On November 7, 2004 the American-led siege of the Iraqi city of Fallujah began. The attack continued for two weeks and it was estimated that over 1,200 insurgents were killed and up to 250,000 civilians were displaced.

Hospitals, schools, power supplies and water lines were destroyed as the city was dragged to its knees. Reports filed from the area were scant. Most journalists present were embedded with troops and their movements were tightly controlled. Allegations that American forces were using chemical weapons in Fallujah were widely ignored by the mainstream media.

On November 8, 2005, a year and a day after the US military entered Fallujah, Italian state broadcaster RAI aired “Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre”. The programme claimed the Americans had used a substance similar to Napalm and white phosphorus shells against civilians. The footage was unflinching and included harrowing images of women and children who had been burned alive.

The United States denied the allegations. On November 15 the American Ambassador in London, Robert Tuttle, wrote to The Independent claiming: “US forces participating in operation Iraqi Freedom continue to use appropriate, lawful and legitimate weapons against legitimate targets. US forces do not use Napalm or phosphorus as weapons.”

The time-honoured technique of smearing the messenger was deployed. Pentagon spokesman Todd Vician emphatically denied the use of chemical weapons in Iraq and said “People seeking to discredit the US find it useful to invent the false accusation that the US is using weapons of this sort”

However, the US military was forced into a spectacular climb-down when presented with evidence from one of its own publications. An article published in the March 2005 issue of Field Artillery gave a detailed account of white phosphorus being used directly against insurgents in Fallujah. This directly contradicted the statements made by the US military that white phosphorus was only been used as a flare to illuminate the battlefield.

American officials still insist that the use of white phosphorus is not forbidden by any treaty they are signatories to. But its use against insurgents in Fallujah is illegal according to a 1990 US Army handbook that says: “It is against the law of land warfare to employ white phosphorus against personnel targets.”

The story, which had lain dormant for over a year was reignited by the RAI documentary which blazed across the internet. On November 16 Lieutenant-Colonel Venable finally admitted to the BBC that white phosphorus “was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants.”  However, this is not the first time the US has been forced to defend its use of incendiary or chemical weapons in Iraq.

On March 22, 2003 CNN carried reports that American forces had used Napalm at Safwan Hill, close to the Iraqi border. Initially, the US denied these claims but later admitted to their use of Mark 77 firebombs.

Facing an outcry the US took refuge in the semantics of cowardice. Napalm and the firebombs are virtually identical. The only difference is that petrol, which is used in Napalm, has been replaced with jet fuel in the Mark 77’s. The effects remain equally horrific.

It is obvious the US government misinformed the media and misled the public about its conduct in Iraq. It is undeniable this made it difficult for journalists to uncover the truth. But this is only part of the problem. The mainstream media appears, in this case, to be extremely reluctant to deviate from, or even question, the official, governmental line.

Early in 2005 a medical team sent to Fallujah by the Iraqi interim government held a press conference to publicise their findings. They confirmed that “burning chemicals” were used by American forces during the attack. That conference was attended by over 20 major national and international news organisations but none of these reported on the event.

On 20 November 2005, in an article in the Sunday Telegraph, Toby Harnden revealed he witnessed US forces using white phosphorus to target insurgents in Fallujah. Yet his original report of the event reads somewhat differently. Written on November 9, 2004 the piece “All-out assault on Fallujah” says: “White phosphorus shells lit up the sky as armour drove through the breach and sent flaming material on to suspect insurgent haunts.”

The use of white phosphorus to illuminate battle-zones or to generate smoke-screen to cover troop movements is uncontroversial. It is only when it is used against human targets, as revealed in Harnden’s second article, that the legality of its use becomes questionable. Harnden’s initial account of the event, written while embedded with US forces, was unlikely to upset the military.

The real scandal behind this story is that it has taken so long for the mainstream media to cover it. We were told it was necessary to go to war with Iraq because Saddam Hussein possessed chemical and biological weapons that he could use against us. Saddam was, rightly, portrayed as monstrous for gassing the Kurds in Halabja, a fact that was widely reported. Yet America’s use of Napalm-like weapons that can burn to the bone has, so far, received significantly less coverage.

Weapons can make no distinction between civilians and combatants they treat all their victims with equal cruelty. However, the international mainstream media seems, in this case at least, to believe that some victims are more worthy of their attention than others.