Officials confirm dropping firebombs on Iraqi troops

[Panag]

San Diego Union-Tribune August 05, 2003

Officials confirm dropping firebombs on Iraqi troops
Results are 'remarkably similar' to using napalm

In-Depth Coverage

By James W. Crawley

American jets killed Iraqi troops with firebombs – similar to the controversial napalm used in the Vietnam War – in March and April as Marines battled toward Baghdad.

Marine Corps fighter pilots and commanders who have returned from the war zone have confirmed dropping dozens of incendiary bombs near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris River. The explosions created massive fireballs.

"We napalmed both those (bridge) approaches," said Col. James 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.

The bombing campaign helped clear the path for the Marines' race to Baghdad.

During the war, Pentagon spokesmen disputed reports that napalm was being used, saying the Pentagon's stockpile had been destroyed two years ago.

Apparently the spokesmen were drawing a distinction between the terms "firebomb" and "napalm." If reporters had asked about firebombs, officials said yesterday they would have confirmed their use.

What the Marines dropped, the spokesmen said yesterday, were "Mark 77 firebombs." They acknowledged those are incendiary devices with a function "remarkably similar" to napalm weapons.

Rather than using gasoline and benzene as the fuel, the firebombs use kerosene-based jet fuel, which has a smaller concentration of benzene.

Hundreds of partially loaded Mark 77 firebombs were stored on pre-positioned ammunition ships overseas, Marine Corps officials said. Those ships were unloaded in Kuwait during the weeks preceding the war.

"You can call it something other than napalm, but it's napalm," said John Pike, defense analyst with GlobalSecurity.org, a nonpartisan research group in Alexandria, Va.

Although many human rights groups consider incendiary bombs to be inhumane, international law does not prohibit their use against military forces. The United States has not agreed to a ban against possible civilian targets.

"Incendiaries create burns that are difficult to treat," said Robert Musil, executive director of Physicians for Social Responsibility, a Washington group that opposes the use of weapons of mass destruction.

Musil described the Pentagon's distinction between napalm and Mark 77 firebombs as "pretty outrageous."

"That's clearly Orwellian," he added.

Developed during World War II and dropped on troops and Japanese cities, incendiary bombs have been used by American forces in nearly every conflict since. Their use became controversial during the Vietnam War when U.S. and South Vietnamese aircraft dropped millions of pounds of napalm. Its effects were shown in a Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph of Vietnamese children running from their burned village.

Before March, the last time U.S. forces had used napalm in combat was the Persian Gulf War, again by Marines.

During a recent interview about the bombing campaign in Iraq, Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Jim Amos confirmed aircraft dropped what he and other Marines continue to call napalm on Iraqi troops on several occasions. He commanded Marine jet and helicopter units involved in the Iraq war and leads the Miramar-based 3rd Marine Air Wing.

Miramar pilots familiar with the bombing missions pointed to at least two locations where firebombs were dropped.

Before the Marines crossed the Saddam Canal in central Iraq, jets dropped several firebombs on enemy positions near a bridge that would become the Marines' main crossing point on the road toward Numaniyah, a key town 40 miles from Baghdad.

Next, the bombs were used against Iraqis near a key Tigris River bridge, north of Numaniyah, in early April.

There were reports of another attack on the first day of the war.

Two embedded journalists reported what they described as napalm being dropped on an Iraqi observation post at Safwan Hill overlooking the Kuwait border.

Reporters for CNN and theSydney (Australia) Morning Herald were told by unnamed Marine officers that aircraft dropped napalm on the Iraqi position, which was adjacent to one of the Marines' main invasion routes.

Their reports were disputed by several Pentagon spokesmen who said no such bombs were used nor did the United States have any napalm weapons.

The Pentagon destroyed its stockpile of napalm canisters, which had been stored near Camp Pendleton at the Fallbrook Naval Weapons Station, in April 2001.

Yesterday military spokesmen described what they see as the distinction between the two types of incendiary bombs. They said mixture used in modern firebombs is a less harmful mixture than Vietnam War-era napalm.

"This additive has significantly less of an impact on the environment," wrote Marine spokesman Col. Michael Daily, in an e-mailed information sheet provided by the Pentagon.

He added, "many folks (out of habit) refer to the Mark 77 as 'napalm' because its effect upon the target is remarkably similar."

In the e-mail, Daily also acknowledged that firebombs were dropped near Safwan Hill.

Alles, who oversaw the Safwan bombing raid, said 18 one-ton satellite-guided bombs, but no incendiary bombs, were dropped on the site.

Military experts say incendiary bombs can be an effective weapon in certain situations.

Firebombs are useful against dug-in troops and light vehicles, said GlobalSecurity's Pike.

"I used it routinely in Vietnam," said retired Marine Lt. Gen. Bernard Trainor, now a prominent defense analyst. "I have no moral compunction against using it. It's just another weapon."

And, the distinctive fireball and smell have a psychological impact on troops, experts said.

"The generals love napalm," said Alles, who has transferred to Washington. "It has a big psychological effect."

[SlowwHand]

So? What's yor point?

[Whaleboy]

A terrible, inhumane way to die imo.

"War sucks" being his point Sloww

[Lefty Scaevola]

A more evironmentally friendly (less benzine, simpler hydrocarbon) incidiary bomb, that is nice. I am sure greenpeace will be pleased

[Wittlich]

Yep, war is hell ...

[Whaleboy]

[SlowwHand]

Nobody ever said war wasn't hell.

The days of "counting coup" are gone.

[Meldor]

Originally posted by panag
American jets killed Iraqi troops with firebombs – similar to the controversial napalm used in the Vietnam War – in March and April as Marines battled toward Baghdad.

We also used cluster bombs, air/fuel bombs, conventional bombs, hyperbaric bombs, and anything else that was handy. The people that are against war don't like any of them. The whole point of war is to kill the folks fighting on the other side or make them capitulate. Every method to do so invovles people dying.

Originally posted by panag
"They were Iraqi soldiers there. It's no great way to die," he added.

Can you name a good way to die in war? The whole idea is to kill people, why make it sound like they didn't expect people to be targets?

Originally posted by panag
Rather than using gasoline and benzene as the fuel, the firebombs use kerosene-based jet fuel, which has a smaller concentration of benzene.

The jet fuel dosn't have to be put in until the munition is reaqdy to load, less chance of problems. And the Jet Fuel is handy.

Originally posted by panag
Although many human rights groups consider incendiary bombs to be inhumane, international law does not prohibit their use against military forces. The United States has not agreed to a ban against possible civilian targets.

Name a bomb that humane rights groups consider to be humane? For that matter name a military weapon that has the "Good Humanitarian Seal of Approval". I do like how they slip in the mention of civilians, even though there are no (supported) claims we targeted any. Just throw it in for good measure and to imply we did.

Originally posted by panag
"Incendiaries create burns that are difficult to treat," said Robert Musil, executive director of Physicians for Social Responsibility, a Washington group that opposes the use of weapons of mass destruction.

So do RPGs, Tow missiles and other things. At least we aren't using phosphorus based ones any more, those are a real pain. Of course bullet wounds are not easy to treat either.

Originally posted by panag
"That's clearly Orwellian," he added.

Big Brother, Orwell, help, help, its all coming true....sorry, this is just ca-ca.

Originally posted by panag
"I used it routinely in Vietnam," said retired Marine Lt. Gen. Bernard Trainor, now a prominent defense analyst. "I have no moral compunction against using it. It's just another weapon."

Now there is a man who knows his job and knows how to do it. Hats off.

Originally posted by panag
And, the distinctive fireball and smell have a psychological impact on troops, experts said.

"The generals love napalm," said Alles, who has transferred to Washington. "It has a big psychological effect."

Oh no, it is an inhumane psychological burning killing bad weapon. It was reported by the AGA that 4 out of 5 Generals prefered to use firebombs before breakfast...

What else would you good folks like to cry about. War isn't easy, it isn't pretty, and people die. Whoever, less people died in this war and even in the aftermath than died during just one year of Saddam's reign. The ends justify the means in this case.

[The diplomat]

I don't really see why this is a big deal. Yeah, war sucks, war is ugly. That's why we call it war in the first pace.

[Panag]

hi ,

so is its use " accepted " or not , ......

have a nice day

[Panag]

Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
Protocol III
Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons.
Geneva, 10 October 1980
Article 1
Definitions
For the purpose of this Protocol:

Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. (a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances.
(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:
(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;
(ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.
Concentration of civilians" means any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or groups of nomads.
Military objective" means, so far as objects are concerned, any object which by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
Civilian objects" are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 3.
Feasible precautions" are those precautions which are practicable or practically possible taking into account all circumstances ruling at the time, including humanitarian and military considerations.
Article 2
Protection of civilians and civilian objects
It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.

[Panag]

Article-by-Article Analysis of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons Annexed to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects
(Protocol III)


The Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III or the Incendiary Weapons Protocol) is annexed to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restriction on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (the Convention).

The Convention, including Protocol III, as well as two additional protocols, was concluded at Geneva on October 10, 1980. The United States ratified the Convention and expressed its consent to be bound by its Protocol II on Mines, Booby-traps and Other Devices, as well as its Protocol I on Non-Detectable Fragments, on March 24, 1995.

The President, in submitting the Convention to the Senate for consideration in 1994, recommended that the United States exercise its right to ratify the Convention accepting only the first two Protocols and not the Incendiary Weapons Protocol. As the President's transmittal message to the Senate indicated, there were concerns about the acceptability of certain of its restrictions from a military point of view that required further examination. After very careful study, a condition has been developed that makes the Protocol acceptable from a broader national security perspective. This condition is described in the analysis of the Protocol which follows.

The Protocol consists of 2 articles.

Article 1

Article 1 defines various terms used in the Protocol's substantive provisions. Incendiary weapons are defined as any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to person through the action of flame, heat, or a combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. Accordingly, such weapons as high-explosive munitions and blast or fragmentation weapons are not covered by this protocol, even though they may have secondary burn effects on persons exposed or cause secondary fires. Similarly, laser weapons are not covered even if their primary effect is to set fire to objects or cause burn injuries, since they do not deliver burning substances on the target.

In addition, Article 1 specifically excludes from the definition of incendiary weapons: (1) munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signaling systems; and (2) munitions combining penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armor-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armored vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities. As a result, the Protocol only covers "pure" incendiaries, such as napalm or the type of incendiary bombs used in World War II and Korea.

Article 2

Article 2 contains the Protocol's substantive restrictions. Paragraph 1 states that the civilian population as such and individual civilians or civilian objects may not be made the object of attack with incendiary weapons -- a principle that applies to all weapons under customary international law.

The text of paragraph 2 prohibits the making of any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons. Paragraph 3 prohibits other uses of incendiaries against military objectives located within concentrations of civilians, except when the target is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken to limit the incendiary effects to the targe and minimize civilian casualties. The proposed reservation of the United States as discussed below would revise the legal obligations of Article 2 on the United States so that the test of whether the use of an incendiary weapon is permitted in such circumstances would depend on whether it is judged that such use would cause fewer civilian casualties and less collateral damage than alternative weapons.

Paragraph 4 prohibits making forest or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack with incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to conceal combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.

There have been a number of military reviews of the Incendiary Weapons Protocol since it was negotiated that raised concerns about the acceptability from a military point of view of paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 2. Incendiary weapons have significant potential military value, particularly with respect to certain high-priority military targets. Incendiaries are the only weapons which can effectively destroy certain counter-proliferation targets such as biological weapons facilities which require high heat to eliminate bio-toxins. To use only high explosives would risk the widespread relase of dangerous contaminants with potentially disastrous consequences for the civilian population. Certain flammable military targets are also more readily destroyed by incendiaries. For example, a fuel depot could require up to eight times the bombs and sorties to destroy using only high explosives rather than incendiaries. Such an increase means a significantly greater humanitarian risk of collateral damage. The United States must retain its ability to employ incendiaries to hold high-high priority military targets such as these at risk in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality which governs the use of all weapons under existing law.

Summary

Accordingly, we recommend that the United States, in accepting the Incendiary Weapons Protocol, reserve the right to use incendiary weapons against military targets located in concentration of civilians where it is judged that such use would cause fewer casualties and less collateral damage than alternative weapons.

With such a stipulation, the Incendiary Weapons Protocol is unobjectionable and should be ratified by the United States at an early date.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by elijah
A terrible, inhumane way to die imo.

I'm sure being shredded and spread in little bits over a couple hundred meters by conventional HE is no fun either. If they didn't want to die, they shouldn't have been there to resist. **** 'em.

[Skanky Burns]

Yeah, serves 'em right for trying to defend their country!

[Wittlich]

Touche' MtG.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Doesn't matter. If you stand and resist in the face of vastly superior forces who aren't inclined to **** around with you, your future is likely to be both very brief and very unpleasant.

[Panag]

hi ,

after looking on the net for more info , this came up ;

>>> http://www.efdsw.navfac.navy.mil/Env...NapalmHome.htm


have a nice day

[oedo]

I'm sure being shredded and spread in little bits over a couple hundred meters by conventional HE is no fun either. If they didn't want to die, they shouldn't have been there to resist. **** 'em.

so how about this:
If the Americans didn´t want to die, they shouldn´t have been there to attack, **** 'em

[Panag]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Doesn't matter. If you stand and resist in the face of vastly superior forces who aren't inclined to **** around with you, your future is likely to be both very brief and very unpleasant.

hi ,

agreed


now a Q ; its okay and accepted that the US of good old A uses it , but what if an other country uses it , ....

lets say Israel on its next war in lebanon , .....


and how come all of a sudden there is no reaction from the lefties who are so anti war and never waste an oppurtunity to say how terrible the US of A warmachine is , .......


no reactions from humanrights freeks , ......

btw , the UN does not want to comment on it , ......


have a nice day

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Doesn't matter. If you stand and resist in the face of vastly superior forces who aren't inclined to **** around with you, your future is likely to be both very brief and very unpleasant.

True enough.
I just wonder how you would have reacted, were the shoe on the other foot, so to speak.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Edit - reply to oedo:


Our cure for that is/should be to apply overwhelming firepower to destroy the enemy before he can effectively attack us.

I'm not a hand-wringing weenie about casualties - it's a ****ing war, people get hurt and sometimes require more than a bandaid.

[SlowwHand]

It's always amazing to me to see the way some people's minds operate, or don't.

Dead is dead.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns


True enough.
I just wonder how you would have reacted, were the shoe on the other foot, so to speak.

Are you kidding? I would have gotten the **** out of Dodge the moment I knew the US troops were there in any force. It's not like there weren't enough Iraqi veterans of the first time around to know how the US does things. Most of the Iraqi military was smart enough not to come out and play, and if I was stuck being one of them, I'd at least be one of the smart ones.

[Sava]

If they didn't want to get napalmed, or whatever, they should've desserted and gone home.

[Panag]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Are you kidding? I would have gotten the **** out of Dodge the moment I knew the US troops were there in any force. It's not like there weren't enough Iraqi veterans of the first time around to know how the US does things. Most of the Iraqi military was smart enough not to come out and play, and if I was stuck being one of them, I'd at least be one of the smart ones.

hi ,

huh , them vets still believed that digging in would protect them , ......

most of them where buying the farm before they even knew what hit them , ......

so they did not learn from 91 when it came to the use of airpower , .....

history repeats itself when one forgets it , ......

its rumoured around 31 000 guards lay in pieces in the vast wasteland south of baghdad , ..... with 12 500 vehicles , .....

have a nice day

[Imran Siddiqui]

Um... panag.. reading through, these bombs don't violate any convention. They were made to bomb bridges and killed Iraqi troops. No civilian deaths, not intended to kill people, but to destroy objects.

[SlowwHand]

It'd be a lot nicer to be run over by a tank, or have a piece of wood blown through your head, or go by way of terminal drips ?

[Panag]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Um... panag.. reading through, these bombs don't violate any convention. They were made to bomb bridges and killed Iraqi troops. No civilian deaths, not intended to kill people, but to destroy objects.

hi ,

um , ..... imran , ...... read above


btw , they where not only used to bomb bridges , ......

and in every war civilians get hurt , it does not mean that because there is not a report talking about civ's that there are no civ's death , .......

not intended to kill people , ......




come on , every weapon used in war is intended to kill , ....

have a nice day

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, I did read above:

"We napalmed both those (bridge) approaches," said Col. James 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.

Although many human rights groups consider incendiary bombs to be inhumane, international law does not prohibit their use against military forces. The United States has not agreed to a ban against possible civilian targets.

Case Closed

[CerberusIV]

Perhaps we should have a poll on how many more protocols get added to the Geneva Convention before they introduce one that prohibits using any weapons on anyone, anywhere, ever.