11/17/2005
The post has been updated re: the soldier in the RAI 'documentary,' international law and last takes on the subjectRight off the bat: I was wrong about this story, but not in the way you might think.
Today, the ol' BBC (thanks to the Wizard of Id for the tip) had a
story that warrants revisiting my
choking-on-muesli experience last week. Yes, white phosphorus is back in the news. It turns out that the mainly fallacious, and never retracted, RAI report - passed on a little too eagerly by the BBC and the blogosphere, see e.g.
Daily KoS -
incidentally managed to touch on a rather thorny aspect of the reality of war.
The news: The Pentagon has confirmed that WP was used as an 'offensive incendiary weapon,' the intention of which was to flush out insurgents in Fallujah. BTW, the UK has also
confirmed its usage, but (so far) only as an illuminating agent. In terms that offer uncomfortable, candid insight into the brutality of war, Pentagon Spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Barry Venable described its usage:
"The combined effects of the fire and smoke - and in some case the terror brought about by the explosion on the ground - will drive them out of the holes so that you can kill them with high explosives." (added emphasis)
Contrary to some readings of my posts I did not engage in obsfuscation, spinning or my own version of wishful thinking. Nor did I deny that WP was employed (remember this
picture?) I believe I referred to there being no chemical weapons, no conspiracy and no attacks on civilians. In my
update post, I stated how the BBC had changed its tune and now talked about 'incendiary arms.' That sentence was conspicuously NOT followed by yours truly writing that this new take was some kind of outrageous lie.
This IS still all true, even without resorting to
contrived definitions of the word 'is.' So while I continue my merry ways along these lines and admit where I 'erred,' the latest revelation is proving too scrumptious for the conspiricists and war opponents to resist deploying. I will not preach as to the ethics of using WP - I am sure you can make up your own mind there - but instead quickly note how those eager to push their opinion on others seem prone to go loosey goosey with the facts.
In the RAI report - reminder: which the Berlusconi controlled network released as a figurative smokescreen - the soldier
Jeff Englehart (who acknowledges that he was 'misquoted.' See
here.) said that there was no doubt that WP was a 'chemical weapon.' Yes, said RAI and the choir. Civilians were targeted. CHOIR: Yes. Can nuance, reading treaties, new revelations change your minds? CHOIR: No.
Fortunately, my own standards are of a somewhat higher caliber, so here's how and why I was wrong. First, I implied that WP was not used as a weapon at all, and that was clearly wrong. Secondly, I was wrong since the Pentagon statement was issued today, i.e. not before I wrote the piece. Still, I wrote that the Fallujah was likely "a savage, bloody battle in a controversial war. No more but certainly no less." I was also sadly mistaken in my assumption that the German media would refrain from slobbering all over this sorry mess. I just had the misfortune of watching the
evening news (in German,) which tonight was steeped in more biased editorializing than usual. This
blog usually does a good job of clearing this kind of fog. More on this from me some other time.
But, the Others were wrong last week on several more, serious points - even though they could and should have known better - and continue to be so. But because the Pentagon acknowledged something it never denied (the
State Department did that ham-fisted job and humiliated the
U.S. Ambassador to the Court of St. James in the process,) they somehow feel vindicated in what bear the hallmarks of long-running and somewhat irrational grievances.
Instead of accepting the Pentagon explanation - that the
State Department got it wrong when they issued a denial - they believe in the LIE. To me that is hindsight and distortion, and wholly unnecessary even if you think that WP should never be used.
Try looking at it this way:
- WP is not a chemical weapon. Instead,
- it is primarily an illuminating agent, which
- can be used as a conventional incendiary weapon and/or 'flushing-out' device that
- is only illegal when used indiscriminately on civilian areas, something
- in all likelihood the US did NOT do. Also,
- the relevant protocol of the Conventional Warfare Treaty has not been signed by the US.
- Moreover, regular soldiers fired the rounds and
- embedded journalists were there to see it.
Taking the last two points first, the notion that the Pentagon had planned to engage in a 'cover-up' seems a little ridiculous. The soldiers were bound to talk about it - there are even stories about its use in
official U.S. military magazines - as were the journalists. And so they did. Folks who believe they've uncovered a conspiracy as big as
the moon landing make me shed a tear.
And considering the first six points, it is blindingly obvious that the US believes it is on FIRM legal ground - both domestically and internationally - here. Even if the relevant protocol had been signed, it is FAR from clear that the U.S. in breach of it. So again, why would they cover it up? Because they care that Kos and co might misconstrue their battlefield methods? Opting out of treaties and protocols is the sovereign right of any (potential) signatory and it happens ALL the time. And no, not only when
John Bolton has his way.
You know, the decisions to use weapons, including WP, are made by people on the ground in the heat of combat, not by Rummy in a smoke-filled room. The opting out in this case was a President Carter decision, which was tacitly approved by the U.S. Senate that ratified the rest of the
Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. This can be explained in any number of ways (save for the desire to melt skin on insurgents several years down the road.) Point is, it happened long ago and if you had really been following these kinds of things, you could have predicted that WP would be used in this way. Now that's an interpretation a million miles away from the one that files this under a cover-up and proof of American baying for blood.
By all means, disagree with the tactics - vehemently even - but there's no need to wind up in a web of jabberwocky. Again, ask yourself why you are so willing to tow that line.
The reason people were initially (justifiably) upset was because the word 'chemical' was used and emotional connections to Saddam, the Hallabjah massacre and WMD were made. How do you think President Talabani felt when he heard this? Aside from the fact the Sarin nerve gas and WP are as different as a chemical weapon and....a non-chemical weapon, there are the issues of targets and intentions. More precisely: Civilians and murder as opposed to insurgents/terrorists/the enemy and waging war while trying to minimize civilian casualtiss.
An aside: The piece following the WP piece on the flagship BBC program '
Newshour' was actually on Berlusconi, but unfortunately on how he's the subject of a 'novel' in which he gets assassinated. I mean really... And so his connection - from the forged Yellowcake documents, legal troubles to the convenient timing of the RAI piece just when the Iraqi President was visiting - to this story remains unraveled. Will somebody please pull the thread?
My beef with this - from the first moment I heard it - remains how this kind of story continues to be reported, especially by the likes of RAI and Kos. It is clearly intended to cast the U.S., the Pentagon and/or President Bush in the worst possible light. Their aim? To assist their claim that it's really the U.S. government that is ruining the image of the country. And if this game requires ignoring facts, using inflammatory language and assuming the worst,
SFW? Thus, the purveyors of this fiction become useful idiots, or willing lackeys, to folks with whom they really have nothing in common. Funny, it sounds like they're the ones ruining images by telling a fib or two.
The original RAI story is still lying flat on its face while the conspiratorial bottom-feeders work themselves into a frenzy, holding up its hollow shell as inadvertent proof of their own tunnel vision. Echochamber...Meanwhile, on the other side of the Looking Glass, the rest of us are grappling with reality. Whether or not the deployment of WP was acceptable. Just who lied about what during therun-upp to the war. The nature of preemption. The price we are willing to pay for liberty. These issues will be addressed in due course. For some last takes (?) on WP: visit
Stockholm, opt for an
ablution and then have some
balloon juice. They all debunk the most spurious claims, while leaving it up to the reader to decide what to think about WP. You know, the real issue.
---
At the risk of sullying precious, and currently vulnerable, souls by mentioning them in the same breath as this toxic brouhaha: the people of Northwest Pakistan and Kashmir are beginning to feel the onset of winter in their ruined homeland. And there is a still a lot more the world can and should do to help them. There can be
no greater priority right now.
Subjects:
white phosphorus ;
military ;
Iraq ;
Politics ;
anti-Americanism ;
media bias ;
Mainstream Media
