NAPALM – the mere word evokes pungent olfactory flashbacks.

Pentagon denials of its use in Iraq recall the putrid stench of stale Vietnam lies.

When embedded reporters told of U.S. napalm use in Iraq at the start of the invasion, Pentagon hacks launched a rapid propaganda counter-attack.  Lt. Commanders Danny Hernandez & Jeff Davis issued official denials that napalm was used, stating that the U.S. had destroyed all of its napalm bombs years ago.  After the March 22^nd CNN and Sydney Morning Herald reports, Davis emphatically added that such reports were “patently false”.

Although the denials were false, they effectively killed any reporting about U.S. napalm use until five months after the fact and more than three months after the President declared the end of “major combat operations” on May 1^st.  As any spin-meister knows, delay equals deniability.

When the napalm story reemerged on August 5^th, Pentagon brass continued to deny it.  Regardless of reports from the Marine pilots who dropped the bombs and their commanders, their repeated denials were augmented by the lies of Lt. Ryan Fitzgerald from CentCom in Florida denying U.S. use & possession of napalm.  Apparently, those on the front lines are full of it (so much for “supporting the troops”).

Does any of this matter?  Does it matter that the U.S. is using a weapon banned by the U.N. in 1980?  Does it matter that the U.S. is using and plans to use more weapons valued for their psychological as well as physical effects?  Does it matter that these acts are well publicized by Arab/Muslim media?  Does is matter that official U.S. statements are exposed as lies?  Does it matter that the U.S. public (the most potentially powerful political force on the planet) is kept ignorant and confused?

The truth is:

• Hundreds of napalm bombs were shipped into Iraq and dozens were dropped on numerous sites.  The official website of the U.S.M.C. reported on 2-3-03 that “napalm” bombs were offloaded into Kuwait for the 3d Marine Aircraft Wing “ready for use whenever 3rd MAW needs them.”.
• According to Col. Randolph Alles (commander of the Miramar-based Marine Air Group 11), “We napalmed both those (bridge) approaches… there were people there because you could see them in the (cockpit) video.”  He further stated, “The generals love napalm.  It has a big psychological effect.”  A U.S. officer reported, “Dead bodies are everywhere”.  According to experts, the smell & huge fireball impart a psychological effect.
• Just as Navy sailors were supplying Marines with napalm in February, the Pentagon was asking the Congress for $3.6 million for 1,000 more napalm bombs in the 2004 budget.  Illinois’ Rock Island Arsenal is making 500 more right now.

Only when confronted with the news from San Diego that Marine pilots back from the front and their commander had discussed their use of napalm in Iraq with a reporter, did the Pentagon change its story.  Now, it admits using “Mark 77 firebombs” and claims that its prior denials of “napalm” use would not have occurred had reporters used the correct terminology during their inquiries.  Because the bombs now contain kerosene instead of gasoline in their fuel/gel mixture (which is now harder to extinguish), the “new & improved” napalm isn’t really “napalm” anymore!  Yet, as revealed by Marine Corps hack Colonel Mike Daily, the Pentagon knew this was a phony excuse for its prior lies, telling a reporter, “Many folks (out of habit) refer to the Mark-77 as ‘napalm’ because its effect upon the target is remarkably similar”.  The Marine commander and his pilots call it “napalm”.

John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.Org, said, “You can call it something other than napalm but it is still napalm.  It has been reformulated in the sense that they now use a different petroleum distillate, but that is it.  The US is the only country that has used napalm for a long time.”

Robert Musil, executive director of Physicians for Social Responsibility (opposed to using weapons of mass destruction) said the Pentagon’s semantics were “pretty outrageous” and “It’s Orwellian.  They do not want the public to know.  It’s a lie.”  He said, “Most of the world understands that napalm and incendiaries are a horrible, horrible weapon” creating “horrible wounds” and “burns that are difficult to treat” consuming “an awful lot of medical resources”.  Mr. Musil advocates legislative branch oversight saying, “The Congress has to look into this and demand that the Pentagon be straightforward and forthcoming.”.

Better yet, citizens opposed to U.S. WMD use and lying military bureaucrats could demand that their congressional representatives cease all funding for incendiary weapons and that they ratify the 1980 treaty banning their use.

It may be difficult to convey the benevolence of our intentions to the people of the region while we allow our forces to use outlawed weapons to BBQ theirs.

David Broadwater is on a slow burn in Atascadero.

An edited version of this article was published in the October issue of Z Magazine (www.zmag.org).

Brief on Napalm, the US & the CCW Treaty

The third Protocol of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) bans and restricts the use of incendiary weapons. Protocol III prohibits the use of napalm on civilians (by any means), on military targets within civilian areas (by air), and on military targets not sufficiently separated from civilian areas (by land). It is not, therefore, a complete ban.

The CCW, with all three Protocols, was adopted in 1980 and came into force in 1983. Ninety countries are parties to the CCW, but are only legally bound to those Protocols to which they agree. Of the 77 nations signing at least one Protocol, 73 signed Protocol III and 69 signed all three. Only France, Israel, Monaco & the US have refused to sign Protocol III.

The US ratified the CCW (minus Protocol III) in 1995, saying it must retain its right to use napalm against biological and chemical weapons facilities even when they’re within civilian areas. While technically "legal," no reports indicate that the US’s use of napalm in Iraq was targeted at any WMD facilities.

Note: the full title of the CCW = "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" and the title of Protocol III = "Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the use of Incendiary Weapons."