[Mb-civic] NYT Editorial: Shake and Bake

[Mike Blaxill]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/112905M.shtml

Shake and Bake
    The New York Times | Editorial

    Tuesday 29 November 2005

    Let us pause and count the ways the conduct
of the war in Iraq has damaged America's image
and needlessly endangered the lives of those in
the military. First, multilateralism was tossed
aside. Then the post-invasion fiasco muddied the
reputation of military planners and caused
unnecessary casualties. The W.M.D. myth
undermined the credibility of United States
intelligence and President Bush himself, and the
abuse of prisoners stole America's moral high
ground.

    Now the use of a ghastly weapon called white
phosphorus has raised questions about how careful
the military has been in avoiding civilian
casualties. It has also further tarnished
America's credibility on international treaties
and the rules of warfare.

    White phosphorus, which dates to World War
II, should have been banned generations ago.
Packed into an artillery shell, it explodes over
a battlefield in a white glare that can
illuminate an enemy's positions. It also rains
balls of flaming chemicals, which cling to
anything they touch and burn until their oxygen
supply is cut off. They can burn for hours inside
a human body.

    The United States restricted the use of
incendiaries like white phosphorus after Vietnam,
and in 1983, an international convention banned
its use against civilians. In fact, one of the
many crimes ascribed to Saddam Hussein was
dropping white phosphorus on Kurdish rebels and
civilians in 1991.

    But white phosphorus has made an ugly
comeback. Italian television reported that
American forces used it in Falluja last year
against insurgents. At first, the Pentagon said
the chemical had been used only to illuminate the
battlefield, but had to backpedal when it turned
out that one of the Army's own publications
talked about using white phosphorus against
insurgent positions, a practice well known enough
to have one of those unsettling military
nicknames: "shake and bake."

    The Pentagon says white phosphorus was never
aimed at civilians, but there are lingering
reports of civilian victims. The military can't
say whether the reports are true and does not
intend to investigate them, a decision we find
difficult to comprehend. Pentagon spokesmen say
the Army took "extraordinary measures" to reduce
civilian casualties, but they cannot say what
those measures were.

    They also say that using white phosphorus
against military targets is legal. That's true,
but the 1983 convention bans its use against
"civilians or civilian objects," which would make
white phosphorus attacks in urban settings like
Falluja highly inappropriate at best. The United
States signed that convention, but the portion
dealing with incendiary weapons has been awaiting
ratification in the Senate.

    These are technicalities, in any case. Iraq,
where winning over wary civilians is as critical
as defeating armed insurgents, is no place to be
using a weapon like this. More broadly, American
demands for counterproliferation efforts and
international arms control ring a bit hollow when
the United States refuses to give up white
phosphorus, not to mention cluster bombs and land
mines.

    The United States should be leading the
world, not dragging its feet, when it comes to
this sort of issue - because it's right and
because all of us, including Americans, are safer
in a world in which certain forms of conduct are
regarded as too inhumane even for war. That is
why torture should be banned in American prisons.
And it is why the United States should stop using
white phosphorus.