Napalm: Making it stick
Tim Ireland has some excellent follow-up on the admission from the Government that they’d been lied to by the US administration over the use of napalm in Iraq.
Of course, as Tim can tell you, the stories about the use of napalm in Iraq have always been around for those of us who knew where to look (that is, not in the mainstream British media). In his admission, defence minister Adam Ingram states, according to the Independent, that “30 MK77 firebombs were used by the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in the invasion of Iraq between 31 March and 2 April 2003″. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this is a conservative estimate.
But then there are none so blind as those that will not see. The admission from the Americans that they’d used MK77 firebombs (napalm to you and me) in Iraq is two years old.
“We napalmed both those (bridge) approaches,” said Col. Randolph Alles in a recent interview. He commanded Marine Air Group 11, based at Miramar Marine Corps Air Station, during the war. “Unfortunately, there were people there because you could see them in the (cockpit) video.
“They were Iraqi soldiers there. It’s no great way to die,” he added. How many Iraqis died, the military couldn’t say. No accurate count has been made of Iraqi war casualties.
It’s no great way to die. Cheers, Sherlock.
“Napalm is the most terrible pain you can imagine,” said Kim Phuc, known from a famous Vietnam War photograph. “Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius. Napalm generates temperatures of 800 to 1,200 degrees Celsius.”
It goes without saying that this use of napalm didn’t gain wide discussion in the salons of the British media. A brief story about its use in Fallujah appeared in the Sunday mirror last November but didn’t gain wider currency. I think Abi Titmuss must have fellated another minor celebrity again that weekend.
These napalm stories are likely to be the tip of the iceberg and with Iraqi health official Dr. Khalid ash-Shaykhli’s assertion back in March that banned weapons may have been used in the assault on Fallujah (a claim that nobody seems overly keen to get to the bottom of), it seems to me that this so-called war of liberation has been fought with precious little morality on either side (see also the lack of a count of the dead.)
We are, unfortunately, in the realm of Donald Rumsfeld’s known unknowns and unknowns unknowns. Oh, how we laughed at the time. We know napalm was used in Iraq but not to what extent. We also have no idea of what else has been used. When a tactic of war is the use of the “free-fire zone” where everything in an area - soldier, civilian and journalist - is game, how would we ever know for sure? The likes of our strictly-impartial, envy-of-world, BBC aren’t remotely interested in trying to find out.
Rumsfeld and his ilk will probably take what’s really gone on in parts of Iraq to the grave, much like Henry Kissinger and his excesses. They’ll be long dead when the files are finally released.
(File under: Iraq, napalm, mk77)
Posted on June 18th, 2005 at 11:17 am
| See also • Napalm: Ignorance is bliss • Hooray for Lava the Dog • On the side of the angels |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
• Filed under Uncategorized |
• |
See also here.
I’m not sure what your problem is here. If the US lied, they shouldn’t have done.
But your objection seems to be against them using napalm. Is the use of napalm banned under international law? I don’t think so. The alternative, white phospherous, is - yet is still used by armies all over the world.
Napalm is the most effect means of killing large numbers of concentrated personnel from the air. It is a decidedly unpleasant way to die, but then few methods employed in war are not. Shelling by artilley, for instance, is no better. Any alternative that will do the same job is either no better or worse.
If whilst fighting a war the US used napalm against concentrated Iraqi soldiers away from civilians, then this is a legitimate act. If you believe it to be immoral, then you are in effect saying that all methods of legal warfare - including mortaring, shelling, and aerial bombardment - are equally immoral.
Either way your indignation should be aimed at the US for fighting a war, not their use of napalm per se.
THEY CALL IT THE BANALITY OF EVIL DON’T THEY? THIS PERSON WHO AGREES WITH THE USE OF THESE WICKED WEAPONS CANNOT EVEN SPELL PHOSPHORUS PROPERLY - YECCCHHH!!!
Oh dear, I mispelled a word. No greater a crime than fogetting to re-press the Caps Lock button though.
I agree with the use of this particular evil weapon to the same extent as I agree to the use of all evil weapons, from the club and cross-bow to the general purpose machine gun.
I am for whatever it takes to end the terrorist attacks against America and her citizens. If it takes napalm, so be it. But terrorism has to stop. period. There is always going to be loss of life in war. Even loss of innocent lives. That is an unfortunate product of war. We need to understand some loss of life is deemed “acceptable losses” that is unavoidable in war, in order to win the war. In what way is the taking of lives by flying planes full of innocent civilians into buildings excusable but the use of napalm to stop the reoccurance of an attack such as that is not?
Is it just me, or is someone running a Yankee Troll Random Kneejerk Rant generator there? Quite a good simulation, admittedly: in particular, the reliance on crass non sequiturs is right on the money.
>> In what way is the taking of lives by flying planes full of innocent civilians into buildings excusable
Mark, can you please point out where this assertion was made on this website.
Can you also refer me to the terrorist attack that Saddam Hussein and/or the Iraqi people visited upon America.
>> I am for whatever it takes to end the terrorist attacks against America and her citizens.
I don’t suppose you ever though of enlisting yourself?
Ta.
Hi Tim,
If you take a look around CY you’ll find plenty of indignation against the war.
I suppose at the end of the day I’m just (mock) confused at the moral inconsistency in fighting a “humanitarian” war with naplam and then lying to your alliws about it.
Fair enough, although I’m not sure the US ever claimed it was fighting a “humanitarian war”, using those words.
By its definition, all war is decidedly unpleasant and the use of napalm is unfortunately part of that. I can’t see any moral inconsistency between fighting a war, any war, and using napalm. I can see a moral inconsistency between fighting a war using napalm and lying about it to your allies, though.
The original question and lie is available here.
http://theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2005-01-11.207246.h
Napalm is a WMD, by the definition of the Blair administration. It can only be used to indescriminately “mop up”, and massacre a weak opponent who cannot defend themselves from the ground. Its use is a war crime.
But then, the invasion was a crime too, which only differed from these other war crimes in that it contained within itself “the accumulated evil of the whole”.
Napalm is a WMD, by the definition of the Blair administration. It can only be used to indescriminately “mop up”, and massacre a weak opponent who cannot defend themselves from the ground. Its use is a war crime.
Heh! Describe how napalm is ineffective against a strong enemy.