Firebombing for human rights?
First it was weapons of mass destruction. Then it was to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Now it's to spread democracy. All arguments supporting the war in Iraq have some sort of humanitarian slant that, ironically, neglects the human cost of the war.
The Independent recently reported($$) that, unknown to British officials, the United States has used Mark-77 (MK77) firebombs, a flaming napalm-like gel that sticks to its victims, in Iraq. The Iraq Analysis Group, which researches the effects of the war on Iraqis, told The Independent that the US 'apparently lied to UK officials' about its use of 'internationally reviled weapons that the UK refuses to use.'
Although the British acknowledgment of American use of MK77 has caused a stir in Parliament, the issue is not new. As pointed out by Information Clearing House, last fall another UK newspaper, the Mirror, reported American use of firebombs in Fallujah, saying, 'Since the American assault on Fallujah there have been reports of 'melted' corpses, which appeared to have napalm injuries.'
On its website, the US State Department denies reports that napalm-like weapons were used in Fallujah, but confirms that 'Mark-77 firebombs ... were used against enemy positions in 2003,' and maintains that it has not used any illegal weapons in Iraq.
The Independent says the US has sidestepped the UN Convention on Certain Chemical Weapons, which banned the use of incendiary weapons against civilians, by claiming the firebombs were used only against military targets. Then again, the US didn't really have to get around it, as it's not a party to the convention anyway.
Go there >> US Lied to Britain Over Use of Napalm in Iraq War($$)
Go there too >>Incinerating Iraqis; the Napalm Cover Up
Related Links from the Utne Archive:
Comments? Story tips? Write a letter to the editor
Like this? Want more?Subscribe to Utne magazine