The US military has moved with effective speed to discredit allegations that NATO forces were using white phosphorous "munitions" against civilians in Afghanistan.
The Reuters news agency first raised the allegations in an inaccurate report published May 8.
Anti-military groups like Human Rights Watch (HRW) in New York hinted strongly that the US and/or NATO illegally used white phosphorous in recent military operations in which innocent civilians were maimed or killed.
However, the military marshaled the facts quickly to show that the Taliban used white phosphorous as improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in its attacks. NATO uses white phosphorous for legal, legitimate reasons such as illuminating the sky at night and destroying bunkers, but not generally for anti-personnel purposes.
Reuters was one of the main Western news agencies to repeat the allegations that NATO used white phosphorous as illegal "munitions." The wire service went on to hint that the US or NATO are using illegal chemical weapons in Afghanistan.
In a breathless "exclusive," Reuters correspondent Emma Graham-Harrison falsely reported on May 8 that "western troops" fired a white phosphorous munition into an Afghan house last March, severely burning a little girl in what a Reuters editor called a "chemical strike." Reuters implied in the article that US or NATO forces are illegally using chemical weapons and incendiaries as anti-personnel weapons in Afghanistan.
In a gross breach of journalistic professionalism, Graham-Harrison sole-sourced her sensational story, using an anguished father's uncertain recollection of combat around his village when his daughter was maimed by a white phosphorous weapon.
Reuters did not quote a US or NATO official as refuting the report until way down in the 14th paragraph of the story. In paragraph 15, Reuters quoted a US Army officer as saying that a Taliban mortar unit might have fired the white phosphorous. Graham-Harrison spent much of the rest of the article quoting others to undermine the Army's statement. Here's a sampling:
"To think they (the Taliban) are employing white phosphorus as a
weapon in their arsenal is very far-fetched," said Marc Garlasco,
senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch and a former senior
intelligence analyst at the Pentagon.
"The U.S. has optics that will allow them to see through the smoke,
so it is useless for (the Taliban). They don't need to illuminate
because that is telegraphing to the United States where they are going
to go and fight. Plus they know the area.
"They want high explosive to shock and kill; flames raining down from the sky aren't going to frighten the U.S. forces."
NATO spokeswoman Willis said insurgents had been observed using
white phosphorus weapons in the past. Asked to provide examples of the
Taliban using the chemical, she wrote back to say that she was unable
to do so.
The Taliban also denied that they used it. "This is not true, it is
just a mere allegation," said spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid.
The Reuters piece was especially powerful because it centered around the plight of an innocent little girl who suffered from burns to 40 percent of her body, including her head and face. (Oh, and by the way, American military doctors at Bagram saved her life and allowed the Reuters reporter to go in and do the story in the first place, but that didn't stop Graham-Harrison from jihading against the Americans.)
Reuters continued using the Human Rights Watch "expert" to beat up on the US and NATO.
Fast turnaround to discredit the reports
The US Central Command quickly discredited Reuters and Human Rights Watch by releasing declassified information showing 38 instances in which the Taliban stockpiled white phosphorous or used it as an anti-personnel weapon.
It was a great job of what for the military is a rapid turnaround of bad press through declassification of intelligence data. After the May 11 CENTCOM release, news organizations around the world picked up the story.
"Taliban 'used white phosphorous,'" the BBC reported on May 11. "Afghan rebels use phosphorous weapons: US military," according to Agence France Presse. Even Iran's PRESS TV reported, "US blames Taliban for phosphorous weapons."(By contrast, here's some collateral damage in the form of a headline on an Associated Press story in the Detroit Free Press: "US denies burning Afghans
in battle.")
Peter Graff of Reuters wrote a skeptical report from Kabul, citing the US military's release of data as being in response to an earlier Reuters report, sticking by what Graham-Harrison wrote but pooh-poohing the intelligence findings as being inconclusive.
Nathan Hodge wrote a goofy report for Wired.com, titled "US fighting off white phosphorous allegations (again)," recycling the allegations of "human rights groups" while offering no new facts, and seeming to presume that the US was using what he called "white phosphorous munitions." Hodge spent eight paragraphs blowing smoke, so to speak, even raising the possibility of American "war crimes," before quoting the US military as saying that it did not use white phosphorous munitions and showing evidence that the Taliban did. Hodges concluded by keeping the door open to the possibility that the Americans are using white phosphorous illegally. His source? Human Rights Watch. Come on, Nathan. You're a serious guy. You can do better than that.
My hat's off to the military commanders, intelligence officers and public affairs officers who worked overtime to correct the sloppy, even malicious, reporting. Well done.
[Note: Be sure to see the comments posted below. To read the unclassified intelligence report that documented Taliban possession and use of white phosphorous munitions, click here.]