Caught in a Lie: US Uses Phosphorus Weapons in Afghanistan
By Dave Lindorff
When doctors started reporting that some of the victims of the US bombing of several villages in Farah Province last week—an attack that left between 117 and 147 civilians dead, most of them women and children—were turning up with deep, sharp burns on their body that “looked like” they’d been caused by white phosphorus, the US military was quick to deny responsibility.
US officials—who initially denied that the US had even bombed any civilians in Farah despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, including massive craters where houses had once stood—insisted that “no white phosphorus” was used in the attacks on several villages in Farah.
Official military policy on the use of white phosphorus is to only use the high-intensity, self-igniting material as a smoke screen during battles or to illuminate targets, not as a weapon against human beings—even enemy troops.
Now that policy, and the military’s blanket denial that phosphorus was used in Farah, have to be challenged, thanks to a recent report filed from a remote area of Afghanistan by a New York Times reporter.
C.J. Chivers, writing in the May 14 edition of the NY Times, in an article headlined “Korangal Memo: In Bleak Afghan Outpost, Troops Slog On,” wrote of how an embattled US Army unit in the Korangal Valley of Afghanistan, had come under attack following a morning memorial service for one of its members, Pfc. Richard Demeter, who had been killed the day before by a mine.
Chivers wrote:
“After the ceremony, the violence resumed. The soldiers detected a Taliban spotter on a ridge, which was pounded by mortars and then white phosphorus rounds from a 155 millimeter howitzer.
“What did the insurgents do? When the smoldering subsided, they attacked from exactly the same spot, shelling the outpost with 30-millimeter grenades and putting the soldiers on notice that the last display of firepower had little effect. The Americans escalated. An A-10 aircraft made several gun runs, then dropped a 500-pound bomb.”
It is clear from this passage that the military’s use of the phosphorus shells had not been for the officially sanctioned purpose of providing cover. The soldiers had no intention of climbing that hill to attack the spotter on the ridge themselves. They were trying to destroy him with shells and bombs. In fact, the last thing they would have wanted to do was provide the enemy spotter with a smoke cover, which would have helped him escape, and which also would have hidden him from the A-10 ground attack planes which had been called in to make gun runs at his position. Nor was this a case of illuminating the target. The incident, as Chivers reports, took place in broad daylight.
Clearly then, this article demonstrates that it is routine for US soldiers to call in phosphorus rounds to attack enemy soldiers, which is supposed to be against US military policy for this material. Whoever was manning the howitzer had a stock of the weapons on hand, and was ready to fire them.
The US initially flatly denied using white phosphorus weapons in Iraq, when reports first began to come out, including from US troops themselves, that they had been used extensively against insurgents defending the city of Fallujah against US Marines in November 2004. Under mounting pressure, the Pentagon first admitted that it had used the chemical in Fallujah but only “for illumination.” Later, the Pentagon added that it had used phosphorus as a “screen” to hide troops. But finally, in 2005, the Pentagon was forced to admit that it had also used white phosphorus directly as a weapon against enemy Iraqi troops in the assault on Fallujah, a city of 300,000 that still held many civilians.
The same pattern of denial and eventual admission regarding the use of this controversial and deadly weapon by US forces now seems to be repeating itself in Afghanistan.
It is odd that given the controversy over the use of white phosphorus weapons, which result in terrible wounds and eventual death as phosphorus particles burn their way down through flesh to the bone and sometimes straight onward through a body, leaving a charred channel of destruction, the New York Times’ Chivers—or more likely his editors back in New York?—ignored any mention of the issue while reporting on the use of the chemical rounds to attack a lone spotter on the ridge.
Given the current controversy over whether the US used white phosphorus shells or bombs in Falah Province only days before, it is hard to understand why the issue wasn’t mentioned in this particular article. Indeed, in the online version of the story, the word phosphorus is set as a hotlink to an article on the controversy over the battlefield use of phosphorus, indicating that at least someone at the Times has integrity and a good news sense.
As for the US government and the Pentagon, it is clear that they know the weapon is a vicious and controversial one, and that besides causing horrific and painful wounds, it is profoundly dangerous for innocent civilians, particularly when used in town or village settings.
It is bad enough that the US is using this weapon. It is even worse that it is forced to lie about it.
Surely if the goal of US policy is to win the hearts and minds of Afghanistan’s people, it shouldn’t be using a weapon that causes such terrible and indiscriminate wounds. Then again, maybe winning those hearts and minds isn’t really the goal. Maybe, as in the so-called “Pacification Program” applied by US forces in rural South Vietnam, the goal is to terrorize Afghan villagers in Taliban-dominated regions into rejecting the Taliban in their midst.
Requests for answers from the press office at the Pentagon, and at military headquarters in Afghanistan, regarding US policy on the use of white phosphorus, and on the specific use of the shells mentioned in the New York Times article were ignored.
__________________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia journalist. His latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006). His work can be found at www.thiscantbehappening.net
Join us & contribute
Proud members of the Democratic Party
Copyright 2006 Democrats.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
While it is true that two
While it is true that two wrongs do not make a right, the Taliban deliberately uses “Willy Pete” to carry out their campaign of terror against their own people:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/11/taliban-phosphorus-attacks-a...
I realize that those of you on the Far-Left will counter by saying that the US Military is lying to cover their tracks, but who really has more credibility here: a group of known terrorists who have massacred their own people in the past (and continue to do so on a daily basis), or our rank-and-file American military members who are on the ground in Afghanistan (NOT Washington mouthpieces)?
Additionally, the NYT article offers no real proof that US forces intentionally targeted "civilians" (which is highly unlikely) during the reported counter-attack on the Taliban. Using selective second-hand reports, and then applying your own twisted, and biased, interpretation of half-truths and Taliban-supporters' accusations, is not really balanced "journalistic" reporting is it?
Why don't you take a trip to Afghanistan, and hang out with the both the Taliban, and the US Forces, for a few weeks? Then, you may have some credibility when you post one of your "bad US Military -- poor Taliban" articles.
And, the same holds true for your incessant attempts to re-write the conduct of the rank-and-file US Military during the Vietnam war: if you weren't there, you are only guessing and attempting to prove that 2 + 2 = 5.
Credibility, Deniability and Intent
What is being disputed here? If you qualify your comments with the opener "While it is true that two wrongs do not make a right" you are allowing for the possibility that there is some truth to the reports of US use of white phosphorus in actions against the Taliban and related groups. Ok, we can all agree now that confirmations have appeared in the Media, that it is a fact.
In Gaza, the Israeli Military first denied the use of white phosphorus and then claimed it was not targeted at civilians, but at militants. In Gaza, one of the most densely populated tracts of land on the planet. Where the entire infrastructure was clearly, deliberately targeted. But they could still deny that civilians were targeted, because that kind of logic rules these days.
In the city of Falujah, the US Military first denied the use of white phosphorus and then claimed it was used in the 'legal' way, for illumination ( or obscuration) and targeting. Then it came out ( by reports from troops on the ground- "rank & file" ) that it was used specifically against insurgents,
“We used it for screening missions ... and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against insurgents in trench lines and spider holes ... We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents using WP to flush them out and high explosive shells (HE) to take them out.” March-April issue of Field Artillery, the magazine of the US Field Artillery 2005.
Here is a quote from a Democracy Now segment, interviewing Maurizio Torrealta, News Editor for the Italian television RAI and co-producer of the film “Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre.", and Lieutenant Colonel Steve Boylan, spokesperson for the U.S. military in Iraq, and Jeff Englehart, former army Specialist in Iraq. He maintains a weblog called Fight to Survive, and Lieutenant Colonel Steve Boylan, spokesperson for the U.S. Military in Iraq.
In response to an assertion from Lt. Colonel Boylan:
JEFF ENGLEHART: Well, based off where I was at, I wasn’t actually involved in direct combat. I was in a tactical attack center. Basically I was danger close, which means 200 meters from a lot of the explosions that were happening, and when we would hear the call for Willy Pete or Whiskey Pete, white phosphorus, huge explosions would hit targets. I just can’t conceive how he could say that a white cloud would conceal our troop movement. It’s obviously a toxic gas that, when it touches skin, it will burn, it will cause third-degree burns to the bone. So I just don’t understand where he’s coming up with this assertion. It’s hypocrisy, if you ask me."
Rank and file, on the ground. The truth will out, eventually.
The Guardian article you quoted was one of many articles based on official news releases from the Pentagon. That does not mean they are lying, but it does mean that you ought consider the source, and the reason for the release, in particular the timing, coming a week after Rueters ran a story on a civilian victim of white phosphorus burns, reportedly from Western action.
Or, speaking of Vietnam, are we supposed to forget the past and take all Pentagon press releases and press actions as God's own truth?
The American Military leadership, and the government have a long record of lies. And coverups, and massacres, and black ops and torture and on and on. The Taliban are vicious murdering thugs, but they are not my military, my leadership and my government.. I think we know where to go to find the truth, we go to the eyewitnesses, whether they be victims, witnesses or troops on the ground or doctors or independent media.
It is our job to find out the truth as best we can, we owe it to ourselves and those sons and daughters our country sends to kill and be killed, that we face up to the truth no matter what it shows us.
That some people can claim that the use of white phosphorus anywhere near civilians or even directly against combatants is acceptable behavior for a civilized people, shows that under the skin, they are no different from the terrorists they claim to be enemies with. Doesn't matter one bit if the civilians were targeted or not targeted, the truth as I see it is that those who push the use of these weapons either lie about it or do not give a damn, period.
You can interpret the truth anyway you want, but I am tired of your nasty attacks on Lindorff, and your ugly sneering put downs of progressives, for which you use the description " far left", a right wing term used shut down debate for the last 40 plus freaking years. Shutting out the "far left" has not exactly been a winning strategy for us all, unless you like the current state of affairs.
Thanks for the very
Thanks for the very passionate defense of the Far-Left, and your attempts to denigrate the rank-and-file members of the US Military. Thankfully, most Middle Americans see through your rabid anti-US military agenda, and whole-heartedly support our troops.
You and Lindorff are also free to "interpret the truth" anyway you want, but there are those of us who will always counter your claims that our military men and women are a gang of criminals. Your collective glasses are always totally empty, while ours are at least half-full.
And, as I told Lindorff, if you haven't been there, you are only guessing, and using selective Far-Left slanted reports to bolster your, rather weak, positions. There is absolutely nothing "progressive" about the Far-Left, and you are the primary reason that we Liberals have had to fight the neoconservative portrayal of "Liberal weakness."
I am also tired of Lindorff's incessant attacks on our men and women who proudly serve this nation, and I will continue to counter his outrageous claims at every opportunity.
You may also want to read the Rules of Democrats.com again, and especially this one:
http://www.democrats.com/rules
I don't deny that we have improperly used Willy Pete on occasions, but I was pointing out the Taliban deliberately uses it against their own people. Lindorff's articles make the Taliban sound like the aggrieved party while they are, in fact, a very real enemy, and the US Military stands in harm's way between us, our allies, and them.
Laugh or Cry?
You use the tactics and the words of the far right, smear and slander. When exactly did I claim "our military men and women are a gang of criminals'? When did I denigrate the rank-and-file members of the U.S. Military? When I quote them and their words bother you? If I quote the testimony of any vet from the Iraq War or the Vietnam war that disagrees with you, what then? What will you say then?
Your words and terms are right wing terms, "liberal weakness". Liberal Weakness to the right wing meant anyone who disagreed or asked questions, anyone who has the guts to question the liars, war criminals and crooks that call out for more, more blood and more sacrifice, not for security but for their own filthy gain.
Lindorff does not attack our men and women in the military. He does not make outrageous claims.
The Bigshirts and Brass and right wing snakes like hold up the men and women of the Military in front of them like a bloody shirt, and shake it and bellow and scream. You do the same, threatening anyone who questions with the spectre of our dead children. But they are not yours to use as you see fit to justify invasion and endless war.
This is a battle that has
This is a battle that has been fought on Democrats.com before, and was the reason for the inclusion of the Rule against "insulting our troops." If you and Lindorff want to rail against the CIC, the Pentagon, members of Congress, etc., I am with you 100%. If you continue to broadly implicate our citizen-soldier military men and women in your seditious anti-military "imperialist war crimes" diatribes, I will counter as often, and as long as it takes.
Your condescension is on
Your condescension is on full auto today. How do I denigrate the troops? Where ? What statement can you point to? None. You make blanket statements that you hope will cover your behind, and never really engage the issue. In fact, you seem to be the one with the problem of distinguishing the troops from the NeoCons and War Hawks, because you can't handle any questioning of the war machine in motion, you react as if every question, every complaint about the plans for Afghanistan or the conduct in Iraq is an attack on the troops. You are the one conflating the war with the soldier. You play into the hands of the pigs who start these things, as if once begun a vicious bloodletting must run it's course or else we are not " supporting our troops"
And, for your information, I know you were in Vietnam, and your cliche platitudes ( "It isn't pretty, it isn't noble, it isn't always fought by the "rules,") ( "Once the bullet has left the chamber, it knows no rules, nor has any friends ") leave one speechless, like bad mojo never dies I guess.
The " Truth of War" is not your personal domain, and you're experience does not place you above any one else as far as wisdom and suffering and vision, nor does your loyalty lessen ours, as if we friends, brothers, sisters, daughters and sons of those who had to live through it are not grateful for the comrades that kept our loved ones alive, because we choose to fight to keep our younger ones from facing the same bloodbath.
We promised we would never let our kids go through this again, and we failed them. So now we are teaching our kids, when someone tells them it is time to "unleash hell" their duty is to say " Says who? "
Cowards who refuse to defend against rapists...
Cowards who refuse to defend against mobsters...
Cowards who refuse to defend against terrorists...
Cowards who refuse to make use of muscle and aggressive emotions...
None of the above deserve the moniker "Progressive", yet all of the above are implicit in some of the arguments being made by the Far Left.
-------------------------------------------------------
Vehement disagreement is to be expected with respect to many points about War and Peace. Zero venom should be reserved for focused questions like: What, if anything, can still be accomplished in Afghanistan militarily? I don't think you'll find any venom when Bob Fertik posts specifically on that matter for example.
Lindorff's articles however have slid into painting with ever broadening brush strokes. Ones which reject half of what makes loving people loving: aggression against monsters.
You can't be a Progressive unless you're tough enough to face down psychopaths OR you make allowances for the genetic variation in our species which produces folks who have the fortitude to face down psychopaths. That is what is missing from holier than thou Leftists. You can't "progress" while retreating from threats.
So yes, the general tone of the articles are being judged. Generalities are being addressed with generalities.
Specifics ain't no big whoop in that we all agree that an illegal weapon should not be used. We all agree that a horrid weapon is made illegal because it is horrid.
It IS helpful when Lindorff publishes something which addresses wrongdoings by US Troops! That however is not all that is being published AND the other side of the coin is NOT being published. Posters therefore comment about the general overtones and add what is missing.
---------------------------------------------
You can fight with me if you wish, but if we want to promote peace we'll need more folks in agreement. The vast majority believe in defense against monsters and we need those folks to stop another Iraq-like War.
When you note of Bill: "you can't handle any questioning of the war machine in motion" you are in error. Bill would be thrilled to imprison any criminal American Soldier.
Jim
[NOTE: When I refer to monsters, I mean true monsters: E.G. about a year ago I watched a documentary about a guy who would beat his male victims unconscious in bar fights, then anally rape them to humiliate them. He was physically a monster of a man and required a different sort of Peace Keeper to subdue him.]
Is Bill incorrect?
You write:
Allow me to translate Bill's phrase:
Isn't the above "cliche" only if one has never provided one's body in sacrifice to another, or if one has never thought about those who do?
Perhaps you'll modify what you said. If not, then please tell me how "Once the bullet has left the chamber, it knows no rules, nor has any friends " is incorrect?
Thanks.
Jim
You set up a shocking
You set up a shocking hypothetical, in order to present the phrase in question as more of a truism than a cliche. Ok, that is a logical way to proceed, you can use your metaphor to flesh out Mr. Hardings statements but that was not the issue under discussion. The issue was that Mr. Harding attacks those of us who criticize any US Military action he supports by accusing us of denigrating our troops, insulting our troops, of broadly implicating " our citizen-soldier military men and women" in our "seditious anti-military "imperialist war crimes" diatribes", & that we claim "that our military men and women are a gang of criminals" & such like, just like a ranting right wing Neocon graduate of the school of vicious smears. Why? Because anyone who disagrees that we should unleash holy hell on Afghanistan and shrug off the collateral damage to innocent Afghans is a far left traitorous coward according to Mr. Harding, who needs to be intimidated and silenced and he thinks he can do it and not be called on his dirty tactics.
Laura M
Hi,
Perhaps I can explain. There are short term and long term conversations going on at once.
The long term one:
The short term one:
With respect to your criticism of Bill Harding, let me say this:
Now to more specifics:
As I've written elsewhere, of course there will come a moment when folks will disagree. Where diminishing returns in saving folks from horrors, will be outweighed by collateral damage to innocents. On the Right they don't care about the civilian deaths. On the Left we ALL deeply care. Some of us will simply disagree on when acid-in-your-daughter's-face-crush-gays-with-tanks Taliban members, need to be allowed to go back to their barbarism because of the collateral damage inflicted from trying to defeat them. Others will calculate that less overall horror will be gotten by pursuing them longer.
I might also add, that another piece of the equation is that many more 911s in this world may result in the complete Nuclear devastation of an entire Nation in response: Bush existed. 911 occurred. Iraq drained our treasury. The economy tanked. People have shorter fuses and nukes are cheap. This does not have to wildly influence one's decision about Afghanistan, but I mention it because we are governing now. We are responsible. This is our watch and what we do, or don't do, will prime the public for future conflicts.
I'm not sure what comments you are referring to at the end.
Jim
Quick note.
You write:
But I had noted that:
You see, it is not a cliche to folks who either interpose their bodies OR extend their emotional and intellectual effort to understand those who do. (And that effort is not extended simply as a courtesy, but rather because it is vital in understanding the world we live in).
Jim
"You play into the hands of the pigs who start these things"
Who are the "pigs" who started the War between the Taliban and the USA?
Thanks ahead of time for the clarification.
Jim
P.S. You also write:
Some constructive criticism: The Taliban require as much ink (and thought) as the US Military is receiving from Lindorff. Do that, and you'll gain the ears of far more folks. Do that, and one also struggles far longer with the complexities of how to create the least horrid world.
Laura, Bill and our combat veterans
( and servicemen and women)
are much closer to the truth of war
than you, I or any other civilian who has
never been on a battlefield will
ever be.
To claim Bill is using "cliche platitudes"
is insulting at best and reveals your arrogance.
Unless you have been there, your
knowledge of combat missions is speculatory.
The Truth of War
I am not awed into silence or submission by anyone I read on a blog based solely on the fact that they are a combat Vet. I have read the works and heard the words of many combat vets, and they don't share the view of Mr. Harding. Mr. Harding insulted me, and a whole group of people who served with distinction over many years, or faced the loss of their sons and daughters in service, but if they disagree with Mr. Harding, it is ok to smear them with his hateful diatribes. I am not an arrogant person, I have been quiet too long. I am a pissed off person, tired of the abuse and the screeds.
As for knowledge of combat missions, is there some confusion? I never claimed any, so what are you talking about?
What are Bill Harding's views?
Seriously.
Every time you've posted you've seem to distort them towards extreme Right Wing views. That does make them trivial to knock down, but I'm hoping it's because you are angry and are simply missing the point.
I extended you the courtesy of spending a lot of time leaving you questions and comments for you to address. Please do so. Grinch has also.
Nothing will be gained by a post here and there. Please answer them all.
You're pissed? I think I understand the trigger, but I hope it can be resolved because I don't think the conversation has gotten to the point where several clear points of disagreement exist.
In any regards, if questions get addressed I'd appreciate it.
Jim
Laura, if you truly believe
Laura, if you truly believe that I insulted you personally, I apologize, as that was not my intent. I also harbor no wish for you to be "awed into silence or submission" -- a specious argument at best. On the contrary, as your responses speak volumes in support of my arguments, but unfortunately harm your own, otherwise admirable, pacifist causes in the process.
My reference to the Far-Left is valid, however, and that does not make them (or you) bad people -- just political and social extremists, and therefore not really "Progressive" in the murky, but generally accepted, sense of the word. I agree with Lindorff on some of his positions with regard to support for the US Labor movement, holding our polticians accountable, and the excess "personhood" political power wielded by US corporations, and their political whores in Congress. I disagree with Lindorff's Far-Left anti-military, and PUMA-like anti-Obama posts (a few of which were so over-the-top that they were removed by the owner of Democrats.com). I disagree with Lindorff's apologist and tacit support of the "legitimate Taliban government" who facillitated the unprovoked 9/11 attack on USA soil which resulted in the murder of thousands of our citizens. I disagree with his insistence that all Afghan "civilians" are passive non-combatants, and bear no responibility for the actions of the Taliban terrorists. I also disagree with every neoconservative Far-Right position.
My disagreement with Lindorff on his inclusion of the rank-and-file US military, by inference, with the politicians who sometimes misuse them (as in Iraq) is a valid one. Lindorff's (and your) apparent dislike of all things military evidently goes back to the Vietnam era when, if I'm not mistaken, you were a child. Being from, and a part of, that era I am well within my rights to confront him when he implies that the US Military and its troops are "imperialist criminals" (a Far-Left Marxist phrase) as he does in several of his other "journalistic" threads (and hints at in this one, in his second paragraph from the bottom). The majority of Middle Americans, as shown by most recent polls, and especially the many US vets that I know and correspond with, overwhemingly disagree with Lindorff on this issue. Neither the Far-Right, nor the Far-Left "support" our troops -- both extremes use them as ammunition to further their own narrow causes.
That you choose to attack my intentions, and integrity, with the standard vitriol of an indignant extremist is unfortunate because your irrational and angry attacks are both misguided, and untrue. There is absolutely nothing "condescending," "hateful," or "Right-Wing," about forcefully defending the other side of an issue (as you demostrate so well), or upholding the honor of our citizen-soldiers. I am a long-time Liberal Democratic activist who is proud of having served my country, both in and out of uniform, and do not expect any special consideration for those efforts. By the same token, I do not accept being attacked directly, or indirectly, and accused of the commisson of "war crimes," by someone who has not the slightest direct knowledge of the military, me, my comrades, or our experiences.
Your defense that neither you, nor Lindorff, disrespected our men and women of the US Military, or made innuendos about their honor, is disingenuous. By pointedly failing to separate the troops from the accusations of "war crimes," the implied connection is there for all to plainly see. Who else but our troops (or the enemy) on the ground, or in the air, could actually carry out an alleged "war crime" in a combat zone? Examples of real "war crimes" are the torture of captured enemy forces as directed by civilians, or the civilian political misuse of our military to illegally invade another country. Unintended and unavoidable civilian casualties in a war zone, however horrendous, after our troops have been committed, do not constitute deliberate "war crimes" by our military men and women. Politicians and other civilians have the luxury of hindsight, and do not have to make decisions within just milliseconds to "pull the trigger" in order to stay alive.
Derisive statements such as "brave Marines shoot 12-year old" crossover from inference to accusation, without telling (or even knowing) the Marine's side of the story. Lindorff uses many such one-sided phrases and inferences in his "anti-military" diatribes. Only another soldier can know for certain that, unlike the Taliban, an otherwise sane Marine (or any other US Military member) would never maliciously harm a child, and that there must have been other factors involved. Perhaps it was a mistake, or an error of judgment, but it was NOT a "war crime." Then there is the very real possibility that a Taliban-inspired, and coached, youth actually did try to kill our troops. That scenario occurred all to often in Viet Nam, only it was by Communist-inspired and coached women and children. The full truth will not be known until ALL of the facts are in.
The topic of this thread, white phosphorus, is riddled with innuendo, inference, and direct accusations that US troops intentionally, and with malicious intent, knowingly attacked non-combatant civilians with the substance. PFC Jones did not just go to the local souk, and pick up those rounds on the black market (unlike his Taliban counterparts). They were paid for, and placed at his disposal, by the American people and their elected representatives, and it was not his decision to either use, or not use, them. Whoever it was that DID decide to use WP in the rare instances cited, had to justify that decision to yet someone else above him or her. If, in fact, those decisions are determined to have been wrong, or illegal (which I seriously doubt is the case), then appropriate disciplinary measures should, and will, be taken. If you have kept abreast of the news lately, you will note that the US Military does prosecute their own extremely small percentage of sociopathic criminals, who have slipped through the enlistment cracks, when they are discovered.
And as for your claims of seeing friends, sons, daughters, and others close to you ravaged by war, that is the firsthand experience that combat vets relive in their memories day after day. Before you so easily, and derisively, dismiss as "cliche platitudes" (corny and trivial?) every descriptive phrase ever composed about the horrors, and the "truth" of war, you need to remember which group of the world's people first coined them, and why. Hint: it wasn't politicians, and it wasn't civilians, and the message is definitely not pro-war. If you can contribute more modern and "original" phrases which convey a combat soldier's perspective of the horror and truth of civilian-ordered armed combat, please do so.
Link for Lindorff quote about "brave" Marines.
http://www.democrats.com/node/19562
(Laura: I also left you posts there yesterday).
Laura, my brother served in the US Air Force and
spent 16 months in Vietnam. Fortunately, he survived and came home.
So yes, when you categorize Bill's comments as "cliche platitudes",
it's arrogant as hell!
You weren't there, neither was I.
No one is trying to silence you.
Just ask yourself,
" and my personal knowledge of this is_________?"
before trying to present yourself as an equal authority on the
subject in contrast to someone who WAS THERE, dodging bullets
and experiencing hell on earth.
And I will say it again,
I have never met anyone who prefers war to peace.
If such a person exists, I haven't met him/her.
In retrospect, considering this comment of yours,
" awed into silence or submission by anyone based solely on the fact that they are a combat Vet."
my point may be lost on you. There is contempt in your statement.
I hope I'm wrong.
Karin, your statement:
Karin, your statement:
gets directly to the crux of matter.
The Far-Left needs to seriously consider why their, otherwise valid, anti-war message fails to reach, and alienates, so many people. As you state, no one wants war, including our military men and women.
When the Far-Left condemns the conduct of war, AND accuses the United States Military of committing "imperialistic war crimes" in the same breath, thereby questioning the honor of our citizen-soldiers, they instantly diminish their arguments in the eyes of the majority of the Middle American people -- both American Conservatives, AND we American Liberals. They are, in a very real sense, throwing out the baby with the bathwater. When their claims of "US war crimes" are called into question, they counter-attack with allegations of "Right-Wing" tactics and smears, "superpatriotism" (a Lindorffism), and ridiculous (and ironically, often repeated) accusations of attempts to "silence" them. But they never seem to get around to addressing their unfounded and indefensible war-crimes allegations against our troops, and actually deny having made those allegations.
The Far-Right employs similar tactics, only they use their insincere praise for our military men and women as a tool to justify, and obscure, their real motives (blood-for-profit?) for aggressive, and unnecessary war (Iraq). The Far-Right does, in fact, cite examples of the Far-Left accusing our troops of "war crimes," but falsely attributes those claims to Liberal Democrats in general, while accusing ALL Democrats of "not supporting" our troops. Fortunately, most Middle Americans see through the bullshit of both extremes as evidenced by the last two elections, and recent polls.
The bottom line, is that our military men and women have sworn an oath to "support and defend" the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic ("enemies" as determined by elected politicians). The key word in that oath is "defend." When our military is lied to, and deceived into going to war for purely political purposes, and NOT in defense of our nation, then the electorate have only themselves to blame for the ensuing carnage. And calling for our troops to refuse to deploy, or to question their orders to deploy, is both seditious (encouraging mutiny) and unrealistic, and comprises yet another thinly-veiled attack on their honor (the implication being, if they follow Constitutionally-lawful orders, issued by duly-elected politicians, while keeping a sworn oath, they may be committing a "war crime.").
There are no ideologies or politics in a combat zone. Once placed in harm's way, our soldiers attempt to carry out their civilian-ordered mission, and to keep themselves and their comrades alive by any means necessary, while following the "Rules" of war as best they can. Middle Americans completely understand this, and sincerely support our troops as they would their own families (which they are). Extremist ideologues on both ends of the political spectrum are so caught up in their narrowly-focused causes, they become irrational, and viciously attack anyone who doesn't agree with their highly subjective (and selective) version of the "truth." The propaganda tactics of Rush Limbaugh, and Dave Lindorff, have more similarities than differences when it comes to using our troops as pawns to further their own extremist views.
The real, and objective, truth is always somewhere near the center of the extremes. Or, in the view of we American Liberal Democrats, somewhere slighty to the left of center.
Thank you, Bill.
I could not have said it better.
:-)
Laura: Where do we go to find Boylan and Englehart? ...
where do we go to find the 'doctors' that Lindorff claims proves the use of WP? Where do we go to avoid combining all your defenses of Falluja and Iraq when the piece we are discussing takes place in the outback of Allahstan?
Most of the Boylan/Englehart googles only deliver us back to dems.com. You say there are other blogs where the info is available: can you give us links?
Then you bring up Gaza. Again, we are talking(Lindorff)about a remote Afghan area and not Gaza and not Iraq. In other words, in your defense, you bring up the stuff of spiderwebs.
Englehart was in a combat center...he was not with the fighting troops. He could not 'see' what was going on.
Boylan was at a headquarters and not at the front at all.
Who pray tell, was the officer in charge of the troops?
You fail to show us anything we don't know about the incident discussed by Lindorff.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
That smell - and a whopping case of Deja Vu
Why don't you google white phosphorus Afghanistan?
The spokesman for the commander of NATO and US troops in Afghanistan, Brig. Gen. Richard Blanchette, confirmed that white phosphorus munitions are used in Afghanistan.
As for the Boylan / Englehart source, you can google Democracy Now Boylan Englehart and you should find the page on Democracy Now with the interview and transcript. The key here is the program Democracy Now, the date of the program was 11/8/05.
200 meters is 109.4 yards is it not? And since when does being in a combat center invalidate the word of a soldier when he heard it being called in on the radio?
Here is the quote by specialist Englehart again,
JEFF ENGLEHART: "Well, based off where I was at, I wasn’t actually involved in direct combat. I was in a tactical attack center. Basically I was danger close, which means 200 meters from a lot of the explosions that were happening, and when we would hear the call for Willy Pete or Whiskey Pete, white phosphorus, huge explosions would hit targets. I just can’t conceive how he could say that a white cloud would conceal our troop movement. It’s obviously a toxic gas that, when it touches skin, it will burn, it will cause third-degree burns to the bone. So I just don’t understand where he’s coming up with this assertion. It’s hypocrisy, if you ask me. "
Do you even know what is being argued here? Not that the substance was used, because it was used, and it's use in Fallujah is no longer in doubt. Specialist Englehart is commenting on the fact that Boylan was asserting generally that the white phosphorus would have been used for obscuration.
I brought up Gaza to highlight the ridiculousness of the lie that the use of white phosphorus in, near or over a populated area is to facilitate "targeting" and "illumination", which is what the Israelis claimed. It was monstrous behaviour, they lied about it and many were outraged over it. The use of white phosphorus is controversial, for a lot of reasons, but it has been used for a long time; and one can learn about it at numerous sites on the web. The use of it against the Taliban near civilians is an outrageous risk to innocent civilians and it could bring serious blowback to our forces. That would make it a stupid move too, I think.
The stuff is out there to be researched, if you really want to know. From many perspectives, and from many sources.
200 meters equals 218.8 yards
200 meters equals 218.8 yards
OR
2.188 football fields.
Laura, perhaps Lindorff's and your inclusion of three...
entirely different battle sites has something to do with the confusion. You cannot talk about Afghanistan, Gaza, and Iraq loosely or at will. You cannot go back and forth to make a point about one site. There are some extreme differences between the three. You cannot compare the three in any way. To the two of you, all three are the same.
You used Englehart's quote as gospel which it was not. He was a long way from 'explosions.' Rough rule of thumb(thanks Jim for the exact measurement)when converting meters to yards is that 200 meters is roughly 600 feet. A meter is 39 inches in length. A yard is 36 inches in length. Did Englehart's mention of explosions say whether the explosions were incoming or outgoing? Was he being shelled by the 'enemy' or were the explosions actually the firing of his own howitzers? He fails to clarify that...and so do you. He fails to identify the battle situation that he was involved in. He fails to describe what forces were in opposition around him and even more importantly, he fails to describe the situation surrounding the radio call for the use of WP rounds by the troops involved in the fight itself.
Boylan, the Lt. Colonel, a Public Information Officer(flack), was not in combat at all, but merely told the questioners what his boss told him to tell them. To use him as a source would be futile. Obfuscation is a PIO's stock in trade.
It really might be helpful if you, and Lindorff, would settle on one theater of operation and we can concentrate on that one incident...or at least one at a time.
Lets take Gaza for example:
A truce was in effect between the Israeli and the Palestinians. The Palestinian leadership decided to violate the truce by firing small rockets into Israel--at essentially civilian targets. They were asked by the world community to stop. They refused. Israeli civilians were endangered.
Look at any street in Gaza. Crowded and mostly male. All wearing identical civilian clothing. How do you tell the difference between an insurgent and a civilian? You cannot. As a result, you tend to fire at anyplace you see fire coming from. Israeli troops are uniformed and have easily identified equipment. Pretty easy to tell 'regulars' from civilians...and the Palestinians really don't care. They tended to bomb civilian buses and Pizza joints if you care enough to remember.
But, the rockets continued. The civilian death toll mounted...and the war roared merrily on.
For well over a millenium now, castles have been kept safe from scaling ladders by keeping boiling oil in cauldrons and Greek Fire on the ramparts. These were poured down on the attacking armies. Greek Fire is akin to WP. This sort of stuff has been around for a long time.
I digress. Tell you what, you pick just one of these attacks and we can concentrate on that one incident. Maybe we can clear out the cobwebs by doing this.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
White Phosphorus...just so we are all on the same page...
here is an article on wp that tells the entire story. It is well worth reading:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/wp.htm
Under the circumstances of the Taliban spotter being on a ridge looking down on our troops. High Explosive shells will not take out Taliban troops when in spider holes and/or trenches. WP is called for to drive the insurgents out of their trenches and spider holes and expose them to ordinary high explosive shells which can then take them out.
That is a proper textbook use of wp according to the article. In any case, if all involved here will read this article, at least you can see the points on both sides of the argument. Those with experience can relate whatever background they have under combat and/or textbook conditions.
The article is very complete.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
Thanks...
...for the link grinch.
Thanks Grinch.
Thanks Grinch.
Talk about obfuscation
Once again, what are you arguing here? Is this just an excuse to blather on about "incoming or outgoing" and " Was he being shelled by the 'enemy' or were the explosions actually the firing of his own howitzers". What the heck are you talking about? Former Specialist Englehart was stating his opinion that the white phosphorus was being used as a chemical weapon, and illustrating the point that such a weapon endangered the civilians of the areas where it was used. It's a real simple statement, a real simple premise. The particulars of the "battle situation" would not alter the point. You question the validity of his experience, and pose a bunch of questions where you seem to be putting yourself forward as an arbiter of his reality.
(EDIT: Israel/Palestine issue removed).
Democrats.com/rules on Israel/Palestine.
The battle situation IS the point.
That is, unless the Nazi's should have been left alone during World War II. (Is War ever necessary?)
WP IS used in battle. (See grinch's link). So why would you say the battle situation is not the point???
If War is never necessary, then one may point to any of War's horrors as cases against War. (Is War ever necessary?)
Now even agreement on general principles does not guarantee that we will all agree on particulars. It would help however if we were on the same page OR understood that we are not. (E.G. Is War ever necessary?)
Jim
Freedom fighters like the Taliban...
Al Q and the like, frequently buy their ammunition on the world market from global arms merchants. Some of the stuff they buy is quite old--dating back to WWII in fact. These munitions can be obtained cheaper than newer stuff and frequently violate various treaties as to composition and type.
The Taliban frequently uses mortars since they can be backpacked into remote regions rather than a regular howitzer-type weapon.
Only way to verify this particular situation, and others like it, would be to have a trained UN observer assigned to the combatants on both sides. Otherwise, its a 'he-said/she- said' sort of argument.
The Viet-Cong, when first attacking French installations, used captured US howitzer-type weapons that were taken from our troops in Korea. The ammunition was carried down the major trails from the north of the country on bicycles(2 shells per bike).
Where were the Warthogs stationed? They were designed to be tank-killers.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
Lindorff: What should happen to Governents that aid terrorists
...to mass murder American civilians?
Laura, could you also answer this question?
Perhaps we all fundamentally disagree and therefore arguing is silly.
I'll start: I think those governments should be removed via War.
(I'm also open to ending such a War when there are diminishing returns. In addition, I think there will always be good folks who simply disagree on when that point occurs).
The reason I advocate the above, is that I think the least amount of death and destruction comes from it.
Hey, at least we're all in agreement that the Iraq War was a horror!
I also think we can gain agreement that the citing of specific atrocities by US troops, in any War, is a good thing!
Many of us however simply want either a simple accounting of facts, with no editorializing, OR a balanced article which discusses the horrid folks on the other side, the difficulties of prosecuting a War, etc.
Lindorff has refused to do that time after time so there is a bit of a history here.
Jim
Here is the damn problem.
1) War is hell.
2) If War is never necessary, then all of a War's horrors are cases to be sited against War.
3) If a War is necessary, then only particular horrors are to be sited so that corrections can be made.
IS WAR EVER NECESSARY?
(Posters need to answer this fundamental question before arguing about specifics).
Jim