Truthout on White Phosphorus in Falluja
Thanks to Taylor for pointing us to this. What you need to watch is Falluja, The Hidden Massacre.
I'm not sure how much of this to believe, but if ten percent of it is true, it's very, very bad. This may be one source of the (apparently false) claim that the U.S. used "chemical weapons" in Falluja. One soldier interviewed incorrectly calls white phosphorus a chemical weapon. As we've suspected, though, we may very well have done something equally bad--perhaps even worse.
It's pretty graphic. When I started watching it I thought "well, I'm sure I've seen worse than this." Shows what I know. It actually ends with a clip I've seen before, the (perhaps justified--we don't know) killing in combat of some Iraqis as seen through night-vision equipment. Not at all easy to watch.
I know war is ugly, but most of us have little idea how truly ugly it is. That doesn't mean it's never justified, but seeing things like this makes it clearer why it's justified so infrequently.
Also very interesting that, according to one soldier it was common knowledge in the ranks that the attack on Falluja was being held up until after the presidential election. This, too, is very significant if true.
Thanks to Taylor for pointing us to this. What you need to watch is Falluja, The Hidden Massacre.
I'm not sure how much of this to believe, but if ten percent of it is true, it's very, very bad. This may be one source of the (apparently false) claim that the U.S. used "chemical weapons" in Falluja. One soldier interviewed incorrectly calls white phosphorus a chemical weapon. As we've suspected, though, we may very well have done something equally bad--perhaps even worse.
It's pretty graphic. When I started watching it I thought "well, I'm sure I've seen worse than this." Shows what I know. It actually ends with a clip I've seen before, the (perhaps justified--we don't know) killing in combat of some Iraqis as seen through night-vision equipment. Not at all easy to watch.
I know war is ugly, but most of us have little idea how truly ugly it is. That doesn't mean it's never justified, but seeing things like this makes it clearer why it's justified so infrequently.
Also very interesting that, according to one soldier it was common knowledge in the ranks that the attack on Falluja was being held up until after the presidential election. This, too, is very significant if true.
posted by Winston Smith at
3:52 PM
14 Comments:
Winston,
Somewhat off topic, but since the torture thread is way downstream now, I posted this here because I thought you'd find it an interesting take:
http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/torture_/2005/11/torture_uncertainty_and_moral_absolutes.php
White phosphorus is a chemical used in a weapon. But what is a chemical weapon?
My working definition: A chemical weapon is any weapon whose killing mechanism is chemistry, rather than trauma or fire. White phosphorus might qualify in some uses but not in others.
Historically, mustard gas is the prototype chemical weapon. There are a couple of attributes that make it particularly terrible: It is indiscriminate and hard to aim, and it lingers poisonously. Oh, I shouldn't forget the horrific injuries of the survivors, either, though that's not specific to chemicals. White phosphorus probably doesn't linger long (does it?), but it is indiscriminate.
Maybe the real question is whether our soldiers and marines used white phosphorus with culpable disregard of innocents who died because of it. And then, again, who ordered them to do so?
Yup, I think it's the indiscriminate use issue that's paramount.
The 'it's chemical-based and it's a weapon' idea won't work, b/c that would make guns and all non-nuclear explosives chemical weapons.
It's exactly the horribleness of war (and the U.S. military habit of using shit like depleated uranium, white phosporous and cluster bombs) that makes it immoral to invade another country to do unbidden "liberating." Americans can, and will drop the white phosporous, but only Iraqis are going to be melted by it.
It appears that the category "chemical weapons" is no more useful than the category "weapons of mass destruction".
Can't go with you there, Matt C. I still think we should e.g. go into Darfur, and that Iraq could have been done correctly.
Still, it all shows how very high the stakes are, and how high the cost of f*cking up.
Hmmm...
After you initial posts on this topic, I was concerned that the exact meaning of chemical weapons was a sticking point, and that seemed to willfully ignore the point.
In light of further posting, I don't think this is the case. I do think that "chemical" is a tough word because it has legal meanings (I include treaties in this definition, unlike the Bush Administration), and also some well-deserved "popular" meaning. Bleach is not a chemical weapon in most people's minds (although rest assured it would be for a creative prosecutor using the Patriot Act if circumstances warranted it).
In any event, the "indiscriminate" aspect is important, as is the "Oh my F**king God We Did This On Purpose" aspect. This is true for both military and civilian targets, and let's face it, you (we, I) often can't tell the difference, in which case you really do have to rely on the absolute horrific nature of the weapon to clue in your moral compass.
These weapons are used because they kill, and because thye kill people in horrible, horrible ways. (Yes, I know, WP is also used for illumination purposes, but that is as flares or parachute-dropped devices). The purpose is to kill, but also to demonstrate ruthlessness and let the "enemy" know that any and all means will be used, exermination is the goal, and the "rules" have been thrown out.
This may be warranted in certain cases (Sherman's march...I am ambivalent and won't defend this example, but it is an example worth pondering). Such a strategy might even work in Darfur. I don't think it is in Fallujah, as the overall point is not clear. You cannot be pro-democratic Iraq while not only occupying, but also killing in the most horrific ways, the occupied populace (whether they be insurgents or not, it won't work).
This is a sick and twisted off-shoot of "Shock and Awe" that misinterprets reality, reaction, and the limits of American firepower. No one in their right mind (American, Iraqi, or otherwise) believes that increased military operations, strikes, etc. is going to alter the fundamental reality that is present-day Iraq. We cannot "win." Best to wrap our heads around that and plan accordingly with a careful weighing of outcomes, costs, and national security, understanding that all of these are connected in ways that don't offer neat mathematical analysis.
Darfur is not Iraq. Ongoing genocide is not run-of-the-mill dictatorship. I don't understand why you insist on conflating the two: they're really not even close.
Matt C, your original statement seemed a bit blanket. I pretty much agree with what I think you're saying--I'd put it that we can't invade another country that's not already at war and isn't perpretrating an ongoing genocide for the simple purpose of "liberating"--except possibly in extraordinary circumstances, the likes of which may never have existed. (Maybe Vietnam deposing Pol Pot--was the genocide/civil war still ongoing?)
And for the reason that you cited, that war is pro tanto a very very awful thing.
Yeah, Matt C., nobody's conflating Iraq and Darfur. I'm just pointing out that the lessons here are (a) war is justified far less than most people think and (b) indiscriminate use of any weapon, chemical or not, is bad, and (c) horrific weapons are worse and (d) none of that in any way means that no humanitarian interventions are justified.
I'm still not convinced that an invasion of Iraq wouldn't have been justified under very slightly different conditions...and with a competent and honest president.
Just curious - how slight? The difference between actual nukes and a defunct program hoping to develop them?
No, the WMD case was a bloody farce. I'm talking about an invasion for humanitarian reasons.
Yes, I've seen you say that before. It didn't occur to me that's what you meant when you said "very slightly different".
Sure, it's morally permissable under the right circumstances, but those circumstances are, for all practical purposes, imaginary. You'd have to answer the question: how does a "christian" Western nation invade and occupy an Arab country with ethnic and religious sectarian conflict WITHOUT melting the flesh off of a bunch of people who would not otherwise have been melted, and create lethal instability, leading to thousands more deaths that otherwise would not have happened? Unless you're dealing with a crisis situation in which almost ANY invasion scenario will save more lives than would be lost by not intervening (Rwanda, Darfur, Nazi Germany), it's immoral to take that risk on behalf of people who have not asked for your "help", and whose potential danger you, as a citizen of the invading country thousands of miles from the fray, do not share.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home