Air Force Report: Bring Back Chem Weapons

Chemical weapons have been an international taboo for decades. But now, some in the United States Air Force are pushing to use them again. A recent study out of the Air War College calls for using chemicals as "first-use weapons against terrorists" -- part of a larger pitch to rethink the long-time pariah of military warfare:

The application of nonlethal chemical technologies offers viable options in today's counterterrorist environment. Although looked upon by many as brutal and inhumane, nonlethal chemical agents have proven successful in area denial, counterinsurgency, hostage rescue, and CSAR [combat search and rescue]. Advances in technology have not only overcome the drawbacks of nonlethal chemical agents, both in antipersonnel and antimaterial applications, but have also evolved, offering new dimensions in the methods of UW [unconventional warfare].

Of course, as the author points out, chemical weapons have also been tremendously, and tragically, unsuccessful in some cases; think Waco and the Branch Davidians, or the Dubrovka theater siege in Moscow, where authorities used a supposedly nonlethal chemical to subdue terrorists, and wound up killing 117 hostages in the process (including the woman in the photo, above). Nonetheless, the writer, Naval Commander George N. T. Whitbred IV, makes a reasoned argument for investing in nonlethal chemical technologies, such as "calmative agents," "sticky foams," and "malodorants," and limiting the use of those weapons to highly trained special operations forces.

The benefits, in Whitbred's eyes, would include: "reduced collateral damage," "more options in the application of force," and the ability to help "close the gap between war and peace." In order to reach them, Whitebred advocates amending the Chemical Weapons Convention and overturning Executive Order 11850, in which the U.S. renounced the "first use of riot control agents in war." That way, the U.S. would be free, legally, to employ "the offensive use of nonlethal chemicals as first-use weapons against terrorists."

While this is just a report by a single officer, some Pentagon officials are taking a fresh look at chemical agents, criticizing the artificial distinction that allows national law enforcement agencies to use riot control agents, but not the military. Then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld pushed for something similar, on the eve of the Iraq war. Last year, Joseph A. Benkert, principal deputy assistant defense secretary for international security policy, argued that current policy was too restrictive and should be rethought. In an article (that was subsequently, and with no explanation, withdrawn) by the American Forces Press Service, Benkert was quoted as saying:

It may be difficult for many Americans to understand why their armed forces can use riot control agents only in defined circumstances when they see their local law enforcement agents using them effectively every day. The United States military must operate within the parameters of the Chemical Weapons Convention and Executive Order 11850, which constrain the ability of our armed forces to use riot control agents in offensive operations in wartime and obviously do not apply to our colleagues in law enforcement.

As I wrote last week, the debate has also sparked at least one participant in a former Army chemical agent investigation to publish a memoir that supports use of calmative agents for nonlethal warfare.

Given the history of chemical warfare, it'll be a politically charged debate.