INDCJournal: The Legality of WP and "Shake and Bake"

« The White Phosphorus "Lethal Cloud" | Main | Awesome, More Fodder For My Nightmares »

November 10, 2005

The Legality of WP and "Shake and Bake"

Posted by Dorkafork

The relevant convention covering WP is the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III). Geneva, 10 October 1980. Now the US did not sign this Protocol, but even if it had the Protocol does not ban WP. It does not ban incendiary weapons, it only prohibits their use against civilians. Their use is not banned against military targets. If the left wants to argue that US forces purposefully or wildly and indiscriminately bomb civilians, they are welcome to try. And they are trying.

"Shake and Bake"
This post by Steve D at Daily Kos includes the following excerpt:

Fighting from a distance
After pounding parts of the city for days, many Marines say the recent combat escalated into more than they had planned for, but not more than they could handle.
"It's a war," said Cpl. Nicholas Bogert, 22, of Morris, N.Y.
Bogert is a mortar team leader who directed his men to fire round after round of high explosives and white phosphorus charges into the city Friday and Saturday, never knowing what the targets were or what damage the resulting explosions caused.

"We had all this SASO (security and stabilization operations) training back home," he said. "And then this turns into a real goddamned war."

Just as his team started to eat a breakfast of packaged rations Saturday, Bogert got a fire mission over the radio.

"Stand by!" he yelled, sending Lance Cpls. Jonathan Alexander and Jonathan Millikin scrambling to their feet.

Shake 'n' bake

Joking and rousting each other like boys just seconds before, the men were instantly all business. With fellow Marines between them and their targets, a lot was at stake.

Bogert received coordinates of the target, plotted them on a map and called out the settings for the gun they call "Sarah Lee."

Millikin, 21, from Reno, Nev., and Alexander, 23, from Wetumpka, Ala., quickly made the adjustments. They are good at what they do.

"Gun up!" Millikin yelled when they finished a few seconds later, grabbing a white phosphorus round from a nearby ammo can and holding it over the tube.

"Fire!" Bogert yelled, as Millikin dropped it.

The boom kicked dust around the pit as they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call "shake 'n' bake" into a cluster of buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week.

They say they have never seen what they've hit, nor did they talk about it as they dusted off their breakfast and continued their hilarious routine of personal insults and name-calling.

Emphasis was not in the original article. Let's look at what was emphasized. He emphasizes the parts where they say they used WP. A completely legal munition used legally under established international law. (This may be emphasized because they mistakenly believe WP is a chemical weapon.)

But there are two other bolded parts:

Bogert is a mortar team leader who directed his men to fire round after round of high explosives and white phosphorus charges into the city Friday and Saturday, never knowing what the targets were or what damage the resulting explosions caused.

and

They say they have never seen what they've hit, nor did they talk about it

This is a deliberate attempt to make it look like the soldiers were indiscriminately firing into the city. Mortar teams by their very nature would not see their targets. Mortars are not line of sight weapons, they're artillery weapons. The rounds go up, then they fall down onto their targets. So mortar teams would naturally not see what they hit unless they took a tour of the battlefield afterwards. There is nothing untoward about this. It does not mean they were firing blindly. Mortars, artillery, airstrikes, they all require spotters to tell them were to aim. And this is the case in this story. Here's a quote Steve D did not see fit to put in bold:

Bogert received coordinates of the target, plotted them on a map and called out the settings for the gun they call "Sarah Lee."

But I guess that doesn't quite fit the image Steve D was trying to create.

Posted by Dorkafork at November 10, 2005 12:57 PM | TrackBack (2)

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.indcjournal.com/cgi-bin/mt/dafrules/tapaz.cgi/2123

Comments

White phosphorus to his therapist: "Nobody understands me!"

Posted by: Hubris at November 10, 2005 01:42 PM

Ba-rump, BUMP!

Posted by: Bill from INDC at November 10, 2005 01:49 PM

Sara...Lee...Pound...Cake...hmmmmm...

Posted by: moebius at November 10, 2005 02:37 PM

The strongest argument to be made against the legality of WP in this setting is that the GP does prohibit the use of incendiaries in areas where there are a lot of civilians--Dresden being an example of what they're trying to avoid. The idea is that you can aim a shell or gun, but you can't aim a fire.

Posted by: Novanglus at November 10, 2005 02:40 PM

Weren't civilians given a week to clear out of Fallujah before the offensive began? I'm 99% sure they were, which would make Novanglus' objection moot.

Posted by: Robert Crawford at November 10, 2005 03:09 PM

I'm not taking a stand on the larger issue.

But, I doubt that the fact that they were warned to get out has any legal bearing. If they're still around in sufficient numbers, you're not allowed to use incendiaries.

Posted by: Geek, Esq. at November 10, 2005 03:29 PM

You are misrepresenting the Protocol, Geek.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at November 10, 2005 09:36 PM

Oh, Willie Pete is perfectly to use as a munition, huh? even though its use was to be restricted as a flare only?

And the distinction between it being or not being a chemical weapon, I'm sure, will comfort those Iraqi children whose flesh was melted right off their bones by that shit.

Posted by: jurassicpork at November 10, 2005 09:54 PM

Sorry Jurrasic, but WP rounds/grenades are used in a variety of manners, from flares, usage in screening troop movements, and also as a offensive weapon against the enemy.

WP rounds are not banned by any treaty the US is obliged to. Nor are smoke and Obscurant rounds considered to be direct chemical weapons.

We also retain the legal ability to use these incendiary weapons to place high priority military targets at risk in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality that governs the use of all weapons under existing law.

As a matter of fact the usage of White Phosphourus and Fuel air bombs are not restricted by Protocol II of the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (CCWC), 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.

Now as offensive as melting the flesh off of babies may be to you, your hyperbolic inferrence is even more offensive to the people in the military who go out of their way to safeguard the lives of civilians around combat zones.

It's war, deal with it...

Posted by: daddyx at November 10, 2005 10:41 PM

Won't somebody please think of THE CHILDREN™?!!

Posted by: Sean M. at November 10, 2005 10:53 PM

Weren't civilians given a week to clear out of Fallujah before the offensive began?

More like several months.

Posted by: Jordan at November 10, 2005 11:02 PM

At least, those who were allowed to leave by the goons these people are helping.

Posted by: Cutler at November 11, 2005 02:43 AM

thank you very much for your help. You guys 74408 rock, thanks again.

Posted by: Tuki Medaber at September 23, 2006 08:11 AM

ionolsen19 I just don not have anything to say right now.www_4_2
www_4_3
www_4_4
www_4_5
www_4_6
www_4_7
www_4_8
www_4_9
www_4_10
www_4_11

Posted by: thomson at October 16, 2006 03:52 PM

viagra soft .

Posted by: viagra soft at November 14, 2006 09:07 AM

viagra .

Posted by: viagra viagra at November 16, 2006 07:42 PM

sfqdjeuwp ikga serhmj ijmhwo fchl akwo hntoucj

Posted by: lxrhk pyxfhceo at February 10, 2007 08:15 AM

Good site. Thank you.

Posted by: health insurance company florida at March 5, 2007 05:16 AM

Nice resource, very interesting reading. http://s1u.net/inob

Posted by: Cellphone at April 13, 2007 01:57 PM