Chemical Weapons

Posted by Chris

Jim Henley writes:

And Rumors of War - An anonymous Iraqi physician tells Panorama radio that US troops used chemical weapons in Fallujah, according to Jihad Unspun:

Observers agree on one thing- Americans decided to use chemical weapons after they failed to defeat the Mujahideen in Fallujah - both a cowardly and inhumane act. The Mujahideen inflicted heavy losses on the US forces in al-Fallujah prompting the Americans to employ chemical weapons for the first time since the fall of Baghdad. Reports have been received that US forces used chemical weapons in the al-Jawlan, ash-Shuhada', and al-Jubayl neighborhoods and again last night in al-Jubayl neighborhood.

Uh, sure. A week and more of media-soaked action with no American troops wearing protective gear, but they made heavy use of some unidentified lethal agent anyway because that's the devil-may-care attitude that made this country great. I'm wondering if this rumor is floating around Iraq, though. Rumors are an important telltale of social attitudes. Years ago, I read Henry Louis Gates explaining various rumors current in the black community, like the Church's Fried Chicken rumor and the Liz Claiborne myth. Gates said, in paraphrase, urban African-Americans aren't frightened because they believe rumors; they believe the rumors because they're frightened.

(Via Avedon's Other Weblog.)

I think there's an easier explanation: They're right:

"Usually we keep the gloves on," said Army Capt. Erik Krivda, of Gaithersburg, Md., the senior officer in charge of the 1st Infantry Division's Task Force 2-2 tactical operations command center. "For this operation, we took the gloves off."

Some artillery guns fired white phosphorous rounds that create a screen of fire that cannot be extinguished with water. Insurgents reported being attacked with a substance that melted their skin, a reaction consistent with white phosphorous burns.

Kamal Hadeethi, a physician at a regional hospital, said, "The corpses of the mujahedeen which we received were burned, and some corpses were melted."

Unless I'm missing something, that sounds like chemical weapons. If phosphorus doesn't count, we might ask ourselves whether our categories aren't a bit self-serving. They're also right that the U.S. used chemical weapons prior to the fall of Baghdad. I've complained about napalm use by U.S. troops in the past.

Does this really matter? I'm not sure. Phosphorus is pretty awful, but so - it ought to be remembered - are bullets and artillery. Still, it seems a bit awkward for U.S. forces in the circumstances. You already know why.

So I think this "conspiracy theory" falls into the same category as the wacky notion that the Bush administration has the goal of exercising long-term strategic control of Iraq through local proxies that it has promoted thus far at the expense of measures which might have had some chance of promoting genuine stability and democracy. Crazy, no?

Update: It's worth noting that the allegations Henley links to contain descriptions that aren't at all consistent with phosphorus burns. So it's entirely possible that these particular allegations are false or have been garbled somehow. But since the U.S. is in fact using chemical weapons, and has used them, in Iraq, it's not hard to see why people might be inclined to believe them. The basic point is unfortunately correct.

Second Update: Henley says a bit more about phosphorus.

Posted by Chris at November 20, 2004 07:40 PM