White Phosphorus

I think the phrase 'we don't know' may be useful
--Jeff Greenfield

I didn't post anything right away about the use of white phosphorus in Fallujah, because I wanted to wait and see how well substantiated the story was. What I wanted most to avoid was a Jimmy Massey situation. I've been trying to sort out conflicting claims, and I still can't say anything one way or another with any degree of certainty...but it does look like the claims aired in the RAI documentary are exaggerated (at least) and not very well substantiated.

Here's what we (probably) know:

• Some non-trivial number of civilians were killed in Fallujah;
• White phosphorus was used in Fallujah (and in other cities in Iraq;
• The State Department appears to have lied about it;
• The RAI report used highly partisan sources without identifying them as such, and treated their claims as factual;
• The claim that white phosphorus burns skin but not clothing appears to be incorrect;
• The claim that white phosphorus creates a toxic cloud killing everyone within 150 yards appears to be incorrect;
• White phosphorus is not technically a 'chemical weapon';
• A 1980 Red Cross protocol, never ratified by the U.S., does prohibit the use of white phosphorus against civilians or civilian targets (but not against military targets).

Here's what we really don't know:

• How extensively was white phosphorus used (i.e., was it used 'indiscriminately')?
• How many civilians were killed, how, and by whom?
• In using white phosphorus against military targets, what measures did the military take to prevent injury to civilians?

Let's be clear here: bad things happened in Fallujah. The dubious sourcing and factual inaccuracies in the RAI report make me skeptical about the specific bad things they allege (i.e., that white phosphorus was widely used against civilians) and the incendiary (sorry) language they use ("Massacre in Fallujah"). I also think this is the sort of accusation for which we should require a fairly high standard of substantiation. This isn't the Bush administration that's being accused of war crimes, it's the soldiers in the field--and I'm inclined to give them (in general) the benefit of the doubt.

That said, white phosphorus is obviously bad stuff (even if it doesn't live up to the more exaggerated claims about it), and its use in a densely populated urban environment is questionable at best.

More importantly, it seems clear to me that any counterinsurgency campaign in a place like Fallujah is going to cause a lot of civilian casualties, and that that certainty will continue to haunt us as long as we remain in Iraq. That certainty should have been a factor in the decision whether to go to war (but they never seriously considered not going to war, so it wasn't). It's one reason (of many) why a war of choice such as Iraq is by its nature an immoral, a criminal, enterprise.