Do you also remember the scandal that came out last year when it was revealed that the US had itself used "chemical weapons" (according to its own definition as used when accusing Saddam)?
Q: When is a chemical weapon not a chemical weapon?
A: Depends on whether it is Saddam or the U.S. that is using it.
No, really... the whole thing was a debate over white phosphorus. In an article in the Times of London, on Nov 17th, 2005, titled "
Phosphorus was used for Fallujah bombs, admits US," it's described how the White House finally had to change its story and admit that it was using white phosphorus in bombs as a weapon and not just using it to illuminate enemy positions at night.
Perhaps this story didn't get much play in the US, but I certainly was hearing about it from Canadian and British news sources. The BBC story:
White phosphorus: weapon on the edge describes how it was actually bloggers who uncovered an article published in the
Mar/Apr US Army's Field Artillery Magazine (page 26) that stated clearly that it had been used as a weapon during the attack on Falluja in November 2004.
Normally, the use of white phosphorus wouldn't be classified with the more deadlier chemical weapons, except for the fact that back in 1995, the White House lumped it in with all the rest when accusing Saddam. You can see an example in the now declassified report, partially titled:
SUBJ: IIR 2 243 1050 91/POSSIBLE USE OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS BY IRAQ IN KURDISH AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS; (the link will take you to the whole doc)
Perhaps a better explanation of the whole mess the White House found itself in, is in the Washinton Post article:
"White Death" Is A Losing Strategy. It isn't so much the use of white phosphorus, but the handling of the PR by the Administration that is called into question. Denying until faced with evidence, and only then changing your story is never a good move to inspire confidence. People wonder about what else you might be hiding, even if there's nothing else there.
In the end, we contemplate the words of Bush himself, when he said back in October, 2001: We must always ask ourselves not only what is legal, but what is right. There is no goal of government worth accomplishing if it cannot be accomplished with integrity.
The issue here wasn't only about whether white phosphorus was legal, but also about whether it was right. Regardless, the same rules of use should apply to every army out there, no matter what flag the soldiers are wearing on their sleeves.