"FIRE! FIRE!"

There is an article in the San Diego Tribune about United States Marines using incendiary weapons against Iraqi troops during the battle for Iraq. The Tribune is all a-flutter over this revelation because the Pentagon denied any use of napalm earlier this year.

In the Pentagon’s defense, what had been used wasn’t napalm - what was used is similar to, but not the same as the napalm we all grew to love in Vietnam. So the Pentagon pulled a Clintonectomy, though not quite as bad as what the meaning of “is” is. The napalm we all know was a MK-47 ordinance and the firebombs used were MK-77’s, a different combination of various flammable materials. And of course, the Pentagon still refers to the MK-77’s as napalm. What we have here is a classic case of, “if it walks like a duck…”

The big story here is why would the Pentagon feel the need to conceal the fact they were using incendiaries? Because the liberal press was so against the war and they have so little concept of what war is all about, they were bound to freak out and start screaming, “WAR CRIMES!!” and “How could you use this on real people, you animals!”. So, they figured it would be easier to get all technical over the presses butt and deny the use of “napalm”. I don’t blame them one bit.

To see the kind of stuff they were trying to avoid look at this from the article:

”Although many human rights groups consider incendiary bombs to be inhumane, international law does not prohibit their use against military forces. The United States has not agreed to a ban against possible civilian targets.

"Incendiaries create burns that are difficult to treat," said Robert Musil, executive director of Physicians for Social Responsibility, a Washington group that opposes the use of weapons of mass destruction.”

See how the Tribune feel the need to tell us the US hasn’t banned the use of napalm against civilian targets? This has no bearing on the story, the targets were Iraqi military. But, why pass up an opportunity to slam the US military when you have the chance, huh? Then, just to make sure we get the point that we are evil, we get the inference with the Physicians for Social Responsibility quote that these are weapons of mass destruction.

The military didn’t want to be portrayed as heartless animals out to kill women and children. What they understand and what the press doesn’t is that war is hell. People die in war and you need to decide who is going to die, your guys or their guys. And sometimes, to get the other guys to die, you need to use some not-so-pretty tools.