Much excitement about the use by US forces of phosphorus weapons in Iraq. These are not banned weapons, but they are deeply unpleasant sticking to anything, including flesh, and burning on through.
US forces have used them chiefly to smoke out entrenched insurgents and apparently they were sporadically used in the battle for Falluja.
Labour MPs and the Guardian are concerned about their use despite phosphorus weapons not being banned. I take it they get that once these people are smoked out that if they don't surrender they will be shot or blown up?
"Since the Guardian columnist George Monbiot highlighted discrepancies in US accounts of weapons used in the bloody battle of Falluja this week, the Pentagon has backtracked on earlier denials by the state department and its ambassador to the UK, Robert Tuttle, that white phosphorus had been deployed.
"The charge was first made by Iraqi insurgents, aware of the potency of the issue in view of Saddam Hussein's notorious use of chemicals against his own people, and taken up by the Italian TV channel RAI."
Okay, yes these weapons are unpleasant, but they are legitimate parts of any army's arsenal – hence the not banned bit. We use them, but again like the Americans that's to clear out enemy positions. They're scary and really that's the point so people generally run. Job done.
Isn't that a good thing? Well it would be if you actually thought that it was right to criticise a group of people who indiscriminately kill and time and time again choose soft targets over military ones.
The anti war lobby, of course, does not criticise these people, but are ready to come down any front possible against the US and British forces and how they prosecute the fight against terror. Yes, of course, we should be open to criticism, but only where it is legitimate and right to do so.
What the anti war lobby would prefer is if American and British forces had one hand tied behind their back and really didn't use live bullets. That would even things up. While that isn't possible they look for other avenues and this is one. A smokescreen designed to eat away at morale and to rob the forces trying to bring democracy and stability in Iraq of the ability to do so.
The bit from the Guardian that really sticks is that the charge was first made by Iraqi insurgents? You mean those people who blow up wedding parties with suicide bombers? Who blow up children or anything other motherfugger they can get a car close to? You mean those people who refuse to negotiate and rarely surrender. They're complaining? Oh come on.
It seems to clearly echo the IRA who would insist they were fighting a war right up to the point that some of the boys were ambushed and killed. At that point there would be calls for an investigation, for a judicial inquiry and for charges to be brought.
How long will it be before the anti war lobby is calling for the rights of insurgents to be protected?
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"Yes, of course, we should be open to criticism, but only where it is legitimate and right to do so."
Ie, when you agree?
Don't you think it's a rather cynical, Daily Mail-like exercise for you pro-warriors to infer that critics of the war are "giving comfort to the enemy"?
Isn't the freedom to criticise and debate what you waged war for?
Surely drawing an equivalence between the brutal acts of the insurgents and those of the allies is playing into the enemy's hands? Surely the point is that we are supposed to be the civilised "good guys" and therefore don't stoop to the same vicious methods? Which is precisely why the use of weapons no less frightening than gas, or the use of torture to extract information is so counter-productive.
"The anti war lobby, of course, does not criticise these people..."
Just as the pro-war people, of course, do not make use of misinformed sweeping genereralisations. (Well, that's OK because nobody's banned misinformed sweeping generalistations yet).
"What the anti war lobby would prefer is if American and British forces had one hand tied behind their back..."
What the anti-war lobby would *actually* prefer is for American and British forces to have stayed at home and put their hands to more useful, less destructive purposes.
Post a Comment