Juan Cole and White Phosphorus

According to Neal Stephenson in the Baroque Cycle, White Phosphorus was discovered in the West about the time of Isaac Newton's rise to fame (1670). It was obtained from urine (true, urine has a lot of phosphorus, all that used up ATP). Professor Cole parses George Monbiot's analysis of the situation with respect to the current controversy about its use in the attack on Fallujah last year in the Guardian. I was struck by the following commentary:

[Cole: I agree that the invasion in 2003 was illegal. However, the assault on the guerrillas in Fallujah was not illegal. It had a UN Security Council resolution behind it authorizing Coalition troops to carry out such operations, and recognizing the transitional government of Iyad Allawi, which also backed the operation. What was done to Fallujah was so horrible that it is now often forgotten that there was every reason to think that the city was a base for the worst kinds of terrorism against innocent civilians in Baghdad and Karbala; there were very bad characters there. Black and white depictions of the Marines as villains and the guerrillas as good guys are silly and morally poisonous. If I had known the full extent of the damage that would be done to the city, I would have been against the Fallujah campaign; it is just terrible counter-insurgency tactics for one thing, and was a humanitarian disaster. But to say that the US military wilfully contravened its own regulations and knowingly broke US and international law on chemical weapons by deploying white phosphorus there would have to be proven from better evidence than has been presented.]

Since exactly what I am arguing seems to be hard for some readers to understand, I just have to repeat that I am challenging the narrative that the US government recognizes white phosphorus as a chemical weapon; that it is so categorized in the convention banning chemical weapons; or that US military commanders deployed it in contravention of US law despite knowing or believing that it was illegal. That is, if you actually put the officers in charge of the operation in the docket, I am saying that no conviction could be obtained. It is worth saying, because allegations to the contrary are being seriously made by serious persons.

I find it is always useful in situations like this to insert other names in the appropriate places and see how we would feel about it (most commonly I do this in the Israel Palestine conflic):

[Cole: I agree that the invasion in 2003 was illegal. However, the assault on the guerrillas in Grozny (Chechnya) was not illegal. It had a UN Security Council resolution behind it authorizing Russian troops to carry out such operations, and recognizing the transitional government of Putin, which also backed the operation. What was done to Grozny was so horrible that it is now often forgotten that there was every reason to think that the city was a base for the worst kinds of terrorism against innocent civilians in Moscow and Kiev; there were very bad characters there. Black and white depictions of the Russian soldiers as villains and the guerrillas as good guys are silly and morally poisonous. If I had known the full extent of the damage that would be done to the city, I would have been against the Grozney campaign; it is just terrible counter-insurgency tactics for one thing, and was a humanitarian disaster. But to say that the Russian military wilfully contravened its own regulations and knowingly broke Russian and international law on chemical weapons by deploying white phosphorus there would have to be proven from better evidence than has been presented.]

Since exactly what I am arguing seems to be hard for some readers to understand, I just have to repeat that I am challenging the narrative that the Russian government recognizes white phosphorus as a chemical weapon; that it is so categorized in the convention banning chemical weapons; or that Russian military commanders deployed it in contravention of international law despite knowing or believing that it was illegal. That is, if you actually put the officers in charge of the operation in the docket, I am saying that no conviction could be obtained. It is worth saying, because allegations to the contrary are being seriously made by serious persons.

I did this substitution because I disagree with Cole. His effort (and I respect it in some ways) was still an effort to make the ends justify the means. Why, when we have such other terrible weapons, do we go and do something as stupid as use White Phosphorus? And, I am sorry Professor, I have chemistry training, White Phosphorus is a chemical weapon.