  • Bone-ash, calcium phosphate, is used in the production of fine china and to make mono-calcium phosphate which is employed in baking powder.
  • This element is also an important component in steel production, in the making of phosphor bronze, and in many other related products.
  • Trisodium phosphate is widely used in cleaning agents to soften water and for preventing pipe/boiler tube corrosion.
  • White phosphorus is used in military applications as incendiary bombs, for smoke-screening as smoke pots and smoke bombs, and in tracer ammunition.
  • Red phosphorus is essential for manufacturing matchbook strikers, flares, and, most notoriously, methamphetamine.
  • In trace amounts, phosphorus is used as a dopant for N-type semiconductors.
  • Miscellaneous uses; used in the making of safety matches, pyrotechnics, pesticides, toothpaste, detergents, etc.
In other words, there are no non-military uses of white phosphorus. Military non-weapon uses are exempt from the convention on chemical weapons, though (so, if someone is accidentally killed by White Phosphorus from a smoke bomb or a flare that's not a use of chemical weapons. But white phosphorus in incendiary bombs is a chemical weapon. That is my non-expert opinion.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 14th, 2005 at 07:50:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What do you mean... (none / 0)
... I "don't want verification of phosphates"? I'm trying to understand why WP hasn't been banned for military use. From the look of your post I think we're missing each other point.

As I stressed, I'm not a chemist. I looked briefly at the chemical structure of white phosphorus, and saw it was solely P. Couple that with Migeru's comment stuff can't be banned when there is a large non-weapon use for it, and perhaps you understand my reaction: I thought it was the element phosphorus. Classing the whole range of phosphorus isotopes as a chemical weapon is clearly ridiculous; I thought it one giant loophole for the military to keep on using WP.

I was not aware before white phosphorus was an isomer which is mainly fabricated; my point of view changes again with that information. I'm back at my starting point why WP wasn't classed earlier as a chemical weapon and therefore banned by international treaties. If WP stands out so specifically, it should have long been verified as a chemical weapon and put in the Annex. So again, why wasn't it? That's what I don't understand and was trying to find an answer for.

So thanks for your useful information, but I don't understand where your hostile tone is based on.

by Nomad (Bjinse) on Mon Nov 14th, 2005 at 05:33:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: What do you mean... (none / 0)
So thanks for your useful information, but I don't understand where your hostile tone is based on.

Me too. It seemed to me you two agree on the essence.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon Nov 14th, 2005 at 05:36:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: What do you mean... (none / 1)
The use of the toxic effect of white phosphorus as a weapon is banned under Article II of the Chemical Weapons Convention. If you doubt this, here is what Peter Kaiser of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons told the BBC yesterday: "If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

George Monbiot writes to the Times

Musings on life in Romania and beyond

by adhoc on Thu Nov 17th, 2005 at 08:15:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: What do you mean... (none / 0)
The US press and government can confuse the issue all they want, but given that UK used white phosphorus in Iraq I think the UK government has a problem. The press and the judiciary work differently in Britain.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 17th, 2005 at 08:45:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: You got to be kidding... (none / 0)
You got to be kidding... Not subject to verification if it is important for non-weapon use?!?
Well, all this shows is the contortions the international community has to go through to get anything agreed on at an international conference.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 14th, 2005 at 04:50:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Technopolitical seriously misses the point (4.00 / 2)
about phosphorus.  

It is an incendiary:  It burns.  In this respect it resembles gasoline or napalm.  

It is a chemical weapon:  The key combustion product phosphorus pentoxide (aka phosphorus oxide) combines explosively with water to produce phosphoric acid.  It also combines with the moisture in human flesh.  This seems to be the cause of the melted corpses.  

If you survive the first two effects, it also causes liver and kidney failure.  

This weapon is illegal from all standpoints and an outrage.  Pretending otherwise just further degrades the US' collapsing reputation.  

Back to D.--This observation is not really new, although like so many things it is slow to be admitted.  At the time the containment of men down to the age of boys in Fallujah made sense only if the a priori assumption--that all men in Fallujah were insurgents without exception--were acually true.  As such, as an extermination, it was left obvious at the time, even if no one was ready to come out and name it.  

I don't think the Iraqis overlooked this point at all.  Not then.  Not now.  

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Sun Nov 13th, 2005 at 07:50:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Technopolitical seriously misses the point (none / 1)
This observation is not really new

That's why I begun with "lest we forget" :-)

At the time the containment of men down to the age of boys in Fallujah made sense only if the a priori assumption--that all men in Fallujah were insurgents without exception--were acually true.

I disagree. At the time, the spin was that you can't distinguish an insurgent that hid his weapon from a non-combattant, but you can one staying put in his house and one going out with a Kalashnikov firing at you.

And when the other element came up, namely that US soldiers had to shoot everyone inside, the opposed spin was that only insurgents remained in Fallujah.

I remember getting both of these points in internet debates with warbots. For the worst freepers, of course cognitive dissonance, but I believe most Americans have only heard of one element (if at all), and heard (and bought) only the corresponding spin, or heard the two too far apart in time (and forgot the first by the time they heard the second).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sun Nov 13th, 2005 at 08:36:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We never use chemical weapons (none / 0)
When we sprayed the nuts off of every tree in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia we were not using chemical weapons even though the spraying induced vomiting and/or temporary paralysis and/or permanent paralysis and/or death in those who inhaled the "not chemicals". Even though senators were a tad worried that someone might put some of the "not chemicals" in their swimming pools the "not chemicals were of course not dangerous to humans".
When in two gulf wars we fired off thousands of depleted uranium shells we were not using nuclear or chemical weapons even though birth defects amongst other things seem to be rather common in areas with high concentrations of these shells.
Of course we never used chemicals in Falluja. We are the godamned US of A and we never stoop as low as others.
by observer393 on Mon Nov 14th, 2005 at 01:25:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: The BIGGER war crime in Fallujah (none / 1)
The whole war makes me angry and sad.  The only hope we have of ending it is a Democratic victory in the 2008 presidential election, or a British pullout.

The American people, almost naturally, trust British prime ministers.  If, tomorrow, Tony Blair said he would pull out in one month, what little support for the war that remained in America would collapse, literally, overnight.

As to the Dems' hopes, I fully expect them to win in 2008, and they may even take Congress in '06 (if not in '06, then almost certainly in '08), which would technically enable them to end the war (since, ultimately, Congress has the power in the Madisonian model), but would at least result in a timetable.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Mon Nov 14th, 2005 at 12:09:39 AM EST
Re: The BIGGER war crime in Fallujah (none / 1)
The lesson of the Bush years will be: they made great progress in the art of making enemies. And they were proud of it, as it showed the necessity of their tough approach.

It's called a self-reinforcing loop, or more simply, a vicious circle.

Bush administration = vicious circle.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Nov 14th, 2005 at 05:05:41 AM EST
Re: The BIGGER war crime in Fallujah (none / 0)
The lesson of the Bush years will be: they made great progress in the art of making enemies.

Indeedy. It's worth to remember how the mess in Fallujah started.

It wasn't when the Americans arrived.

Contrary to later spin bought by everyone (even Shi'a expert Juan Cole), Fallujah was not a favorite of Saddam, nor rich by Sunni Arab standards (I remember reading at Salam Pax or Raed or some exile Iraqi writer that it was taunted as the stinking city). Lot of ex-army-officers yes, but in 2003 the media somehow 'forgot' what it knew before about Saddam's lack of trust in the Army and even the normal Republican Guard. In fact, the conservative Sunni city (also called "city of hundred minarets"; a longtime Salafist center) was punished by Saddam in 1999 after preachers refused to praise him in sermons (one of the imprisoned later became a top guerilla leader).

Thus Fallujans welcomed the Americans, forgetting even the RAF's 1991 marketplace bombings (137+ killed, then overshadowed by the bunker-busting of the Ameriya shelter just 12 hours before) - I even remember pictures with smiling children and US GIs.

No, the troubles started with disrespectful behavior, and armed attacks followed the shootings of protesters and subsequent lying about the circumstances.

On 28 April 2003, young people held a demonstration against the US occupying their school. The response was 13-15 killed - and the claim that US soldiers were shot at (rather detailed claims in this Fox News article). Witness accounts, al-Jazeera footage and Western journalists disproved that. I even remember an article interviewing one of the US shooters, who made clear they only shot because feeling threatened (sorry couldn't find an active link). And when Iraqis preotested the killings two days later, the US soldiers again shot at them, two killed, and the US command again claimed protesters shot first. A story again contradicted (see this Guardian story).

At this point, the US Army (at this time not even the mad dog Marines, just the 82nd Airborne) made it rather clear to Fallujans that they only understand the language of weapons. It was all the way downhill from there.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon Nov 14th, 2005 at 11:14:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: The BIGGER war crime in Fallujah (none / 1)
This whole war is a war crime. Or mabye it should be WAR = CRIME!
by Fran on Mon Nov 14th, 2005 at 05:23:25 AM EST
Re: The BIGGER war crime in Fallujah (none / 0)
Ironically, that Fallujah operation made possible the constitutional referendum, the constitution (legitimate or not) and the parliamentary election to be held in December.  The road to "democracy" is built with blood. The tragedy will keep haunting the new Iraqi government for many years.

I will become a patissier, God willing.
by tuasfait on Mon Nov 14th, 2005 at 08:05:07 AM EST
Re: The BIGGER war crime in Fallujah (none / 1)
The Fallujah operation encouraged the Boycott of the January elections by the Sunni Arabs, which gave rise to huge legitimacy problems for the rest of the process (including having to hand-pick unelected Sunni delegates to the drafting committee because the few Sunni parlamentarians had no grass-roots support). Then the hundreds of thousands of refugees from Fallujah had a hard time voting in the referendum on the Constitution. Democracy all right.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 14th, 2005 at 08:19:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: The BIGGER war crime in Fallujah (none / 0)
that Fallujah operation made possible the constitutional referendum

I cannot guess in what way you think the Fallujah operation helped the elections (I suppose you mean the January elections, not the recent referendum). If you refer to levels of violence, that only got worse during and after the campaign, especially against Iraqi targets. It also got worse against US targets - but you won't necessarily see that on casualty figures, because troops progressively withdrew to barracks. After Fallujah, a lot more Sunni Arab cities became quasi-independent like Fallujah before (and many Shi'a Arab and Kurdish towns even earlier), and Mossul blew.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon Nov 14th, 2005 at 09:28:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: The BIGGER war crime in Fallujah (none / 0)
In fact, the backlash from the Fallujah operation (right after Fallujah was destroyed the "coalition of one" lost control of Mosul, a much more important city than Fallujah) made it necessary for the candidates on the party lists to be anonymous (for fear of assassination) and the elections themselves neccessitated a 3-day curfew and a prohibition of private car traffic (ostensibly to eliminate the risk of polling stations being car-bombed).

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Nov 14th, 2005 at 09:35:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: The BIGGER war crime in Fallujah (none / 0)
yes, I am talking about January. I recall there was a little decline of the level of violence right after the operation. I suspect that encouraged voter turnouts in the Shiia and Kurd areas, whom US count on as allies, and who quietly acquiesced (along with UN) in the operation.

The use of a foreign force against domestic (minority) opposition is a terrible idea for Shiites and Kurds, even though it paid off immediately.

I will become a patissier, God willing.

by tuasfait on Mon Nov 14th, 2005 at 08:47:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: The BIGGER war crime in Fallujah (none / 0)
I recall there was a little decline of the level of violence right after the operation.

Maybe you recall US spin regurgitated by the international press.

For the truth, check Icasualties.org, no decline there - or better yet, check these graphs (from the NYT):

As you can see, attacks on the US stayed about the level from before the Fallujah invasion and connected loss of US control all across the rest of the Sunni Arab areas, while attacks against civilians and US-aligned authorities increased.

A real lull, but not a too dramatic one, followed the 'elections'.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Nov 15th, 2005 at 10:14:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: The BIGGER war crime in Fallujah (none / 0)
Many thanks.

I will become a patissier, God willing.
by tuasfait on Tue Nov 15th, 2005 at 10:56:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: The BIGGER war crime in Fallujah (none / 0)
The is a word for that here in my newly adopted country: "Einsatzkommando".

"Schiller sprach zu Goethe, Steck in dem Arsch die Flöte! Goethe sagte zu Schiller, Mein Arsch ist kein Triller!"
by Jeffersonian Democrat (rzg6f@virginia.edu) on Mon Nov 14th, 2005 at 04:42:03 PM EST
The BIGGER war crime in Fallujah | 29 comments (29 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]