<html>
<body>
<font size=3>
<a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff05182009.html" eudora="autourl">
http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff05182009.html<br><br>
</a></font><font face="Verdana" size=2 color="#990000">May 18,
2009<br><br>
</font><h1><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=4><b>Caught in a Lie
<br><br>
<br>
</i></font><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=5 color="#990000">The
U.S. is Using White Phosphorous in Afghanistan
</b></font></h1><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=4>By DAVE
LINDORFF <br><br>
</font><font face="Verdana" size=6 color="#990000">W</font>
<font face="Verdana" size=2>hen doctors started reporting that some of
the victims of the US bombing of several villages in Farah Province last
weekan attack that left between 117 and 147 civilians dead, most of them
women and childrenwere turning up with deep, sharp burns on their body
that “looked like” they’d been caused by white phosphorus, the US
military was quick to deny responsibility.<br><br>
US officialswho initially denied that the US had even bombed any
civilians in Farah despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary,
including massive craters where houses had once stoodinsisted that “no
white phosphorus” was used in the attacks on several villages in
Farah.<br><br>
Official military policy on the use of white phosphorus is to only use
the high-intensity, self-igniting material as a smoke screen during
battles or to illuminate targets, not as a weapon against human
beingseven enemy troops.<br><br>
Now that policy, and the military’s blanket denial that phosphorus was
used in Farah, have to be questioned, thanks to a recent report filed
from a remote area of Afghanistan by a New York Times reporter.<br><br>
C.J. Chivers, writing in the May 14 edition of the NY Times, in an
article headlined “Korangal Valley Memo: In Bleak Afghan Outpost, Troops
Slog On,” wrote of how an embattled US Army unit in the Korangal Valley
of Afghanistan, had come under attack following a morning memorial
service for one of their members, Pfc. Richard Dewater, who had been
killed the day before by a mine. <br><br>
Chivers wrote:<br><br>
</font>
<dl>
<dd>After the ceremony, the violence resumed. The soldiers detected a
Taliban spotter on a ridge, which was pounded by mortars and then white
phosphorus rounds from a 155 millimeter howitzer.<br><br>
<dd>What did the insurgents do? When the smoldering subsided, they
attacked from exactly the same spot, shelling the outpost with
30-millimeter grenades and putting the soldiers on notice that the last
display of firepower had little effect. The Americans escalated. An A-10
aircraft made several gun runs, then dropped a 500-pound bomb.<br><br>
</dl>It is clear from this passage that the military’s use of the
phosphorus shells had not been for the officially sanctioned purpose of
providing cover. The soldiers had no intention of climbing that hill to
attack the spotter on the ridge themselves. They were trying to destroy
him with shells and bombs. In fact, the last thing they would have wanted
to do was provide the spotter with a smoke cover, which would have helped
him escape, and which also would have hidden him from the planes which
had been called in to make gun runs at his position. Nor was this a
case of illuminating the target. The incident, as Chivers reports, took
place in daylight.<br><br>
Clearly then, this article shows that it is routine for soldiers to call
in phosphorus rounds to attack enemy soldiers, which is supposed to be
against US military policy for this material. Whoever was manning the
howitzer had a stock of the weapons on hand, and was ready to fire
them.<br><br>
The US initially flatly denied using white phosphorus weapons in Iraq,
when reports first began to come out, including from US troops
themselves, that they had been used extensively against insurgents
defending the city of Fallujah against US Marines in November 2004. Under
mounting pressure, the Pentagon first admitted that it had used the
chemical in Fallujah but only “for illumination.” Later, the
Pentagon added that it had used phosphorus as a “screen” to hide troops.
But finally, in 2005, the Pentagon was forced to admit that it had also
used white phosphorus directly as a weapon against enemy Iraqi troops in
the assault on Fallujah, a city of 300,000 that still held many
civilians.<br><br>
The same pattern of denial and eventual admission regarding the use of
this controversial and deadly weapon by US forces now seems to be
repeating itself in Afghanistan.<br><br>
It is odd that given the controversy over the use of white phosphorus
weapons, which result in terrible wounds and eventual death as phosphorus
particles burn their way down through flesh to the bone and sometimes
straight onward through a body, leaving a charred channel of destruction,
the New York Times’ Chiversor perhaps his editors back in New
York?ignored any mention of the issue while reporting on the use of the
chemical rounds to attack a lone spotter on the ridge.<br><br>
Given the current controversy over whether the US used white phosphorus
shells or bombs in Falah Province only days before, it is hard to
understand why the issue wasn’t mentioned in this particular article.
Indeed, in the online version of the story, the word phosphorus is set as
a hotlink to an article on the controversy over the battlefield use of
phosphorus, indicating that at least someone at the Times has integrity
and a good news sense.<br><br>
As for the US government and the Pentagon, it is clear that they know the
weapon is a vicious and controversial one, and that besides causing
horrific and painful wounds, it is profoundly dangerous for innocent
civilians, particularly when used in town or village settings. <br><br>
It is bad enough that the US is using this weapon. It is even worse that
it is forced to lie about it.<br><br>
Surely if the goal of US policy is to win the hearts and minds of
Afghanistan’s people, it shouldn’t be using a weapon that causes such
terrible and indiscriminate wounds. Then again, maybe winning those
hearts and minds isn’t the goal. Maybe, as in the so-called “Pacification
Program” applied by US forces in rural South Vietnam, the goal is to
terrorize Afghan villagers in Taliban regions into rejecting the Taliban
in their midst.<br><br>
Requests for answers from the press office at the Pentagon, and at
military headquarters in Afghanistan regarding US policy on the use of
white phosphorus, and on the specific use of the shells mentioned in the
New York Times article were ignored.<br><br>
Dave Lindorff</b> is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His
latest book is
“<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/031237254X/counterpunchmaga">
The Case for Impeachment</a>” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and now available
in paperback). He can be reached at
<a href="mailto:dlindorff@mindspring.com">dlindorff@mindspring.com</a><br>
<br>
<br><br>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#008000">415 863-9977<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF">
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.Freedomarchives.org</a></font><font size=3> </font></body>
</html>