I could agree to your last statement if you delete "incendiary weapons" and insert "smoke munitions" which more accurately describes the incident.

You posted this.
"WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breaches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE.
We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out"

They used it "for screening", as a "psychological weapon" and to "flush them out."
They did not use it to inflict casualties. It would not be effective for that because it is not a weapon.

We are not going to agree on this. We have both stated our views.
Do you say it was genocidal?
Does it compare with an accepted "chemical weapons attack" like the attack on Iraqi Kurds at Halabja?
If not, it is misleading to use the same description.