The US used the same weapons in Fallujah and likely elsewhere. They called it “shake and bake” when they first fired WP artillery to draw enemy fighters out, then followed up with conventional artillery to kill them.
Nobody can hold the US accountable, so they’re not going to hold their rabid dog accountable either.
No, they absolutely used it as a ground-attack incendiary and have admitted as such. They were not flushed out by being illuminated, they were flushed out with choking smoke and burning shit raining down on their positions.
Even if they did only use illumination flares, there are considerations against using them in civilian areas in ways that can start fires or otherwise cause injury to civilians.
The legal issue is moot because the US was not an adherent to these laws until 2009.
The US used the same weapons in Fallujah and likely elsewhere. They called it “shake and bake” when they first fired WP artillery to draw enemy fighters out, then followed up with conventional artillery to kill them.
Nobody can hold the US accountable, so they’re not going to hold their rabid dog accountable either.
WP artillery is legal illumination round, and it’s use in war is not this automatic war crime that people often believe.
You just described a legal application of WP:
Illumination of battle space to enable artillery spotters to coordinate indirect fire missions using standard munitions e.g. 155mm, mortars, etc.
However, intentional use of WP as an incendiary munition is where it does become a war crime.
I’m not saying US Forces in Iraq did, or didn’t, illegally use WP, but I am saying you described it’s intended and legal application.
Legal doesn’t mean moral, justified, or right, it just means it’s not a criminal act under the legal frameworks we currently use to manage warfare.
No, they absolutely used it as a ground-attack incendiary and have admitted as such. They were not flushed out by being illuminated, they were flushed out with choking smoke and burning shit raining down on their positions.
Even if they did only use illumination flares, there are considerations against using them in civilian areas in ways that can start fires or otherwise cause injury to civilians.
The legal issue is moot because the US was not an adherent to these laws until 2009.