American Hellfire: Historian Robert Neer on "Napalm"
American Hellfire:
Historian Dr. Robert M. Neer on His Groundbreaking Book Napalm: An American Biography
by Robin Lindley
A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order
and say of war, “This way of settling differences is not just.”
This business of burning human beings with napalm . . .
cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love.
Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr., April 4, 1967
February 1942. Just two months after the Japanese surprise attack on
Pearl Harbor, at a dark time of defeat and anxiety for America, a bright spot
for the military: Harvard researchers led by revered chemist Louis Fieser
developed an incendiary weapon that would burn longer than traditional weapons,
stick to targets, and extinguish only with difficulty. It was cheaper and more
stable than existing alternatives, could survive extremes of hot and cold in
storage, and could be mixed by soldiers on the battlefield.
Christened
napalm, the deadly new form of thickened hydrocarbons helped win victory for
the Allies in World War II. Indeed, although it was used extensively in both
Europe and the Pacific, napalm was particularly effective against Japan as it
fueled flamethrowers used against imperial troops and was dropped in bombs that
incinerated dozens of Japanese cities and killed hundreds of thousands more
Japanese than the atomic bombs—at a fraction of the cost.
A
few years later, U.S. forces dropped more napalm on enemy cities during the
Korean War than was used in the Second World War. Napalm strikes followed in short order in
Greece and numerous other countries from Kenya to Brazil. There was little
outcry about the use of this horrific weapon as it won wars.
But
napalm lost much of its luster during the increasingly fraught American war in
Vietnam. Gruesome photographs of napalm wounds borne by Vietnamese civilians,
including small children and infants, stoked the antiwar movement in the United
States, and sparked student demonstrations against manufacturer Dow Chemical.
After the war, popular culture from books to poems to music and Hollywood
movies made the incendiary a monster, and international lawyers codified norms
that restricted its use against civilians.
Since then, the use of napalm has
been disfavored and restricted under law, although recent reports indicate that
napalm-like weapons have killed civilians, including school children, in the
Syrian conflict.
For
the first time, historian Robert M. Neer tells the complete story of napalm
from its American birth and successful use in war to subsequent revulsion and
legal restriction in his book Napalm: An
American Biography (Belknap Press, Harvard). In this wide ranging cultural and social
history of napalm, Dr. Neer provides the historical context of napalm in the
history of fire as a weapon of war; sets out technical details on chemical and
engineering issues; traces the history of napalm from war “hero to pariah;”
explores moral and legal implications of its use; and offers an unflinching
account of the human cost of this powerful incendiary in war after war in the
past 70 years.
Critics
have praised Dr. Neer’s groundbreaking book for its original research, vivid
writing, and measured, balanced approach to the history. Historian John Fabian
Witt, author of Lincoln’s Code, for
example, wrote: “Napalm is a revelation. In a story that takes us from Harvard
Stadium to Vietnam, Robert M. Neer retells the past 70 years of American
history through a single extraordinary and terrible invention. Highly
recommended for anyone interested in the American way of war and its
humanitarian dilemmas.” And in Dissent,
Thai Jones remarked: “Robert M. Neer's clear-eyed and harrowing new account
surveys this infamous technology from both perspectives. This is history, in a
literal sense, from above and below. Using napalm as a symbol for American
global influence acutely demonstrates the political trajectory of a superpower,
from impetuous upstart to tortured giant to--finally--chastened hegemon.”
Dr.
Neer is a Core Lecturer in the History Department at Columbia University
specializing in the history of the United States in the context of 20th and
21st century globalization, with a special focus on U.S. military power. He
received his Ph.D. in History in 2011, his M.Phil. in 2007, and a J.D. and M.A.
in 1991, all from Columbia. His current book project is a global history of the
U.S. military, based on a Columbia course he has taught titled “Empire of
Liberty.”. In his 14-year hiatus from Columbia after earning his law degree, he
worked in international business and politics in London, Los Angeles,
Singapore, Hong Kong and Boston. He also is the author of Barack Obama for Beginners, and his journalism has appeared in The Boston Globe, the Asian Wall Street Journal, and other
periodicals and websites.
Dr.
Neer recently talked by telephone from New York about his book and research on
napalm.
Robin
Lindley: What prompted your interest in
the history of napalm?
Dr. Robert Neer: I
lived overseas for a long time in Hong Kong, Singapore and London. As a result of that, I developed a strong
sense that the perception of America outside the United States was often quite
different than it was inside the United States. In traveling around in many
different countries, I was able to see firsthand the extent of the U.S.
military presence overseas in many different contexts.
I
wanted in the broadest sense to tell a story about America in the world and how
there might be one perception of the country outside and another inside.
Specifically, people inside the country often think of America as extremely
just, well meaning, perhaps at the worst misunderstood. Outside, some people consider the United
States to be quite brutal, ignorant and dangerous. There are many falsehoods in both of those
ideas, but I wanted to bridge that gap.
And
I wanted to focus on military developments and the position of the United
States in a global context.
Then
I enjoyed reading books like The Making
of the Atomic Bomb and The Social
History of the Machine Gun, and books like Cod, Salt, and others
that were biographies of things that talked about the power of technology and
the environment to influence history.
I
suggested to my advisor that this might be the basis for a dissertation. He, a
wonderful advisor, said, “Great. You
just need to choose a weapon and a period.” I thought about different weapons
and napalm was the most dramatic weapon I could think of. When I looked, I discovered there wasn’t any
scholarly treatment of its history, or, really, any treatment of its history at
all. In fact, the best publically
available source of information when I started the project was Wikipedia: there
weren’t any scholarly articles in any journals at all. So that was a good dissertation topic, and it
developed into a book.
Robin
Lindley: In your book, you include a
history of use of fire in warfare back to ancient times. I recall the scene in the movie Spartacus where the slave forces were
rolling burning logs over the ranks of Roman soldiers.
Dr. Robert Neer: You may also remember in the movie Gladiator that they used incendiary
weapons in a battle between Romans and Germanic tribes: flaming arrows and
catapulted fire pots.
Fire
is a very powerful weapon for a variety of reasons. First, it releases energy
and can do more damage later than at the moment of impact. Explosives, by
contrast, carry their energy with them and, although they can be very damaging,
they’re limited in a sense that fire is not.
Also, in more intimate combat, it’s very effective because people have
an instinctive fear of fire that’s very deep set. That’s evident in conceptions like the fires
of Hell or fire-breathing dragons, and many different manifestations of
frightful things that are closely associated with fire. So people have sought to take advantage of
that from very early times. There are
many descriptions as early as the Bible and all the way through the Middle
Ages.
Tactically,
however, a weapon is only as useful as the range with which you can use
it. Although fire early on, as with
Greek fire famously used during the Byzantine Empire and in many other
contexts, was useful, the development of cannons made many fire weapons
obsolete. Before the fire could be
delivered to a target, the people could be killed by a projectile. An illustration for the principle that I use is
the scene in Indiana Jones when he is
confronted by a fearsome swordsman and he pulls out his pistol and shoots him.
That’s an example of range being an important consideration in combat.
Closely
associated with the history of napalm as a weapon is the development of the
airplane because, when airplanes were invented and perfected in terms of
reliability and quantity—which happened to a significant degree in World War
II—fire came back into vogue because people could drop it on other people and
stay out of range of bullets or artillery shells. Although people have tried to use fire
throughout the history of combat, around the 1400s it stopped being so
effective until World War II. So there was a 500-year interregnum in the use of
fire weapons that napalm spectacularly ended.
Robin
Lindley: You mention the use of
flamethrowers in combat in World War I.
Dr. Robert Neer: People experimented and tried to use
incendiary weapons straight through from the 1400s with all kinds of
experiments using different delivery technologies. During World War I, different incendiary
bombs were tried. The Germans dropped
firebombs on London from zeppelins. Mixtures of rubber and gasoline were used
in flamethrowers. Because there weren’t
very effective air delivery systems, and also because the mixtures they used
weren’t as effective as later mixtures as napalm, those weapons were not very
effective or significant.
Robin
Lindley: And you mention the use of
incendiaries just before World War II, such as the German bombing of Guernica
during the Spanish Civil War.
Dr. Robert Neer:
At the same time as napalm was developed, other incendiary weapons were also
developed that proved to be quite effective although not as effective or as
used in as great quantities as napalm.
For example, the cities of Dresden and Hamburg were burned to the ground
by the British using magnesium weapons. And the Germans at Guernica in the
Basque region of Spain used thermite weapons to destroy that town.
Robin
Lindley: And, by 1942, the chemist and
Harvard professor Louis Fieser had created napalm. Why did the U.S. need napalm then?
Dr. Robert Neer: Just prior to the beginning of World War II,
a group of leading research scientists, spearheaded by Vannevar Bush—a
prominent American scientist and academic leader—organized a committee to
develop technologically advanced weapons of war that they thought would be
needed by the United States in what they expected would be a war that would
involve this country. With the support
of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the government established the National Defense
Research Committee [NDRC] to develop a new relationship between the government
and universities for war research through a practice that is now common, but
that was very innovative at that time.
The government provided money to universities to use their facilities
and people to do research on military technologies.
Through
that program, the first research into incendiary weapons began at Harvard in
the chemistry department led by Professor Fieser. The goal was to respond to what was perceived
as the probability that the United States would need incendiary weapons in the
expected conflict. Their initial
research focused on mixtures of rubber and gasoline following the technologies
that were used not very successfully in World War I. But after the Japanese attack on Pearl
Harbor, America’s supplies of rubber were dramatically reduced, so the chemists
switched their focus to experimenting with different chemical and petrochemical
combinations to make thickened gel incendiary weapons.
Robin
Lindley: It seems that magnesium was an
effective incendiary. How was napalm an advance as a weapon?
Dr. Robert Neer:
This research was perceived as a solution to a technical problem. The reason the United States didn’t want to
use magnesium is that it was afraid it wouldn’t be able to get enough
magnesium. They moved away from rubber
because they couldn’t get enough rubber.
And they thought they might have other needs for magnesium besides use
in weapons.
And
then, through what you might call a fortuitous circumstance, the ultimate
concoction that they devised, the method of thickening gasoline using other
chemicals, produced a weapon that was far superior in its military
characteristics. For example, flamethrowers that shoot napalm could shoot three
times farther than the previous types.
Also, with the previous types, about 90 percent of the mixture they
delivered would burn up before reaching the target. Napalm increased the
delivery fraction by about ten times.
Instead of having most of the incendiary material vaporize before
reaching the target, the napalm would shoot a much larger flaming rod onto
whatever they aimed at.
In
addition, from the perspective of using napalm in bombs, it was extremely
stable. It could be chilled to very cold temperatures as in a bomb bay or
heated to a hot temperature as in a tropical storage facility. It could be
stored for a very long time. It was relatively inexpensive and easy to make
because it could be reduced to a powder that could be mixed in the field with
gasoline to produce incendiary gel.
Robin
Lindley: Professor Fieser had a
successful test of napalm at Harvard in 1942 and he later said he didn’t
contemplate the use of napalm on humans.
Dr. Robert Neer:
Fieser told the government about the improved formula that they had developed
on Valentine’s Day, 1942. The War
Department then supplied the Harvard scientists with a lot of bombshells—the
same bombshells the U.S. used for its poison gas arsenal because those types of
bombs were made with a thin steel skin that would burst easily and scatter
whatever was inside over a large area.
It’s striking because, after World War I, people were very worried that
poison gas would be dropped on cities and create devastation. In fact, that was done, but it was done with
fire, and not with poison gas, and the tests were done with the same type of
bombshells.
They
did the first test of napalm bombs on Independence Day, 1942. To your point, Fieser, in his reminiscences
of that time, wrote that they were focused on solving a technical problem and
they always anticipated that the weapon would be used against things. It’s at variance though from the tests the
War Department conducted.
The
Harvard scientists tested the bomb in a pool of water that had been dug into
the Harvard College soccer field behind the Harvard Business School in Boston,
across the river from Cambridge. Then
they participated in field trials because there were competing gel incendiary
weapons produced by DuPont and other companies and the Army was doing
comparative tests. The first tests were
in some villages in Indiana that the government condemned and moved everybody
out so they could practice burning down the houses and the stores.
Later
on, because the British in particular thought those test weren’t rigorous
enough, they built model Japanese and German villages at a new test facility
that the government created in Utah and practiced burning them down in various
ways. Those were residential buildings
complete down to the furniture and even the clothes in the closets to model the
potential targets.
It
would seem that it wouldn’t take a tremendous leap of imagination to suppose
that these munitions might affect people: they modeled bedrooms in particular. Still, it’s possible to credit the idea that
they would be burning down houses as opposed to actually dropping napalm
directly on human beings.
Robin
Lindley: The experiment using bats as
kamikaze deliverers of napalm was fascinating.
Dr. Robert Neer:
Many things are interesting about that story. One of them is that the
government at the time spent almost five times as much money on the bat testing
program, Project X-Ray, as they did in actually developing napalm. The napalm budget for research and
development was about five million dollars in current dollars, and compare that
with the $27 billion dollars that was spent on the Manhattan Project, even
though napalm wound up incinerating many more Japanese cities than the atomic
bombs did.
Fieser
collaborated with the bat program extensively after his work of actual
development of napalm was complete. For the rest of the war, the Harvard
scientists created a James-Bond type, special napalm weapons research
laboratory and production center at Harvard where they designed and made all
kinds of special weapons using napalm, from a napalm pill that could be popped
into a gas tank where it would swell up and sabotage tanks, to a special glass
incendiary grenade to throw on the battlefield, to a special device called “The
Paul Revere,” which could be used to start fires on land or on water. Another one called “The Harvard Candle” was a
special fire-starting device that could be used to destroy buildings.
Among
those projects was a plan to arm millions of kamikaze American bats; I call
them “suicide bomber bats” in the book, with tiny napalm bombs using a chemical
fuse that Harvard scientists built.
They’d be dropped out of airplanes in special bat bombs that would be
kept at cool temperatures to keep the bats quiet until release, and then when
they floated down, [the bombs] would open like accordions with a parachutes and
the bats would gently fall down onto small platforms and revivify under the
salubrious effect of warmer air as they descended and then flutter off into
whatever building or house they were near.
About 20 minutes after being released from the bomb, these chemical
fuses would burn down and trigger the napalm time bomb that would burn down the
house or whatever they dropped their way into.
In
the end, the only buildings the bats actually incinerated was a brand-new Army
airfield in Carlsbad, New Mexico, next to the famous caverns that had a large
supply of bats. Fieser armed several chilled animals to show off the system to
an Army film crew. In an instant, the heat revived them and they flew away. A
desperate hunt followed, but right on schedule they detonated, and burned the
entire facility to the ground, tower and all. The base commander raced up with
fire trucks but had to watch, distraught, from behind a fence; researchers
refused to let him approach the top secret technology testing area.
In
early 1944, after spending about $24 million in today’s dollars, Marine Corps
officials canceled the program without explanation: a historical mystery that
remains to be resolved.
Robin
Lindley: As you’ve alluded to, the cost
of napalm was far less than the atomic bombs produced by the Manhattan project
when considering the damage done by these weapons. Those statistics are
stunning.
Dr. Robert Neer:
Yes. Napalm was used as widely and as
quickly as possible by the United States in World War II. They sent it to Europe where it played a role
in the Normandy landings and in the battle in the Ardennes and the battle of
the Bulge and elsewhere.
But
it was mostly in the Pacific where it was deployed to the greatest extent. In
the case of Japan, the United States eventually incinerated 66 of Japan’s
largest cities, 64 of them with explosive weapons and napalm, and two of them
with atomic weapons. Considering that
the atomic weapons cost about $27 billion in today’s currency just for their
development and destroyed two cities, that would be about $13 billion per city
incinerated, whereas napalm cost about five million dollars, and that weapon
burned to the ground 64 cities, about $83 thousand dollars in development costs
per city destroyed.
That’s
an indication of the power of chemistry.
I wrote that “the bomb got the press, but napalm did the work.” It also speaks to the difference between the
physicists who were some of the most prominent scientists in the United States
and in the world, and subsequently had reams of books written about them,
compared to the chemists who arguably produced a more cost effective weapon,
but weren’t particularly famous. Fieser
was a well-known chemist, but not famous on the level of Robert Oppenheimer or
Albert Einstein, and yet produced a very effective weapon.
Robin
Lindley: And the comparative casualties
in the bombing of Japan produced by napalm versus the atom bombs is stunning.
Dr. Robert Neer:
The greatest human-created cataclysm in the history of the world remains the
United States attack on Tokyo on March 9, 1945, because over 87,000 people died
on that night as a direct result of the bombardment, which is more than died in
either of the explosions at Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Of course, many people died of follow-on
effects. Radiation poisoning killed many people after the Hiroshima and
Nagasaki events, but that also happened in Tokyo because people who were burned
out of their houses became sick or from smoke inhalation developed pneumonia
and many illnesses and problems that were follow-on effects of the burnt down
city around them. That underlines the
incredible destructive power of fire.
Robin
Lindley: It seems that even air force
general Curtis LeMay was stunned by the aftermath of the Tokyo bombing.
Dr. Robert Neer:
He said we, “scorched and boiled and baked to death more people in Tokyo on
that night of March 9-10 than went up in vapor at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
combined.”
Robin
Lindley: This is a morbid question, but
can you explain what happens when a human being is struck by napalm?
Dr. Robert Neer:
It’s a very effective because it’s sticky and burns at a very high
temperature.
Fire
works by emitting radiation, and it emits radiation most strongly to whatever
it is touching. If you think of a
burning match, the hottest part of the match is the stick of the match that
directly touches the fire, and the next hottest parts are above, then to the
sides, then below. So, if you want to
make an effective incendiary, the closer you get it to what you want to burn
and the longer it can be kept there, the more radiation energy you’ll be able
to transfer to whatever the target is, and therefore the more effective it will
be at starting and maintaining a fire.
In
the case of a human being, this means that if you get hit by napalm or get
napalm on you, this sticky substance that burns at an extremely high
temperature will stay there and continue burning all the way down to the bone,
unless it is put out.
It
is worth noting that napalm itself is not extremely flammable. You need a
relatively high temperature to get it to burn, so the other great scientific
achievement of the Harvard scientists was figuring out a way to ignite this
sticky, tough gel that they invented.
Their solution was to use white phosphorus, a chemical that burns at a
very high temperature when it comes into contact with air. The system they developed was a thin column
of high explosive, TNT, inside a thicker cylinder of white phosphorus, and
those two cylinders were inserted into the middle of a napalm bomb. When the bomb detonates, the high explosives
blast the white phosphorus into the napalm and scatters it over a wide area,
and that produces a fire cloud.
For
a person who is unfortunate enough to come into contact with this invention,
not only can the napalm burn them, but little bits of white phosphorus that are
mixed into it can also burn them. If you
put it out by putting mud over it or putting the [affected] part of the body
under water, if there’s enough white phosphorus mixed in, when it comes back
into contact with the air, it starts burning again. That’s an awful wound that
can take a long time to treat and heal.
This has devastating effects for people.
Robin
Lindley How is the fire from this
material extinguished when initially treating napalm wounds?
Dr. Robert Neer:
In the case of Kim Phuc, the little girl captured in the famous 1972 photo “The
Terror of War,” the napalm that hit her eventually burned itself out after
peeling off several layers of her skin.
When that picture was taken, her skin was still burning. She wasn’t a human torch, but there was still
combustion in the skin, and usually it will burn itself out or the person will
die.
Robin
Lindley: You frame the book with the
very moving story of Kim Phuc who was just nine in 1972 when she was injured by
napalm—and, as she ran from the blast, became the subject of Nick Ut’s photo,
one of the iconic photos of the twentieth century.
Dr. Robert Neer: I
was very moved by talking with her and, given her experiences and the power of
what she had to say about them, it was very appropriate way to begin and end
the book, especially since it’s a “An American Biography.” I see it as a story
of the United States in the world, not just a story about napalm.
Also,
I would say it’s a hopeful story or even uplifting because the larger subject
of the book is why we don’t use napalm as much any more, and how it could be
that burning a city in 1945 with napalm was considered a heroic act and
celebrated by Americans, but subsequent uses of napalm, especially after
Vietnam are condemned worldwide and faced with such disapproval that I would
say that military powers are restrained from using it, even though it’s legal
to use it under international law on the battlefield against combatants.
Robin
Lindley: You also detail the uses of
napalm between World War II and the war in Vietnam, particularly by the U.S. in
Korea and by our allies, often against anti-colonial forces or other
insurrections.
Dr. Robert Neer:
After the effectiveness of this inexpensive, very stable weapon was
demonstrated by the United States in World War II, commanders all around the
world wanted to use it for their own purposes.
It wasn’t a difficult chemical problem to solve once it had been
demonstrated, and the United States didn’t bother to keep it secret.
Indeed,
at the same time that the Rosenbergs were being electrocuted for espionage
relating to the atomic bomb, the United States published the chemical formulas
for napalm in a patent for the whole world.
That probably didn’t make much difference because it was a weapon that
was easily observed and it was adopted widely regardless of the patent, but it’s
an interesting parallel.
Subsequent
to World War II, napalm was used in most major conflicts around the world. It was used by many U.S. allies and it was
also used by other countries that were not so friendly to the U.S. But a broader paradigm is that it was used
in general by the rich and the powerful against the poor and the
dispossessed.
As
I mentioned, it’s a weapon that is most effectively delivered by airplanes, so
people with airplanes used napalm against people without airplanes all around
the world, from parts of disintegrating colonial empires like Vietnam and Kenya
to civil war like in Nigeria and in Brazil to conflicts between parties of all
different descriptions as in India and extensively in the Middle East.
I
think that speaks to the military effectiveness of this weapon and a lack of
any real criticism of it. It was just
another way of waging war until Vietnam.
In
the Korean War, the United States adopted a similar military strategy to that
which had been so effective in Japan, and used napalm to incinerate Pyongyang
and many other cities to the point where Douglas MacArthur came back and told
Congress that the level of destruction in Korea made him want to vomit. More napalm was used in Korea that in World
War II, and then again more napalm was used in Vietnam than in Korea.
Robin
Lindley: You write that napalm was a
hero that came a pariah, and it seems the shift of opinion was the result of
its use in Vietnam with images like those of Kim Phuc running from a napalm
blast and others that came out of the war.
Dr. Robert Neer: I
don’t think it was the use in Vietnam that turned napalm into a pariah so much
as the fact that the United States lost the war.
When
napalm was winning in World War II and Korea, there was very little criticism
of it at all. It should be said that
many images of napalm in Korea were censored, but there were descriptions of
its use, and it was no secret by any means.
And, as I said, it was also used enthusiastically around the world by
military commanders in a variety of other countries.
During
the Vietnam War, for the first time, a nationwide protest movement developed
that saw in napalm a symbol or metaphor for their complaint about U.S.
involvement in the war over all. The
record, as I saw it, suggested that the starting point was criticism of the
war, and the vehicle that the criticism was manifested through was napalm. Of course, these are complex phenomena, and
many people objected to use of the weapon itself. They were empowered to do that by a far
greater amount of coverage and description of the effect of the weapon than had
ever before been seen.
While
it certainly wasn’t a secret that napalm was being used by Americans in the
Second World War and the Korea War, it’s also true that it was much more widely
covered during the Vietnam War than ever before. For example, Ramparts magazine published the first photographs of children and
other civilians affected by napalm. And Ladies Home Journal and Redbook [ran] very vivid descriptions of
the impact of this weapon on civilians.
That triggered a nationwide protest movement by the youth of America on
college campuses across the country against Dow Chemical Corporation, which
manufactured napalm, [and that] continues to scar Dow’s reputation to this day.
In
a fairly short period, but in tandem with the nationwide movement of protest
against the Vietnam War, this highly focused objection to napalm became a
national movement.
Those
protest movements occurred in the late 1960s.
The iconic photograph of Kim Phuc was in 1972, after it seems that the
U.S. defeat in Vietnam was clear to many people that were familiar with the
story there. It was only after the war had been fought that napalm turned into
the global pariah that it is today. It’s
depiction after the war in movies, books and poems and all kinds of different
media took the message of those protestors and mobilized it, distributed it,
and cemented it. I’d say that didn’t happen during the war itself, but only
after the conclusion of the war was clear.
Robin
Lindley: After Vietnam, it would seem
that the United States would be reluctant to again use napalm, but you describe
subsequent military uses.
Dr. Robert Neer:
The United States since Vietnam has been reluctant to use napalm, but the
solution that the Defense Department adopted to that problem was to continue
the use of incendiary weapons but just not call them napalm, which is evidence
of the social opprobrium that napalm assumed following the Vietnam War.
During
the first Gulf War, the United States used napalm to ignite oil in trenches
that the Iraqis had built as a defensive mechanism.
During
the [1993] invasion of Iraq, the United States used napalm to capture various
Iraqi positions that were resisting our troops.
In
response to media reports in 1993 on the use of napalm, the response was that
the United States had destroyed its last stocks of napalm. That response was based on the argument that
the word “napalm” means the specific chemical formulation of weapon that was
used from 1945 to 1975, and now our incendiary weapons are gelled weapons with
a different chemical formulation and therefore they are no longer napalm. The problem with that argument is that the
term [napalm] itself has no chemical meaning.
It means only any gelled form of petroleum, and the current incendiary
weapons that the U.S. has its in arsenal use gelled petroleum based weapons so
they are napalm, just as the weapons that were dropped in 1945.
But
taking the military spokespeople at their word, it’s entirely possible to
understand how they would be unclear about that because there wasn’t any
history to tell them how the word was created or developed. That’s an example of what happens when a
country loses its history and that’s a testimony to the work that historians
do.
Robin
Lindley: You call napalm “a war criminal
on probation.” What is the legal status of napalm?
Dr. Robert Neer:
International law had no real criticism of napalm when it was winning, during
World War II, during the Korean War, and as other nations used it.
The
legal regulations of incendiary weapons under international law only came after
the U.S. defeat in Vietnam became clear.
It was only in 1980 that the United Nations General Assembly adopted
Protocol III of the wonderfully named Convention on Certain Conventional
Weapons. This is a treaty that regulates
a rogue’s gallery of horrible weapons that people have invented for war.
Protocol III covers incendiary weapons and stipulates that these devices are
under no circumstances to be used
against concentrations of civilians, even if military facilities are mixed in
with those concentrations. That’s a war
crime under provision of international law.
A
threshold point to observe is that napalm and other incendiary devices are
completely legal to use on the battlefield against combatants. For example, the use of napalm by the United
States during the invasion of Iraq was perfectly legal under international law.
The
response of the United States to the international control regime was to reject
it. Ronald Reagan and the first
president Bush both refused to submit that treaty to the Senate for
ratification. President Clinton decided
to submit it but only with a caveat or “reservation” as it’s called, which said
that the U.S. would recommend ratification of the treaty but only with the
proviso that the United States would disregard the treaty if, in its sole
judgment, using incendiary weapons against concentrations of civilians would
save more civilian lives than not doing so.
To my ears, that sounds similar to General LeMay’s justification for
incinerating the cities of Japan. He
said that people who objected to that kind of warfare reminded him of the
foolish man who cut off the dog’s tail an inch at a time because he said it
hurt less that way.
That
was the position under President Clinton, but the Senate, for its part, was not
interested in even discussing that treaty under President Clinton. The second President Bush followed the policy
of his predecessor and urged ratification on the same basis with the same
proviso, but the Senate was unwilling to discuss the issue until the very end
of his term, at which point, along with a rush of other treaty legislation,
they ratified the treaty subject to the proviso that I described. And President
Obama signed that treaty on his very first day in office. That’s the current law that the United States
follows, and also most of the world’s other countries, although not all.
Robin
Lindley: You have a fascinating
background with a law degree and a variety of jobs before you earned your
doctorate in history and now you’re teaching history at Columbia
University. How did you come to the
profession of history?
Dr. Robert Neer: I
went to law school at Columbia, but missed the undergraduate experience from my
college days as a history major. After
my second year of law school, I applied to a joint JD-PhD program at Columbia
and was accepted. In my third year of
law school, I had the experience of getting my Masters degree in history at the
same time I completed my JD requirements.
After
that, I had a lot of debt and I had been in school for a long time. I took a leave of absence and wound up
spending 14 years working in the media and entertainment and also in politics
in London, Hong Kong, Singapore, Los Angeles and Boston.
But
I maintained my love for history throughout that time and, when I came to a
stopping point in my business career, I went back and talked to my professors
at Columbia and told them I’d like to come back and finish my doctorate. They were encouraging and said, “Once
admitted, always admitted. Come on back.”
In
2005, I returned to the program. I went
through a year of required course work to get my mind back in the world of
academia. Then I took my general exams
and then wrote my dissertation. Along
the way, I had experience teaching in the history department at Columbia and,
when I graduated and there was a job opportunity that they offered me, I took
it, and I’ve been very happy ever since.
Robin
Lindley: Do you have any final thoughts
on what you hope people take from your book or on the continuing resonance of
this story?
Dr. Robert Neer:
My main hope is that other people would be interested in writing other books or
articles on different aspects of the story of napalm. There are plenty of interesting ones. I made a website, napalmbiography.com, where
I’ve presented ideas for other studies about napalm.
The
remarkable thing to me about this story is what I would call “the silence.”
This weapon that has affected millions of people around the world, and was
invented in the United States, which has one of the largest professional groups
of historians in the world, wasn’t written about at all by anybody for 71
years. That’s my greatest ambition for
this project.
Robin Lindley is a Seattle writer and
attorney. He is the features editor for the History News Network and his
writing has appeared in HNN, Writer’s Chronicle, Crosscut, Real Change,
Re-Markings, NW Lawyer, and more. He is the former chair of the World
Peace through Law section of the Washington State Bar Association. He has a
special interest in human rights, health and the history of medicine. He can be
reached at robinlindley@gmail.com.