By Kenneth J. Theisen
Did the U.S. use white phosphorus in the recent massacres caused by U.S. air strikes on two .jpg)
Afghan villages? White phosphorus is a chemical used in shells and bombs. It is generally used for screening, marking, and illumination on the battlefield. According to Marc Garlasco, a senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch, "White phosphorus causes horrendous burns and should not be used in civilian areas." [White phosphorus, supplied by the U.S., was illegally used on civilians by Israeli forces in its attacks in Gaza earlier this year. In 2004, the U.S. military also used white phosphorus in the battle of Fallujah, Iraq.]
Afghan villages? White phosphorus is a chemical used in shells and bombs. It is generally used for screening, marking, and illumination on the battlefield. According to Marc Garlasco, a senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch, "White phosphorus causes horrendous burns and should not be used in civilian areas." [White phosphorus, supplied by the U.S., was illegally used on civilians by Israeli forces in its attacks in Gaza earlier this year. In 2004, the U.S. military also used white phosphorus in the battle of Fallujah, Iraq.]Nader Nadery, speaking for the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, stated that his group is concerned that the chemical may have been used in the massacre in the western Afghnaistan province of Farah. He said, "Our teams have met with patients. They are investigating the cause of the injuries and the use of white phosphorus.” Afghan officials say up to 147 people may have died in Farah.
People taken to a hospital in Herat had "highly unusual burns" on their hands and feet according to Dr Mohammad Aref Jalali. Jalali heads the Herat hospital. The doctor stated, "We cannot be 100% sure what type of chemical it was and we do not have the equipment here to find out. One of the women who came here told us that 22 members of her family were totally burned. She said a bomb distributed white power that caught fire and then set people’s clothes alight."
Gul Ahmad Ayubi, the deputy head of the Farah health department, said the province’s main hospital had received 14 patients with burn wounds after the battle. He stated that, "There have been other air strikes in Farah in the past. We had injuries from those battles, but this is the first time we have seen such burns on the bodies. I’m not sure what kind of bomb it was."
The U.S. denied it had used white phosphorus in its attacks on the villages. The Department of Defense (DOD) claimed the burns may have resulted “from hand grenades or exploding propane tanks.” But Dr. Jalali responded, "I think it’s the result of a chemical used in a bomb, but I’m not sure what kind of chemical. But if it was a result of a burning house – from petrol or gas cylinders – that kind of burn would look different.”
The U.S. is blaming the mass civilian deaths in Farah on the Taliban. It is accusing the Taliban of using civilians as human shields. It has also made the accusation that the Taliban may have used the white phosphorus.
But an official of the Human Rights Department at the UN mission in Kabul told the British newspaper the Guardian a different story: he stated that he was told by villagers that the bombs were dropped after the Taliban forces had left the battlefield. He continued, "The stories that are emerging are quite frankly horrifying. It is quite apparent that the large bulk of casualties were called in after the initial fighting had subsided and both the troops and the Taliban had withdrawn. Local villagers went to the mosque to pray for peace. Shortly after evening prayers the air strikes were called in, and they continued for a couple of hours whilst the villagers were frantically calling the local governor to get him to call off the air strikes."
If white phosphorus was used in the recent massacre by U.S. forces it would not be the first time it was employed in Afghanistan in the U.S. war of terror there. Earlier this monthHuman Rights Watch (HRW) demanded that NATO come clean about its use of the chemical in an earlier attack. [NATO forces are allies in the U.S. war of terror in Afghanistan.] In that incident, an 8 year old girl was the victim. Two of her siblings were killed in the March 14, 2009 attack. HRW stated that the girl in Kapisa province was burned by white phosphorus munitions. Ironically the girl was taken for treatment of her burns to the U.S. military base in Bagram. U.S. military doctors stated they found white phosphorus on her face and neck.
NATO officials did not deny the use of white phosphorus during the battle near the family’s home. But they claimed they found no evidence that white phosphorus rounds used by NATO fell close to the home. Like the U.S., they suggested that the white phosphorus that burned the girl may have been used by the Taliban. HRW’s Marc Garlasco demanded, "NATO should immediately make public the results of its investigation into this incident."
There is no doubt that white phosphorus is used by the U.S. and NATO in Afghanistan. The question is how is it used? According to international humanitarian law, white phosphorus can legitimately be used as a screen to hide military operations or to illuminate a target. But white phosphorus munitions can also severely burn people, buildings, fields, and other non-battlefield related objects. Under international humanitarian law combatants are required to use precautions to avoid civilian injury. HRW and other humanitarian groups question whether these precautions are being used.
Brigadier General Richard Blanchette, spokesman for the commander of NATO and US troops in Afghanistan, admitted that white phosphorus munitions are used in Afghanistan. He told HRW "We do not target personnel with white phosphorus, which is a conventional weapon in the arsenals of many nations, generally used for screening, marking, and illumination." But the general did not say how the U.S. and its allies are using precautions to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties when white phosphorus is utilized. The use of the chemical in populated areas could be a war crime.
Afghan officials responding to the recent massacres by U.S. forces have called for limitations of U.S. air strikes. On May 10th President Barack Obama’s national security adviser, General James Jones rejected the idea that the U.S. would stop using air strikes against U.S. opposition forces in Afghanistan. Jones stated "we can’t fight with one hand tied behind our back."
The U.S. military on Monday, May 11th also unleashed another of its weapons – a propaganda ”bomb”. The Pentagon declassified documents alleging the use of white phosphorus by Taliban forces. The documents purportedly showed at least 38 such incidents where the U.S. is now accusing the Taliban of using the weapons the U.S. acknowledges it has used on the Afghan battlefield. In a classic case of the kettle calling the pot black, U.S. spokeswoman Major Jenny Willis claimed, "This pattern of irresponsible and indiscriminate use of white phosphorus by insurgents is reprehensible and should be noted by the international human rights community.” [Where was the U.S. outrage when its ally, Israel, indiscriminately used white phosphorus in the Gazan massacre?]
Reporters asked why the documents were just now being used by the Pentagon. Willis answered, "We declassified it because there seems to be a general lack of awareness that insurgents are in fact accessing and using white phosphorus, so this is an effort to correct the record. We’re not trying to exonerate ourselves for what happened to Razia, (the 8 year old girl) because we just don’t know. It could have been our fault."
But clearly the U.S. is trying to obscure its own role in the illegal use of phosphorus in Afghanistan. That is exactly why the documents are now being declassified. It may be that the Taliban is also committing war crimes in its use of white phosphorus. Like the U.S. imperialist forces and its allies, the Taliban are reactionaries guilty of horrendous crimes against the Afghan people. But this does not make the U.S. any less responsible for its own crimes.
And let us just accept for the sake of argument that the
Whether or not the