White phosphorus debate grows white-hot North County Times - North San Diego and Southwest Riverside County

White phosphorus is a chemical agent that ignites in air, burning white hot and sending thick white smoke often used by the military as a screen.

It easily starts fires; its particles burn flesh and are difficult to extinguish.

Whether shaking 'em up with the explosives and baking 'em with the burning phosphorus, or smoking them out with the phosphorus and killing them with the explosives ---- the goal is the same.

But it's the white phosphorus, not its delivery system, that has caused the recent row about how U.S. forces use force in Iraq.

Italian film fuels claims
For nearly two weeks now, critics have presented documentation, including reports by the North County Times from the Iraqi hotbed city of Fallujah last year, as evidence that U.S. forces used chemical weapons against insurgents and possibly civilians in Iraq.

The controversy that shook Europe and continues to burn officials in Washington seems to have started with a documentary by the Italian state-run television broadcaster RAI that aired in Europe last week. The film asserts that American forces used napalm-like weapons and white phosphorus during a massive U.S. offensive on Fallujah a year ago.

While it echoed claims made by "unilateral" ---- or non-embedded journalists ---- in Iraq, and followed accusations by Iraqi officials and residents of Fallujah over the year since the assault destroyed most of the city, the Italian program was the first mass airing of the charges that U.S. forces used chemical weapons on civilians.

It showed grisly photographs and video of bodies of men, women and children horribly burned, some to the bone, and showed video footage reportedly taken on the opening night of the battle showing American helicopters showering neighborhoods with white phosphorus.

The report was backed up with interviews with former American soldiers who said they witnessed the use of phosphorus. It quoted a report in the Army's own Field Artillery Magazine that enthusiastically described the weapon's effectiveness against entrenched insurgents in Fallujah.

The documentary's experts said that the use of white phosphorus was not banned per se, but was considered an illegal chemical weapon if used as an incendiary against people.

They charged the United States with war crimes.

A legal weapon?
The U.S. government quickly went on the defensive.

The State Department issued this rebuttal on its Web site, first citing a statement originally issued on Nov. 12, 2004, before the fighting in Fallujah was over:

"The United States categorically denies the use of chemical weapons at any time in Iraq, which includes the ongoing Fallujah operation."

The statement went on to deny that napalm-like incendiary killers, the Mark-77 fire-bombs, were used in Fallujah, but said that they were not outlawed and were in fact used against Iraqi troops in 2003.

It also said that phosphorus shells were not outlawed and were used only "very sparingly in Fallujah for illumination purposes."

The kicker of the State Department's denial said that white phosphorus was "fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters."

"There is a great deal of misinformation feeding on itself about U.S. forces allegedly using 'outlawed' weapons in Fallujah," the government statement concluded. "The facts are that U.S. forces are not using any illegal weapons in Fallujah or anywhere else in Iraq."

Lt. Col. Steven Boylan, a military spokesman in Baghdad, told the syndicated U.S. radio program "Democracy Now!" that he did not recall that white phosphorus "was used as an offensive weapon" in Fallujah. He called parts of the RAI documentary "tantamount to propaganda, falsehoods and rumors."

This is where the military crossed a line that led the Italian investigative team back to the North County Times.

Fallujah: Feels like the first time
In April 2004, staff photojournalist Hayne Palmour and I were embedded with Camp Pendleton-based Marines in Fallujah.

We had been there since March and documented the violence as it climaxed with the slaying and desecration of four American contractors.

When U.S. forces responded with Operation Vigilant Resolve ---- the first, and later aborted, U.S. assault on the city ---- we spent the first few days of the fight in a freshly dug position with a team of Marines manning a 60mm mortar they had named "Sara Lee."

We watched, and tried to stay out of the way, as they lobbed illumination rounds, high explosives and white phosphorus at targets they could not see, but that were spotted and marked by other troops who could.

I remember the gunner kicking my boots and legs out of the way as he spun around the dusty pit to change the direction of the mortar tube, while I sat against the collapsing sand wall furiously tapping out my story of the action on a laptop hidden under a thick black cloth used to snuff the computer's light.

Often not being able to react fast enough when I heard the team leader yell "Fire!", my head ached and my ears filled with a constant sharp metallic "bing" from the crack of the gun.

The night missions were mostly for "aloom," or the relatively harmless illumination rounds fired high into the air that open with a pop, igniting a flare of glowing white phosphorus that hisses as it drifts slowly to the ground under a white parachute.

Not even the dogs could hide.

'Willie Pete'
During the day, when Marines in forward positions could see their targets, the missions they called into our crowded mortar pit were usually for high explosives, which the skilled gunners "walked" up to targets they knew only by the grid coordinates called in by the forward men with "eyes on."

Occasionally the call came for "Willie Pete," the term the troops used to flesh out the acronym for white phosphorus bombs.

They ordered it mostly to mark targets for bigger strikes. The dense white plume from the long-burning phosphorus made an easy target for Hellfire missiles from Cobra helicopters, or for 500-pound bombs dropped by jet pilots that circled above.

On several occasions, however, Willie Pete was personally summoned to kill.

When Marines could not rout insurgents from a palm grove and from an adjacent cluster of buildings, troops who had been fired on from those locations called on the mortar men to "shake and bake" the insurgents.

Acting on orders, the mortar men fired volley after volley, alternating rounds tipped with high explosives with others filled with white phosphorus.

No secret weapon
The Marines did not act as if white phosphorus were different than any other weapon they used. They did not try to hide it from us. It was just another item to select from a lethal menu handed them by their Corps and made familiar by repetitious training and indoctrination.

In fact, the leader of the mortar section later told me that other weapons would have been more effective in that case: Napalm would have more easily set the palm grove ablaze; and CS gas, similar to tear gas, would have been better to flush the insurgents out into the open.

But the use of napalm (Mark-77) was not approved by commanders, he said, and the CS was considered a chemical weapon, so they used the best tool they had: white phosphorus.

These were individual decisions made by one group of Marines in one skirmish in one part of a seven-square-mile city where Marines and insurgents were fighting nearly 360 degrees. Who knew what was going on elsewhere. It seemed impossible to draw larger conclusions.

That specific palm grove and those adjacent buildings were repeatedly hit with bombs and mortars and gunships, and we and the mortar men stayed low in the sandy pit to avoid the missiles, mortars and sniper fire that insurgents rained in.

Say it ain't so
We didn't think much of it at the time ---- of the white phosphorus, that is. It was just another weapon, another way to kill, and both sides were being creative.

That was until last week when the Italians broadcast their documentary subtitled "Hidden Massacre." Internet bloggers unearthed our 2004 reports from Fallujah, cutting and pasting isolated passages to suit their ends.

Other reports quickly surfaced, mostly from military sources, that showed that U.S. forces had in fact used white phosphorus in the assault in November against insurgents ---- and not just for illumination.

Even as the revelations created a storm of controversy in Europe and the Middle East, mainstream America media barely paid it notice.

U.S. officials followed a pattern familiar to anyone who closely follows the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan or the so-called "Global War on Terror." They played a game of denials, partial denials, quasi-admissions and legalistic hair-splitting that seemed to satisfy folks at home but fueled suspicions abroad.

It wasn't until Thursday that U.S. officials finally capitulated and admitted that white phosphorus had been used in Fallujah to burn people and not just for screening or marking targets.

Lt. Col. Barry Venable told reporters Wednesday that the weapon had been used as an incendiary weapon against insurgents in Fallujah but "categorically" denied that it was intentionally used against civilians.

Bryan Whitman, another military spokesman quoted by the Boston Globe, said white phosphorus is "part of our conventional weapons inventory and we use it like we use any other conventional weapons."

A life of its own
OK. Alrighty then. It's over, right? Let's flip the channel.

Not so fast.

While the military statements may have snuffed the controversy in the U.S., the white phosphorus controversy thrives in Iraq, Europe and the Middle East, fueling the growing sense that U.S. officials have been less than truthful and that U.S. forces use unnecessary ---- if not illegal ---- force in Iraq.

The irony relished by critics and denied by U.S. officials is that it could be the Americans, not Saddam Hussein, unleashing chemical weapons in Iraq.

An Iraqi human rights group was heading to Fallujah to investigate the claims Wednesday, according to the Globe.

Even now, bloggers sustain their Internet attack, the best culling official and unofficial documents for new evidence, and the worst recutting and repasting one another's hack reporting into their circular arguments.

While the row over chemical weapons continues on the Internet and abroad, U.S. Marines fought on in western Iraq in what was touted as the largest U.S. offensive since the massive assault on Fallujah a year ago ---- the same one at the center of the ongoing white phosphorus and napalm debate.

Fallujah forever
It was after that battle a year ago ---- which left the city a smoking ruin and which the military said killed at least 1,500 insurgents ---- that American officials declared they had turned another corner in the war.

Lt. Gen. John Sattler, commander of the Pendleton-based I Marine Expeditionary Force, told the world that the assault had "broken the back of the insurgency."

U.S. troops killed top rebel lieutenants, destroyed the infrastructure of arms caches and terror cells, and forever denied terrorists a haven in Fallujah, he said.

The broken insurgency, however, has moved, mutated and multiplied, killing more troops and reportedly recruiting more members in the year since the Fallujah battle.

"Remember Fallujah," the new recruits say as they honor and seek to emulate the martyrs, embellishing stories of American terror in the city that gain more credibility with each fresh revelation of America's use of force there.

Terror cells in Saudi Arabia and other parts of the region have adopted Fallujah into their names. Like Dixie or the Alamo, it continues to inspire.

The recent bombing of hotels in Jordan by Fallujah survivors indicate that the bombers were moved to kill even outside their country to avenge their city and the people they lost there.

Even Fallujah, which is not yet completely rebuilt and which reportedly seethes with anti-American sentiment as it repopulates, risks returning to its former status of insurgent citadel.

The latest revelations that U.S. forces used white phosphorus, however legal or however justified in military terms, could not have helped staunch the flow of new blood to the cause. Nor could the appearance that the U.S. tried to deny it.

In Iraq, the troops say they have had a hard time trusting the Iraqis. It's equally hard to trust that a tactical military victory will translate into a strategic one.

And as the world outside America continues to shake its head over the use of force in Fallujah, it's fair to ask again whether the assault really broke the back of the insurgency or gave it wings to fly.

Contact staff writer Darrin Mortenson at (760) 740-5442 or dmortenson@nctimes.com.

Jim wrote on Oct 31, 2007 3:28 PM:Phosphorus (P) is an element, not a chemical. Check the periodic table. You might as well call a 500 lb bomb casing a chemical weapon if you're this "liberal" in your definitions since the casing is Iron (Fe). The Iraqi's who see a brighter future, no pun intended, are not the insurgents the United States Military is fighting to get Iraq to a state of peaceful progress. There is plenty of evidence that Iran is trucking enough sophisticated munitions into Iraq that a nightly battle with white phosphorus is a very asymmetric response; the advanced shaped charges pack enough lethality to cut through 8 feet of steel; I don't care how much white phosphorus you lob at a palm tree oasis when you're fighting an insurgency who is getting totally indescriminant weaponry that, in one round, can obliterate the oasis. If you have never served your country in the military, then you have no basis on which to judge and convict the U.S. Military. In my opinion, I'd have run the Stratofortresses through downtown Fallujah, but the hearts and minds don't come over to your side when you've left nothing to call home. That the United States fighting forces are trained and lethal is nothing without the compassion to not turn Iraq into a wasteland. If you wanted to critique the job, you should apply for the job, otherwise plug in your Ipod or get back on the couch.

Sean wrote on Jan 24, 2007 8:38 AM:As a chemist, I find the debate about WP as a "chemical weapon" sort of amusing. One might as well claim that we're engaged in "chemical warfare" because the lead we use to make bullets is toxic. It's like that question they ask me sometimes at the post office: "Does your package contain any chemicals?" Well, OF COURSE IT DOES, because the universe is made of chemicals and if there's any damn thing at all in the package, there's chemicals in it. In that sense, any weapon that EXISTS is a "chemical weapon," and the word becomes totally useless. The chemistry of WP is simply oxidation/combustion, which is the same chemistry that propels bullets and shells down gun barrels and causes fire in general, and the use of fire in warfare is as old as warfare itself. It just so happens that WP burns very hot and is self-igniting in air. If "chemical weapons" is to remain a useable term, it's best that it be reserved for toxic compounds which are employed primarily to exploit their toxicology. That being said, it seems likely to me that in the future, as war continues to be "humanized," we will begin to see moral and eventually legal proscription of the use of burning as a means of offensive war. Destruction of uninhabited materiel or facilities is one thing, but the deliberate destruction of live human beings by combustion is pretty appalling. Think of the little Vietnamese napalm girl, or the fire-bombing of Dresden or Tokyo, or of the use of the flamethrower in trench warfare. Burning is agonizing, indiscriminate, and not terribly efficient versus shooting or blasting to bits. Burning is a frightening way to die (or not die), and for this reason it is frequently employed as a psychological weapon. I'm not necessarily advocating its regulation, because I think war is just nasty and efforts to "soften" it are hypocritical, but I can see it coming in the future anyway.

John wrote on Jan 22, 2007 4:49 PM:TNT, RDX, HDX, and WP they're all chemicals made into weapons. Generally speaking how much you suffer depends on how close you are when it goes bang. At least the US tries to avoid civilian deaths; can't say the same for the other side. BTW the jargon is "illum" not "aloom".

Gary wrote on Jan 9, 2007 7:23 AM:Just stumbled on this (1-9-07). I'm an ex Vietnam combat soldier (8/68 to 1/71). Sorry, but there is nothing finer than some WP to end a "conversation." NO one sticks around when white phosphorous goes off. Having used it to break contact on at least three occasions, it's the best thing in the world. Is it nasty? Damn right. That's why it works. (BTW: "shake and bake" used to - in RVN - refer to sergeants who had gone through the Army's "Instant NCO" school ... not WP).

Tom wrote on Dec 7, 2005 9:22 AM:Quite amazing how we debate the lethality and legality of WP. As if tearing people to shreds on either side with 'legal' ordinance is somehow more humane.

Richard wrote on Dec 7, 2005 5:38 AM:Phosphorus "smoke" is the pentoxide, a highly delequescent material that reacts with moisture to form phosphoric acid, which also takes on water of hydration. Like water in the skin, flesh etc. Mouth, esophagus and lungs would be very succeptable. Really good if you can run from it, but what about women and children and dogs? They won't know to run, or wash it off. They may not have water...

David Parsons wrote on Nov 30, 2005 12:02 AM:Anybody ever heard of "napalm"?

Ben wrote on Nov 28, 2005 8:21 PM:I'm not entirely sure if using WP or even Napalm is a 'war crime'. But I despise the hypocrisy and lies our actions breed. If there was nothing wrong about it, we shouldn't have to lie about it and hide it. As the greatest power in the world, we should hold ourselves to a higher moral standard that we hold our enemies to.

Laura wrote on Nov 25, 2005 8:48 AM:Thank you, Darrin. Your report on this issue captures several important points: a) War is ugly. People die. b) Truth is scarce during war - any pixel of truth or fact can and will be 'managed' (or ignored) to support positions. c) freedom of the press - more is better.

Glen wrote on Nov 24, 2005 9:11 PM:White Phosphorous is definitely a chemically based weapon that can burn a person to the bone,what a bunch of huey! To profess that it only gives you a sunburn? or a boo-boo burn? LOL, you're kind of people handed out contaminated blankets to the Indians, claiming it would at least keep them warm till they had to die. For one thing, how many of you were in a room when a WP round went off in it, not outside, but inside?

Phil wrote on Nov 24, 2005 6:59 PM:Straight from American Defence Department websites, a declassified intelligence report from the first Gulf War carries the title "Possible use of phosphorous chemical weapons by Iraq in Kurdish areas along the Iraqi-Turkish-Iranian borders". The report was written in February 1991 when Saddam was cracking down on the Kurds who were hung out to dry by GB 1 after kicking Iraq out of Kuwait. "Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam may have possibly used white phosphorous (WP) chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil and Dohuk. The WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds and helicopter gunships." The report continues "reports of possible WP chemical weapon attacks spread quickly among the populace in Erbil and Dohuk. "As a result, hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled from these two areas across the border into Turkey". http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10356665 Imagine, using weapons like WP, which the US itself calls a "chemical weapon". That Saddam sure was evil.

M in AG wrote on Nov 24, 2005 10:48 AM:Jez, Truth gets lost pretty quick in these discussions. If there anybody that deserves a salute in this blogging, its Darrin Mortenson for capturing the accurate use and sentiment of the martarmen. What Alan and Matt posted is absolutely correct--WP is a lousy casualty producing round. I've never heard of anyone dying from a WP round--it would literaly have to land on you or at your feet and most likely the metal casing/tail/fuse would kill you. Of the 3 types of arty/mortar rounds... WP isn't an illumination round--illumination rounds are an illumination round. HE fragmentation rounds are casualty producing rounds--they'll kill you and leave big scars. WP sets things on fire, provides a quick smoke screen, and marks targets for air strikes. Anybody on the giving or receiving end of WP would know if it gets on you, you scrap the crap off of you and your equipment, leaving burnt holes and small 2nd or 3rd degree burns--that'll leave a scar--but not kill you. That said, it sure focuses your attention on getting the stuff off of you rather than putting rounds down range. The idea WP kills is sheer fantasy, though having worked around the stuff for 19 years it sure would be nice if WP was more effective.

M in AG wrote on Nov 24, 2005 10:47 AM:Jez, Truth gets lost pretty quick in these discussions. If there anybody that deserves a salute in this blogging, its Darrin Mortenson for capturing the accurate use and sentiment of the martarmen. What Alan and Matt posted is absolutely correct--WP is a lousy casualty producing round. I've never heard of anyone dying from a WP round--it would literaly have to land on you or at your feet and most likely the metal casing/tail/fuse would kill you. Of the 3 types of arty/mortar rounds... WP isn't an illumination round--illumination rounds are an illumination round. HE fragmentation rounds are casualty producing rounds--they'll kill you and leave big scars. WP sets things on fire, provides a quick smoke screen, and marks targets for air strikes. Anybody on the giving or receiving end of WP would know if it gets on you, you scrap the crap off of you and your equipment, leaving burnt holes and small 2nd or 3rd degree burns--that'll leave a scar--but not kill you. That said, it sure focuses your attention on getting the stuff off of you rather than putting rounds down range. The idea WP kills is sheer fantasy, though having worked around the stuff for 19 years it sure would be nice if WP was more effective.

Juhn wrote on Nov 24, 2005 7:08 AM:White phoporus has been in use as a weapon for centuries,hea lets outlaw gunpowder too,thats a chemical composition too.you liberals are a trip..

Ron wrote on Nov 23, 2005 9:04 PM:Using chemical as weapons for the purpose of killing is a war crime. You cannot justify their use for this purpose. Wake up America !

Alan wrote on Nov 22, 2005 9:55 AM:This is a typical war of words and a good reason we don't send lawyers into battle. WP is used for many things illumination, marking for air, screening our own movements and starting secondary fires of fuel storage facilites etc. It has been used for many years in many different ways. War is about killing and this is a weapon of war. If we want to start spitting hairs like this some might charge the local police of using chemical weapons when they use tear gas to quell a riot. Leave the fighting to the Marines, let them decide what tool to use.

Mat wrote on Nov 22, 2005 5:50 AM:“Willy Pete” is primarily used for illumination or marking targets for larger weapon systems. High explosive is much preferred for anti-personnel over anything else. The pictures posted of "Burned" victims in Fallujah were misleading as the remains were in the initial stages of decomposition and therefore "Black" in appearance. Reports of inhuman methods of fighting were a propaganda campaign to discredit the U.S. in the world media. U.S. forces went to great lengths to protect unarmed civilians during the battle, even at the loss of a significant tactical advantage in the process. Again, White prosperous is not effective as an anti-personnel munition, and is not used as such.

Mike wrote on Nov 21, 2005 8:06 PM:In reply to Harry's comment: As the article points out, using some weapons have drawbacks that outweigh any benefits they have. While WP might, as Harry says, be a good deterrent, it's after effects are so gruesome that it becomes a useful tool for the other side in branding us as the bad side and in recruiting more fighters. I've seen what phosphorus can do to human skin, so my repugnance is more along moral lines, but the strictly pragmatic reasoning above might be more useful for some.

Mary wrote on Nov 21, 2005 3:29 PM:We spend millions developing smart weapons to avoid collateral civilian casualties. If this weapon does not have the ability to be directed only at enemy combatants, then it should not be used. Torture and anything that smacks of chemcial weapons undermines our moral authority. Torture and indiscriminate use of chemical weapons creates more enemies than can possibly be eliminated by the use of these tactics. It is time to think through more carefully the consquences and unintended results before it is used.

Harry wrote on Nov 21, 2005 4:33 AM:Having fought in one war (Vietnam) and never wanting to be in another, I can not understand what the public wants from the military. Are we supposed to walk into hostile territory without weapons and asked the enemy to just give up? I know that some people want to use the old saying "if they can do it, whay can't we?" That doesn't work either. But we have to allow the military to defend their lives. I do not believe in "chemical" warfare - however, using 'Willie Pete' is a good deterrant for those who have seen what it can do and are thinking about harming our troops. God Bless the USA and her fighting men and women!