Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, Asia and the Pacific, Volume VI, Part 2

Manila Post Files: 430.1 Napalm Bomb

Memorandum by the Ambassador in the Philippines (Cowen) to the Third Secretary of Embassy (Cuthell)

secret

Manila, July 9, 1951.

Subject: Reference Deptel 72, July 6, 1951.¹

The Department feels, as I have long felt, that the use of napalm bombs by the Philippine armed forces is a hazardous venture to the extent that if any innocent Philippine citizens were inadvertently burned by the careless use of napalm we would be held at least morally responsible inasmuch as we had provided the Philippine armed forces with the napalm. I suggested to JUSMAG some months ago that consideration might be given to training a limited number of Philippine crews in the use of napalm and then making napalm available under certain circumstances from time to time as the occasion might require, if specifically approved by JUSMAG. However, in my opinion the napalm bombs should be kept stored either at Clark Field—and there are napalm bombs there now—or in some other storehouse under the direct and complete control of JUSMAG.

I discussed this matter briefly with Ed Lansdale a few days ago. Lansdale is of the opinion that a somewhat more liberal use of napalm should be given to the Philippine armed forces. We may want to consider the advisability of deferring a final decision in this matter until General Hobbs’ successor has arrived and taken over. I would particularly prefer to defer the use of any napalm until after the November elections.²

1. In this telegram, drafted in the office of International Security Affairs and cleared with the Office of Philippine and Southeast Asian Affairs, as well as the Department of Defense, the Department had stated: “Subj napalm bombs. Ref recent discussions subj by Amb Cowen in Dept and Def and last para June 21 letter Amb to General Bradley, Emb requested submit agreed Emb–JUSMAG plan for handling subj. Def sending JUSMAG similar inst.” (796.5–MAP/7–651)
2. A handwritten marginal note, possibly by Mr. Cuthell, who was assigned to liaison duties with JUSMAG, reads as follows: “Discussed with Cols. [?] & [Grady W.] Butler of [JUSMAG] 7/10/51”.