Ann Clwyd's epistemology posted by Richard Seymour

The Vicar of Cynon Valley is in The Guardian today , complaining about an allegation from the Iraqi writer Haifa Zangana:

Haifa Zangana (Comment, April 22) accuses the multinational forces in Iraq of using a "modern form of napalm" against the people of Falluja, "a crime that has been met with silence not just by Tony Blair but also by Ann Clwyd, his human rights envoy". In fact I raised the allegations with Foreign Office minister Elizabeth Symons, who told me in her February reply that "the reports are completely without foundation. Coalition forces have not used napalm - either during operations in Falluja, or at any other time." It's a pity Zangana ignores those Iraqis working with great courage to rebuild the country after the horrors of Saddam.
Ann Clwyd
Prime minister's special envoy on human rights in Iraq

Bless. The job title alone is a blast. Let's follow the argument:

1) (If p, then q) If the government denies something it isn't so.
2) (p) The government denies the use of napalm in Iraq.
3) (q) The government did not use napalm in Iraq.
4) (xyz) Haifa Zangana is a shiraz-quaffing, middle-class, stuck-up, snooty intellectual.

The first three points are a valid form of argument, in the form of modus ponens. If the antecedent of a conditional is true, then the consequent must also be true. So if points one and two are true, then point 3 does indeed follow from them. The argument is valid. Point four is barmy.

However, I would modestly suggest that point one could be technically described as gibberish. Moreover, it is worth checking out what Zangana actually said : "Banned weapons have been used in Iraq too, as the US military has been forced to admit, including the MK-77 incendiary bomb, a modern form of napalm."

MK-77 is indeed a napalm canister , so if it happens to be true that the US admits to using such a device in Iraq, then what Ann Clwyd has said is even more thorough bullshit. Actually, it isn't news. In August 2003, US officials were defending their use.

In fact, according to the State Department , "Mark-77 firebombs, which have a similar effect to napalm, were used against enemy positions in 2003". In fact, the US Department of Defense refers to these as not merely 'napalm-like' but simply as napalm:

"Everything from hand grenades to 2,000-pound bombs and napalm are shipped, ready for use whenever 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing needs them."

US military officials describe it as napalm :

'We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches', said Colonel Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. 'Unfortunately, there were people there because you could see them in the [cockpit] video. They were Iraqi soldiers there. It’s no great way to die'. He added, 'The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect.'

There are various stories about the use of napalm in Fallujah in November 2004. Whether these are true or not matters less than the enormous, documented destruction that was inflicted on that city and its trapped inhabitants during the siege. But is a worthy testament to Clwyd's deliberate myopia that she will rest on any shoddy misrepresentation of the facts provided she has the mandate of the government to do so.