US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor

The Independent, 17 June 2005

American officials lied to British ministers over the use of “internationally reviled” napalm-type firebombs in Iraq.

Yesterday’s disclosure led to calls by MPs for a full statement to the Commons and opened ministers to allegations that they held back the facts until after the general election.

Despite persistent rumours of injuries among Iraqis consistent with the use of incendiary weapons such as napalm, Adam Ingram, the Defence minister, assured Labour MPs in January that US forces had not used a new generation of incendiary weapons, codenamed MK77, in Iraq.

But Mr Ingram admitted to the Labour MP Harry Cohen in a private letter obtained by The Independent that he had inadvertently misled Parliament because he had been misinformed by the US. “The US confirmed to my officials that they had not used MK77s in Iraq at any time and this was the basis of my response to you,” he told Mr Cohen. “I regret to say that I have since discovered that this is not the case and must now correct the position.”

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=647397

2

Re: US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

Incendiary weapons? Are you kidding me? "Napalm" is essentally gasoline witha gel to stabilize it. In weapons like the Mk 77, napalm is replaced with a benzene product, about 75 gallons of it.

So all those car bombs that are set off day after day, do you think they empty the gas tank before they blow them up?! No, they fill the gas tank. Ever look at the carcass of one of those exploded cars? Burned to a crisp. So are the people around the car bomb, with vaporized gasoline.

So there are incendiary bombs going off ** daily ** in Iraq. By the hundreds. But the word "napalm" is politically and emotionally charged, so it suits someone to make a big deal of it. (By the way, that particular bomb was used in the first weeks of the war. It was used on Iraqi troops guarding bridges instead of a bomb that might damage the bridge. It is not commonly used, it is used in very specific circumstances).

3

Re: US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

^ head in the sand... that the "US lied" is the thrust of the article... it goes on to say:

"The confirmation that US officials misled British ministers led to new questions last night about the value of the latest assurances by the US."

please read again after removing blinkers

4

Re: US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

New, improved and more lethal: son of napalm
By Ben Cubby
August 8, 2003

The Pentagon no longer officially uses the brand-name ‘Napalm’, **but a similar sticky, inflammable substance known as ‘fuel-gel mixture’, contained in weapons called Mark-77 fire bombs, was dropped on Iraqi troops near the Iraq-Kuwait border at the start of the war.

“I can confirm that Mark-77 fire bombs were used in that general area,” Colonel Mike Daily of the US Marine Corps said. **

Colonel Daily said that US stocks of Vietnam-era napalm had been phased out, but that the fuel-gel mixture in the Mark-77s had “similar destructive characteristics.”

“Many folks (out of habit) refer to the Mark-77 as ‘napalm’ because its effect upon the target is remarkably similar,” he said.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:SXlH6Q59GVQJ:www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/08/1060145828249.html+Mark+77&hl=en&lr=lang_en

Sorry, but this 2003 announcement does not sound like much of a lie. Very old news

5

Re: US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

Petrol explodes. The stabilising gel in napalm prevents it from exploding, and instead makes it burn and stick.

This makes it more effective as an antipersonnel weapon since rather than an explosion with a hot, vapurising blast wave, napalm spreads sticky burning “liquid” fire over a larger area.

A petrol bomb essentially acts as a conventional explosive, vapourising or flash-cooking anything nearby with the heat of the explosion and sending a blast wave to damage objects further out.

Napalm sticks a glob of fire onto its victims that cannot be washed off and burns them over anextended period of time.

6

Re: US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

The practical effect of either is about the same. Igniting the gas with 500 lbs of surplus Saddam artillery is not helpful either. Dead is dead. So are we going to worry about a half dozen firey bombs at the beginning of the war aimed at soldiers, or a half dozen bombs every day in crowded markets?

7

Re: US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

"But Mr Ingram admitted to the Labour MP Harry Cohen in a private letter obtained by The Independent that he had inadvertently misled Parliament because he had been misinformed by the US. "The US confirmed to my officials that they had not used MK77s in Iraq at any time and this was the basis of my response to you," he told Mr Cohen. "I regret to say that I have since discovered that this is not the case and must now correct the position."

there's the US lie to the UK's defence minister

from your link...

"Napalm was banned by United Nations convention in 1980, but the US never signed the agreement."

tut, tut

"Mark-77s are referred to as 'napalm' in some current US inventories and public affairs documents."

get your act together man

NAB blames ministers for sugar price hike
8

Re: US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

Oddly enough, a far more dangerous incendiary is white phosphorous which sicks and keeps burning and cannot be put out, infact water makes it burn harder. It is still fully legal.

"Napalm" became a propaganda buzz word after Vietnam, mostly because of one photograph. That does not mean that hitting troops guarding bridges with "napalm"or high explosive, or cluster bombs is going to change anything. The troops will die, and everything within 50 meters will die. With the napalm the bridge will still be standing, and that was of value militarily. But having posted a news article from 2003, I refuse to see how there was a "coverup" worthy of discussion two years later.

9

Re: US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

OG, you are missing the point. The issue is not one of the use of napalm. Frankly, I have no problem with napalm. It's proven valuable to Pakistan, for instance. We used to put down rebellion tribes in the FATA back in the 60s, we dropped in on Indian troops in '65 and '71, and we used to to flush out traitorous Bengali rebel scum during the 1971 civil war. Pakistan still maintains large arsenals of napalm, since it is 100% legal to use against military targets, and 200% effective against these.

The issue that this thread highlighted is one of trust. That apparently Britain received assurances USA would did use napalm; despite a US officer having said so earlier (from your link)

The thread is intended to be an example of the USA lying to its own closest ally, let alone to other nations it deals with.

10

Re: US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

The link OG quoted was factually incomplete. The 1980 UN convention made the use of napalm against civilians a distinct war crime in its own right, but allowed the continues use of napalm against military targets.

11

Re: US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

Or word did not reach the right troops, or the US understood that they no longer used napalm. From the sound of the August 2003 article, the Marine Corp Col. certainly did not sound like he was covering up the use of that weapon, nor was he applogizing for some broken trust. Big frikkin deal.

12

Re: US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

I misread the orginal article.

The facts run as follows.

In 2003, a US Colonel states to the media that napalm had been used.

Later on (presumably in 2004), the British Defence Minister informs Parliament that when he asked if US troops used napalm, the US authorities said that it had not been used.

In 2005, after the UK General elections, the Defence Minister tells Parliament that the USA had fed him misinformation.

So you have.

  1. USA uses napalm, and a mid-ranking military officer says so to the media
  2. The US authorities inform Britain that napalm had not being used.
  3. Later, Britain conceded that the US authorities were not saying the truth.

Come to your own conclusions about what went on.

mujhay au'rnay day aziyatain meri adatain na kharab kar
13

Re: US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

an even bigger ‘tut, tut’… that the US didn’t see fit to sign an agreement that “made the use of napalm against civilians a distinct war crime in its own right” is bordering on the despicable… killing civilians i suppose is no “Big frikkin deal” as Ohioguy might put it

The Independent August 10, 2003

US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq

In-Depth Coverage By Andrew Buncombe

American pilots dropped the controversial incendiary agent napalm on Iraqi troops during the advance on Baghdad. The attacks caused massive fireballs that obliterated several Iraqi positions.

The Pentagon denied using napalm at the time, but Marine pilots and their commanders have confirmed that they used an upgraded version of the weapon against dug-in positions. They said napalm, which has a distinctive smell, was used because of its psychological effect on an enemy.

… **“We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches,” said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. **"Unfortunately there were people there … you could see them in the [cockpit] video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It’s no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect."

… The revelation that napalm was used in the war against Iraq, while the Pentagon denied it, has outraged opponents of the war.

… But John Pike, director of the military studies group 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. I am not aware of any other country that uses it.” Marines returning from Iraq chose to call the firebombs “napalm”.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030810-napalm-iraq01.htm

CONCLUSION

… so first the US didn’t use napalm (its own admission), then it did (admitted by army personnel), then it was actually MK-77 but the UK was told that “they had not used MK77s in Iraq at any time” but that turned out “not [to be] the case”… repeat after me: LIE

14

Re: US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

Sorry, the Independent article was dated August 10th 2003?

And the Marine Col. said:

"We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches," said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11."

** Do the British read?**

15

Re: US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

Adam Ingram stated that when his subordinates asked the US authorities whether napalm was used, its use was denied.

Clearly, the US authorities and Colonel Alles were not in agreement.

If Colonel Alles told the truth in August 2003, that means that Britain was lied to by its own ally, the USA.

16

Re: US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

do the US neo-cons ever tell it straight?

17

Re: US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

Or perhaps Mr. Ingram just screwed up?

18

Re: US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

i think we can see from the quotes where the "screw up" lies thank you very much... and pretending not to use napalm but instead happily using something "remarkably similar" (your link) is about par for the course from warmongers

19

Re: US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

So when his department is informed by US authorities that napalm was not used, that represents him screwing up?

20

Re: US lied to Britain over use of napalm in Iraq war

Given the fact that the US was quoted in two newspapers saying they absolutely did use these bombs, I suspect Mr Ingrams subordinates screwed up, or perhaps talked to the wrong person. I would suggest that Mr. Ingrams subordinates learn to Google, as it appears that the US has been publicly very consistant in it's statements. When two separate US Colonels are qutoted in two different articles saying the same thing, I find it hard to believe that the Brits can't figure out what happened.

Of course blaming the US is very fashionable these days.