Englehart claimed that the use of WP is common in ground operations, and useful for weeding out enemy combatants who are effectively dug into their positions. However, in the case of Fallujah, Englehart says that there were civilian casualties in the assault, many of which could have been killed by the burning/smoke munitions white phosphorus.

During a recent discussion panel, in which Englehart was present, a question was asked about his experience in bringing this testimony to light. Englehart said that during 2005, a politically volatile year at the height of the war in Iraq, many critics and rightwing blogs lambasted him for exposing the use of WP in Fallujah.

He said that many rumors and outright lies were leveled against his credibility, mostly because the documentary (stated above) got very important information wrong, mainly about his branch of military service, and the treatment of facts that made him appear to be a weapons expert, not just a soldier on the ground. Englehart said that the ordeal was stressful, but that he didn’t regret it because, as he said, “In trying times, true patriotism comes in questioning the actions of your government, right or wrong.”

Englehart also said that because of the media’s attention to white phosphorus, in part because of his testimony, the Pentagon did come out and admit using WP in ground operations in Iraq. He said this is significant, because despite what armchair analysts were saying to naysay uncomfortable truths, the Pentagon’s admission of the use of white phosphorus opened up an important discussion on the conduct of the US military during wartime.

Some critics insist that the US military’s use of WP could technically be considered a war crime, in that the use of chemical agents against civilian populations is in violation of the “Geneva Conventions Protocol III: Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons.” Others insist that because WP is primarily used for obfuscating troop movement, it does not technically violate any Geneva standards.

Englehart stated that it is understandable why commanders would use WP in combat situations to ensure the safety of their troops. While he does not condemn the military’s actions, he does want to “open the dialogue about what is acceptable standards of 21st century warfare, as it involves the most powerful nation on earth.”

Even to this day, the use of white phosphorus is debated while its use in Iraq, and now in Afghanistan, continues to cause controversy. As recently as May 2009, calls for NATO to “come clean” on the use of WP on civilians has created a media stir (Human Rights Watch May 8, 2009). Although the debate surrounding white phosphorus is nearing its fourth anniversary, the implications of its use in modern warfare are no less prevalent. Four years ago, Specialist Englehart may have been thrown to the media wolves for exposing an ugly truth to the American people, but the courage of his statements gave new meaning to the old adage: speak truth to power.

Pentagon admits using White Phosphorus:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article591095.ece

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002626334_phosphorus16.html

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/21/phosphorus-chemical

http://www.democracynow.org/2005/11/17/pentagon_reverses_position_and_admits_u

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4440664.stm

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2005/11/16/afx2341690.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1115-03.htm

Use of White Phosphorus in Afghanistan

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/05/08/afghanistan-nato-should-come-clean-white-phosphorus