Haji Barkat Ullah speaks with his daughter Frishta 7, who was wounded in coalition airstrike in Bala Baluk district of Farah province.
...but, when it is...
..." a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes..." (click title to entry - thank you)
...White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a signatory. Smokes and obscurants comprise a category of materials that are not used militarily as direct chemical agents. The United States retains its ability to employ incendiaries to hold 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. The use of white phosphorus or fuel air explosives are not prohibited or restricted by Protocol III 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, which regulates the use of "any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons . . ."
Personally, I would rather the USA military simply 'take responsibility' for the actions rather than attempting to blame the enemy for acts it did not commit. The Taliban might have WP, but, the likelihood is remote. What I find even more interesting is the LACK of use of more sophisticated weapons such as WMD, while it is known through tapes obtained by Nic Robertson at CNN in 2001, that al Qaeda was definately conducting such experiments. However, the 'lack' of evidence of the use of such weapons by The Taliban in Pakistan or Afghanistan suggests their warfare is limited to conventional 'hand held' guns and the like. They should be easily defeated and the progress made by the Pakistani military suggests that is what is occurring.
When al Qaeda and The Taliban resort to 'stronger' methods it is usually suicide bombers or roadside devices. Not that they aren't effective, but, the definition of 'their ability to conduct war' is grossly limited compared to that of the USA, Afghan, Pakistani forces.
I realize the USA Defense Department has 'the notion' that the popular status of any war is as important as the war itself. The American public is preceived as 'turning on' the military when people die regardless of their social status of soldier or civilian. That is true to some extent, however, there are segments of the populous that realize there are casualties, no one (regardless of their 'consent 'to war') consents to them and with the sophistication of weaponry, logistics and soldier, the First World nations should be able to 'do better.'
What is so very tragic is the 'longevity' of war, now in Iraq and before in Vietnam. The longer 'a war' such as we witness in these countries continues, the higher the death toll of soldier and civilian. When that occurs the USA becomes 'guilty' of victory by 'annihilation' and not disablement. The 'real challenge' to today's military, regardless of country, when Islamic extremism is involved, it to 'end it' as quickly as possible, to clearly illustrate to populous of civilians whom indeed 'the bad guys are,' before they can promote a propaganda war to recruit young Muslim men and influence school children RESULTING in sustained, generational killing and war without end. We initially did exactly that in Afghanistan in 2001, but, was diverted to Iraq and all was lost.
The 'redeloyment' of war into Pakistan and Afghanistan has occurred with an interesting perspective. While the USA was diverted for a 'war of resources' to Iraq, all the pandering by authorities in Afghanistan resulted in a successful propaganda war. Literally, if there wasn't a change in authority in the USA White House, the result in Afghanistan would have been the successful rise of the Taliban lead by Mullah Omar. We would not only be witnessing the first al Qaeda 'nation/state' but to realize Pakistan was being infiltrated 'in the name of religious fervor' is more than startling. Sincerely, for the oppression global nations were exerting on the USA for its illegal invasion into Iraq, the realization that Afghanistan was going to fall to terrorist elements with Pakistan not far behind is more than 'food for thought.'
"Just in time" is an interesting name for the NEW conflict within Pakistan and Afghanistan. What the American people, regardless of party affiliation or anti-war affection, oppose is the covert nature of the USA military from 'the realities of the war.' Recently the USA blamed the Taliban for killing 100 civilians, but, yet investigation shows differently. Today in the headlines AGAIN the 'psy-op' strategy is to blame again the Taliban for the use of WP. When investigation leads to evidence that blames 'legitimate' strikes by USA forces for casualities and responsibility is diverted it leads to greater and greater speculation to the legitimate actions of the military, therefore, popular opposition to it.
To successfully defeat Islamic extremism the 'temporal dimension' or TIMELINE has to be the priority of military action, not how LONG the war can be sustained. The people that oppose war understand all to well how quickly 'a nation's resources' are redirected and even citizens' rights change due to a conflict. When a nation's resources are redirected peacetime initiatives are nearly destroyed and priorities of peace sidelined.
Countries regardless of GDP cannot address their social ills when resources are 'secluded' for war rather than peaceful economies. In nations such as Afghanistan and Pakistan when poverty is allowed for generation after generation, the reality is The West have 'permanent' enemies rather than allies. If Western militaries want to be successful at 'winning the war at home,' they have to provide a 'real strategy' to war that wins on all venues, NOT just on 'sustainability of actions.'
Anti-War movements need to go further than simply protesting or monitoring body counts, they need to organize, raise funds and become an entity in venues such as the UN and International Tribunals where 'the rules of conflict engagement' are written and enforced. There als has to be a delination of when war is 'hostile' to civlization and peace and when war is necessary to enforce it.
In the year 2009, knowing my President is a man of peace before war, I find it difficult to disagree with his initiatives to support Pakistan through difficult times within its borders knowing the result will be the security of the USA.
I do not condone any deaths of civilians and find it difficult to believe the USA military can't do better. But, in the face of lack of 'offense' to the use of White Phosphorus what argument do I have? Yes it is MORALLY "W"rong to use such weapons on human beings regardless of their 'enemy' status, but, what is more worse are the deaths of 'innocent' soldiers conducting defense of our nation when their lives could have been secured.
I want peace. We aren't going to achieve that so long as terrorist elements believe they can hold power in the world and dominate 'populous' movements against BENEVOLENT governments.
May 11th, 2009 1:51 am
Probe sought after chemical strike burns Afghan girl (click here)
By Emma Graham-Harrison
KABUL (Reuters) - Human Rights Watch has called on NATO-led forces in Afghanistan to release the results of an investigation into a March incident in which an 8-year-old girl was burned by white phosphorus munitions.
The girl, Razia, was badly burned when her home was hit by a shell containing the chemical, which ignites on contact with air and can stick to flesh. U.S. military medical staff who treated the girl said she had white phosphorus on her face and neck.
Two of her sisters were killed in the strike in the eastern province of Kapisa. The case, the first known example of civilian casualties from white phosphorus in Afghanistan, was first reported by Reuters on Friday....
U.S.: Afghan militants using white phosphorous (click here)
Statement comes amid probe into coalition strike in Farah province
KABUL - The U.S. military said Monday that it has documented 44 cases where militants in Afghanistan have used white phosphorus in attacks or where the weapons have been found in caches.
The announcement came a day after Afghan doctors voiced concern over "unusual" burns on villagers wounded in an already controversial U.S.-Taliban battle, and the country's top human rights groups said it was investigating the possibility white phosphorus was used.
The American military denied using the incendiary in the battle in Farah province — which President Hamid Karzai has said killed 125 to 130 civilians....
We don't belong in Iraq.
We never did.
The Iraqi provinces will work out their differences without interference from The West. The longer we occupy Iraq, the more fuel for the 'extremist' fire in Iran. If The West wants to win the day with Iran, it has to leave Iraq. Iran has 'assumed' protectorate of the Shi'ites.
The USA military is NOT Maliki's private militia.
