© 1st Lt. Daniel Johnson / dvidshub.net
US Forces in Iraq are using white phosphorus munitions in the fight against Daesh militants despite the weapon being banned under international law from use in areas that may contain civilians due to the weapon's indiscriminate nature and the shocking injuries that it causes.
The Washington Post identified M825A1 155mm shells from images posted on a Pentagon public affairs website "Dvids" that showed a US Army artillery unit firing white phosphorus munitions in Iraq.
The United States argues that the use of the weapon is justified because the munitions are not being air-dropped and that they serve a critical battlefield function - notably creating a smokescreen lasting up to 10 minute that allows the US to "obscure" the view of Kurdish forces from Daesh terrorists.
"Coalition forces use these rounds with caution and always in accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict," said Colonel Joseph Scrocca in an email to the Washington Post. "When M825A1 rounds are employed, they are done so in areas free of civilians and never against enemy forces," he said, adding that the shells serve only "screening and signaling" purposes.Traditionally, white phosphorus has only legally been used as a tracing mechanism of bullets allowing troops to track where a shot goes during night-time battle due to white phosphorus' incendiary qualities, but the expanded use does raise major concerns under international law.
The definition of a civilian area under the United Nation's Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, to which the United States is a signatory, does not mean a population center but rather any place where there may be more than a few civilians.
On Thursday, the spokesman for the US-led Coalition in Iraq, Air Force Colonel John Dorrian amended Scrocca's statement claiming that American forces are taking "all reasonable precautions to minimize the risk of incidental injury to non-combatants and damage to civilian structures" - the statement itself an admission that the weapons are being used in areas where they could potentially harm civilians.Dorrian further refused to say that the US military use of white phosphorus shells has been limited solely to "screening and signalling" purposes as was asserted by Scrocca instead saying the munitions are "used generally for those circumstances" and refusing to say whether the weapon had been deployed in an offensive capacity against suspected terrorists.
Reader Comments
US presence in Syria seems to be against international law. Does that make their presence and any damage they cause in Syria a war crime?
The crux of my question is:
Did the US need permission to enter Syria in the first place or does every country have the right to intervene in another's affairs?
Perhaps the rules concerning legal intervention in another country are not sufficiently clear and precise for everyone to understand.
#1 : Regarding international law. There's not much of it in place as I type these lines. They are making it now. In other words it's incomplete. Ask George Clooney's wife, she will answer your question in a much better way. I'm not an authority in International law.
#2 : Since WW2 the U.S. have the habit of inviting themselves wherever they please. As it was explained to me the oil in Syria is once again the reason.
#3 : Even if U.S. forces are caught committing a war crime (now, isn't that 2 words for the same thing ?) they
can't be tried in the international court for war crimes in the Hague, Netherlands. American exceptionalism.
#4 : Usually countries, pretty much like people, either cooperate or shoot each other out. Hence the presence of the military in most countries with only a few exceptions.