Cluster **** In Iraq

[Nova Land]

Apologies for the use of asterisks in the title of this thread, but I consider cluster ****s to be obscene.

This is a column by Katha Pollitt which appeared in The Nation a couple weeks ago.

Bittersweet Bomblets

I was listening to Morning Edition on December 30, and up came one of those end-of-the-year heart-warmers that's supposed to make you feel there's hope for this old world yet. It seems that a 9-year-old Iraqi boy, Saleh Khalaf, came across a cluster bomb and "because it was round and smooth" he picked it up and it blew off all of one hand and most of another, opened up his abdomen, took out his left eye and horribly scarred his face. His 16-year-old brother was killed. Fortunately, and this is the point of the story, he was treated "against protocol" in a US Army hospital and flown with his father for further treatment in Oakland, where he was showered with help by a generous local couple and is now learning English and American expressions like "hold your horses." Recently his mother and sisters were permitted to join him in California. "I'm happy now," says Saleh.

Spunky child, loving family, wonderful doctors, heroically kind and generous benefactors. No wonder the reporter, Luke Burbank, got a bit emotional ("the moment you meet [Saleh] you have the overwhelming urge to protect him"). But wait a minute. What was that bit about a cluster bomb?...

I hope people will click the link and read the column. Pollitt is a good writer, and I consider this an important and disturbing subject.

One of my general rules is not to get upset with one person simply for what another person says that person said or did. Pollitt is editorializing against the US use of cluster ****s, based on her interpretation of a story she heard on NPR. That doesn't mean that the US actually is using cluster ****s, although it certainly is one reasonable interpretation of the NPR piece. I'm not going to go on a rant against US use of cluster ****s until I see more direct evidence that such is the case. But I find the possibility that we might have done so very unsettling, and I would like to find out more.

Does anyone here have more information about this?

 

[Earthborn]

Does anyone here have more information about this?

A find the Iraq body Count a good place to look for such things. From a press release of almost 2 years ago now (scroll down a bit):

HOW MANY CIVILIANS WERE KILLED BY CLUSTER BOMBS?
The Pentagon says 1: Iraq Body Count says at least 200.

See the database for a few more recent cases.

 

[demon]

Have a look at the Lancet study too.
It`s very well respected.

Earthborn, I take it you have read it?
You know IBC is naff yes? As far as casualties is concerned?

 

[Earthborn]

Earthborn, I take it you have read it?

No, I haven't. I have read about it, but I have not read it itself.

You know IBC is naff yes? As far as casualties is concerned?

They try hard to only present reported casualties and only civilians. Unreported casualties as well as soldiers are not included, so it's no wonder that the IBC figure is quite bit lower than the Lancet study that makes an attempt to count all casualties and does not distinguish between civilian and military casualties.

It's a bit like the Kleck study on defensive gun use but that does not make a distinction between criminal defensive gun use and legitimate defensive gun use. Also like the Kleck study, it relies on extrapolation instead of counting actual cases. These things do not invalidate the studies, they just limit the conclusions you can draw from them.

 

[crimresearch]

It's a bit like the Kleck study on defensive gun use but that does not make a distinction between criminal defensive gun use and legitimate defensive gun use.

The Kleck study was on *self reported* uses wasn't it?
And the definition was gun use to defend themselves against an actual human being attempting to commit a crime within the last 5 years?

IIRC, the categories were to defend against attempted sexual assault, assault other than sexual assault, burglary, robbery, or trespassing.

How would we know that some of the respondents were 'criminals'? Or are you referring to the possibility that some of the respondents may have been carrying their weapons without permits?

And what exactly is the relevance? Criminals deserve to be the victims of crime? Criminals over-report their DGUs?

Also, didn't Kleck combine his survey with a dozen previous studies to reach an aggregate?
Again, I don't get the significance of your criticism that extrapolation from a sample was employed...that is a pretty standard research approach, since the ability to get a complete enumeration is typically an impossibility.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

This kinda reminds me of feeling sorry for the orphan who killed their parents. Also for voting for a "war-time" president because we are in a "war".

Charlie (TGIF) Monoxide

 

[Nova Land]

I find the Iraq body Count a good place to look for such things.

Thanks! I glanced in there, but it does not appear to have what I am looking for.

My question is not so much whether people have died in Iraq from cluster bombs. It would call for willful lying on the part of NPR and/or Katha Pollitt for that not to be true. The media makes a lot of mistakes, but generally it is through carelessness and I don't see an easy way that carelessness would lead to a mistake about this.

My question is who put the damn thing there? Pollitt writes as if it is established that the US did this. I like and respect Pollitt a good deal, so I fear she will turn out to be correct, but I do not want to jump to that conclusion.

It is possible it is the insurgents who planted the cluster bomb. It is possible it was a leftover from years ago. It's possible -- jeeze, I don't know what else is possible, but there probably are other possible explanations.

I have a fairly low opinion of the Bush administration, but I would prefer not to think that the US has deliberately used cluster bombs during the invasion and occupation of Iraq. I would also prefer not to think that, if the US did use such devices, the media would be so shamefully quiet about. I would like to be told that it is the insurgents doing this and that Pollitt jumped to a false conclusion.

Given that cluster bombs are present in Iraq today, and are killing and crippling people there, I am asking if anyone can provide some information about who is supplying these devices and who is deploying them?

 

[Nova Land]

Have a look at the Lancet study too.

Like Earthborn, I've read about it but haven't read it. (And I've probably read less about it than she has. All I recall reading is news stories saying the study had been published there of casualties.)

I'd search for it, but if it's available on-line it's probably a PDF file which will take an hour or so for me to download. Could you summarize what it says about the use of cluster bombs in Iraq? As I noted above, what I am especially trying to find out is which parties are responsible for using them.

 

[Elind]

Thanks! I glanced in there, but it does not appear to have what I am looking for.

My question is not so much whether people have died in Iraq from cluster bombs. It would call for willful lying on the part of NPR and/or Katha Pollitt for that not to be true. The media makes a lot of mistakes, but generally it is through carelessness and I don't see an easy way that carelessness would lead to a mistake about this.

My question is who put the damn thing there? Pollitt writes as if it is established that the US did this. I like and respect Pollitt a good deal, so I fear she will turn out to be correct, but I do not want to jump to that conclusion.

It is possible it is the insurgents who planted the cluster bomb. It is possible it was a leftover from years ago. It's possible -- jeeze, I don't know what else is possible, but there probably are other possible explanations.

I have a fairly low opinion of the Bush administration, but I would prefer not to think that the US has deliberately used cluster bombs during the invasion and occupation of Iraq. I would also prefer not to think that, if the US did use such devices, the media would be so shamefully quiet about. I would like to be told that it is the insurgents doing this and that Pollitt jumped to a false conclusion.

Given that cluster bombs are present in Iraq today, and are killing and crippling people there, I am asking if anyone can provide some information about who is supplying these devices and who is deploying them?

?? Are cluster bombs supposed to be illegal, in the vein of chemical weapons?

A cluster bomb is a bomb filled with lots of small bombs, like hand grenades. Sometimes hand grenades don't explode, sometimes mortar rounds don't explode, sometimes parts of cluster bombs don't explode sometimes 1000 pounders don't explode. Any one of those could kill a civilian afterwards and Europeans are still digging the suckers out of the ground 50 years later.

Are you wanting to suggest that no explosive devices should be used when waging war?

The one category has been largely agreed to be unacceptable is mines, which by their nature are designed not to explode until after placed and are typically forgotten once placed. This particular case could have been caused by any of the above, other than the last big one. Even if it was a US cluster bomblet, what's your point?

 

[crimresearch]

I have a fairly low opinion of the Bush administration, but I would prefer not to think that the US has deliberately used cluster bombs during the invasion and occupation of Iraq. I would also prefer not to think that, if the US did use such devices, the media would be so shamefully quiet about. I would like to be told that it is the insurgents doing this and that Pollitt jumped to a false conclusion.

I share your low opinion of the Bush administration.

Cluster bombs and other unexploded munitions of the type used by NATO, and other military around the world, are always the source of maiming and killing innocents..sometimes for years afterward...which is only one of many reasons to wish that there were no wars.

So far, wishing that there were no wars has proved remarkably unproductive, and since there is a war in progress, albeit without my permission, I don't see the usefulness of wishing for one side to arm themselves with less than unpleasantly effective equipment.

But if you are saying that the Bush administration has ordered troops to place such dangerous munitions in an attempt to deliberately kill innocent children, I will look forward to seeing the evidence for that.

 

[varwoche]

The one category has been largely agreed to be unacceptable is mines

Agreed to by most everyone except the US.

 

[Ziggurat]

The one category has been largely agreed to be unacceptable is mines, which by their nature are designed not to explode until after placed and are typically forgotten once placed.

Not exactly. The anti-land mine treaty bans the use of anti-personnel land mines but not anti-vehicle land mines. The later are supposed to not detonate from inadvertant human contact, but may have features to detonate on intentional tampering (ie, attempts to disarm). The distinction between the two classes of land mines is a gray area, however, since anti-tampering features can often lead to detonation by inadvertant contact as well, and this ambiguity might be intentionally exploited in the future by countries who sign the treaty with no intention of abiding by its spirit.

 

[tedly]

Awww... a cute little bomblet, who could object to that.


1.3. Each cluster bomblet is activated by an internal fuze, and is set to explode above ground, on impact, or to be time-delayed - that is, they can be made into time bombs or mines. The smaller bombs are designed to explode near the time of impact. But since 5% to 30% fail to explode at the time set for them, unexploded bombs litter every target area, silent and nondescript. Until picked up by an unfortunate child or accidentally kicked by a passerby. In this way they become hidden killers, blending into their surroundings like land mines. And over time cluster bombs become more unstable - they explode more easily.
Because of their high failure rate, cluster munitions leave large numbers of hazardous, explosive duds, a great many unexploded "dud" submunitions that become de facto antipersonnel landmines that may cause injury or death to civilians long after the war is over… (Amnesty International "Iraq: Use of cluster bombs -- Civilians pay the price" 2 April 2003, AI Index: MDE 14/065/2003)


That's from here http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3463.htm

which I would call a highly biased site. Others give failure rates on the same order of magnitude though so let's go with 5%.

Each cluster leaves ten to thirty unexploded, but fused or detonated, explosive charges lying around. I find it highly unlikely that these would be moved and re-employed by terrorists, the termination rate would be far too high. So if the report is accurate it's probably a leftover from the Coalition of the Willing.

War is hell, but anti-personnel mines are 'takin alla the fun outta the job.' (from Boondock Saints )

 

[Elind]

Not exactly. The anti-land mine treaty bans the use of anti-personnel land mines but not anti-vehicle land mines. The later are supposed to not detonate from inadvertant human contact, but may have features to detonate on intentional tampering (ie, attempts to disarm). The distinction between the two classes of land mines is a gray area, however, since anti-tampering features can often lead to detonation by inadvertant contact as well, and this ambiguity might be intentionally exploited in the future by countries who sign the treaty with no intention of abiding by its spirit.

Clarification accepted.

 

[RussDill]

Agreed to by most everyone except the US.

and south korea...

 

[Elind]

Awww... a cute little bomblet, who could object to that.


Each cluster leaves ten to thirty unexploded, but fused or detonated, explosive charges lying around. I find it highly unlikely that these would be moved and re-employed by terrorists, the termination rate would be far too high. So if the report is accurate it's probably a leftover from the Coalition of the Willing.

War is hell, but anti-personnel mines are 'takin alla the fun outta the job.' (from Boondock Saints )

So the answer must be better quality control, right? After all who can object to one of the most effective ways of killing massed enemy groups; those who would like to ban machine guns? Hell why try to win wars at all.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

That's from here http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3463.htm

which I would call a highly biased site. Others give failure rates on the same order of magnitude though so let's go with 5%.

Some nasty-minded people think that the high failure rate is either deliberate or deliberately tolerated, so that cluster bombs can be used as de facto land mines.

Land mines are very effective weapons, after all. That's why they are popular.

The USA has had, what, decades to crack the "working cluster bomb fuse" problem and not managed to do so? Tricky things, fuses.

 

[Earthborn]

The Kleck study was on *self reported* uses wasn't it?

Yes, just like the study in Lancet. In both cases they simply asked people: in one whether they used a gun to defend themselves and in the other whether they lost any family members in the war in Iraq.

How would we know that some of the respondents were 'criminals'?

We don't. That's the whole point. The study does not make a distinction between criminals and law abiding citizens. If one of the respondents was a gang member who defended himself in a shoot out with a stolen gun, it would have been recorded as defensive gun use. Doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the study, but it does mean there is something wrong with the people who try to spin the study in a measurement of how often law abiding citizens defend themselves against crime.

Similarly the study in The Lancet should not be spun into a measurement of civilian casualties as it is a measurement of how many more people died because of the war. Not quite the same thing.

Also, didn't Kleck combine his survey with a dozen previous studies to reach an aggregate?

That's not how I read it. Seems to me that in the Kleck survey there are several other studies mentioned, but argued to be flawed or inaccurate in some way. The Kleck study was meant to solve some of those problems.

Again, I don't get the significance of your criticism that extrapolation from a sample was employed...

I don't think I have critised the extrapolation. I have no problem at all with extrapolation. I just say that an extrapolation is not an actual count of cases and there is quite a bit more uncertainty. An extrapolation of a survey also limits the conclusions you can draw from it.

 

[Earthborn]

My question is who put the damn thing there? Pollitt writes as if it is established that the US did this. I like and respect Pollitt a good deal, so I fear she will turn out to be correct, but I do not want to jump to that conclusion.

Well, if we can believe the information from the Pentagon (I'm not so sure we can... ) they came falling from American bombers. As far as I know, nobody denies that Americans used cluster bombs, some of them fell down on civilian areas and killed people, including children. The 200 people who died because of them as mentioned in the IBC press release, died before any insurgent realised the US forces would stay for more than a few weeks. Probably not terribly many clusterbombs were dropped after that, because bombing from the air is not so effective if you already took over the country.

It is possible it is the insurgents who planted the cluster bomb. It is possible it was a leftover from years ago. It's possible -- jeeze, I don't know what else is possible, but there probably are other possible explanations.

Sure, anything is possible. Maybe the Pentagon is in cahoots with the insurgents and saying that the US military dropped the things to protect them.

I would prefer not to think that the US has deliberately used cluster bombs during the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Well, that's so great about living in a free country: you can think whatever you prefer to think. I would prefer to think that this whole Iraq War thing never happened, that Hans Blix found evidence of the non-existence of WMD, George W. Bush said it was conclusive enough to call the whole thing off and the Saddam Hussein realised his lack of support from the Iraqi people, accepted his political responsibility and wrote out elections which he lost fair and square. I think I'll believe that for a while.

Hey, wasn't there just election in Iraq? And Saddam didn't win. See? It fits my belief perfectly.

I would also prefer not to think that, if the US did use such devices, the media would be so shamefully quiet about.

How often do you hear the media about the need for an investigation of the 'Convoy of Death' incident in Afghanistan?

"The what?", you say.
"The Convoy of Death", I say.

Compared to other stuff the media is 'shamefully quiet' about, the use of clusterbombs by the US is fairly unshocking.

Given that cluster bombs are present in Iraq today, and are killing and crippling people there, I am asking if anyone can provide some information about who is supplying these devices and who is deploying them?

A clusterbomb is a big bomb that consists of a lot of tiny bombs. They are usually dropped from airplanes. Most of the little bombs explode, but a fair amount do not. So the unexploded ones just lie around waiting for a kid to pick it up. And then it may or may not explode.

That the US uses clusterbombs is an uncontroversial fact. They were used in Afghanistan too. Anyone remember that? Those little bomblets were the same colour as the food packages, so quite a few people died because they picked them up thinking they contained food. So they later made the food packages blue instead of yellow.

You can almost imagine the thinking that must have occured somewhere in the US government...

"So, why don't we make the clusterbombs blue?"
"What?"
"You know... Those people kill themselves because they have now learned that the yellow packages mean food, so why not keep the food packs yellow and make the bomblets blue?"
"Nah... They'll understand. We just inform them with a huge advertising campaign: "New Package, Same Great Peanut Butter And Kidney Bean Taste."
"They have neither radio nor TV."
"We'll stick a note to the food packages or something..."

This war stuff is making me tad cynical.

 

[Elind]

You can almost imagine the thinking that must have occured somewhere in the US government...

"So, why don't we make the clusterbombs blue?"
"What?"
"You know... Those people kill themselves because they have now learned that the yellow packages mean food, so why not keep the food packs yellow and make the bomblets blue?"
"Nah... They'll understand. We just inform them with a huge advertising campaign: "New Package, Same Great Peanut Butter And Kidney Bean Taste."
"They have neither radio nor TV."
"We'll stick a note to the food packages or something..."

This war stuff is making me tad cynical.

And you can almost imagine the thoughts going throught the local civilian parents. "We're poor, we need to pick up some scrap metal for the next meal. There are lots of bomb craters over that way, and cluster bomb drops (I've seen them, easy to recognize), let's send the kids out to work; and make sure to tell them not to take anything that looks undamaged, we all know the dangers after a lifetime of wars, but if they do ....Inshallah";


but who am I to be cynical when we have so many professionals around?