News

News

Published

July 5, 2018

Written by

Airwars Staff

Despite concerns raised by MPs, the Netherlands Defence Minister confirmed during a recent parliamentary debate that the government still has no plans to disclose where or when in Iraq or Syria its airstrikes might have harmed civilians.

While the renewed Dutch air campaign against so-called Islamic State has seen improved transparency, all requests for information on the mission have so far been refused. On April 18th 2018, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands turned down a Freedom of Information request from RTL News for Internal Memoranda, which contained the locations and dates of Dutch strikes in Iraq. According to the Court, publishing this information could present a “danger to the security of the state” and might, in an ongoing mission, “harm the relations with other states and international organizations”.

This refusal to publish information on Dutch airstrikes was reiterated by Minister of Defence Ank Bijleveld during a June 27th debate in the Netherlands Parliament. Political interest has grown in civilian harm issues after The Netherlands officially conceded for the first time in April that its aircraft had caused civilian casualties in up to three incidents in Iraq. 

The Defence Ministry has however refused to say where or when these events took place – or how many civilians were harmed. On June 27th, the issue was discussed in a general debate on current Dutch military missions. Despite the efforts of several MPs to push for more details of civilian harm events, the Ministry of Defence stuck to its initial decision not to disclose further information.

21 written questions on civilian harm

Prior to the debate, elected representatives posed 72 written questions on the general progress the Dutch anti-ISIS mission has made over the past year. Of these, 21 were questions specifically focused on civilian harm issues, and the lack of public transparency and accountability for Dutch strikes. Some of those questions drew on a recent parliamentary briefing provided by Airwars to MPs. 

Specifically, MPs requested that Minister of Defence Ank Bijleveld make available more information about investigated incidents in which civilian casualties may have occurred, so that “independent investigation is possible”. One question specifically asked whether or not the Defence Ministry could rule out responsibility for a major civilian harm incident at Hawija in 2015 – a civilian casualty event which has already attracted private speculation among Dutch journalists as to whether Netherlands aircraft might have been responsible.

Although the Cabinet has stated that it “attaches importance to communicating as openly as possible,” it was it said not prepared to respond to requests for more information on any of the four cases assessed by the Public Prosecution Service, citing national and operational security.

Prepared for this often-repeated argument, MPs requested further explanations as to how more transparency about civilian casualties in Dutch operations might endanger Dutch troops or civilians domestically, as the government has claimed. Without going into further detail, the Defence Minister responded that the guiding principle of releasing information would always be “the safety of the individual pilot and the unit, but also the safety of their home front and of Dutch society and the Coalition as a whole.”

Following up on this lack of transparency – the worst among all 14 Coalition allies – Socialist Party MP Sadet Karabulut noted during the debate that “if that were the case, the United Kingdom and Australia would also not publish the locations. This information is made public because it is also in the interest of our military.” The Minister in turn answered that “Each country of the Coalition makes its own decisions.”

“That’s just how we do it”

Salima Belhaj, MP for the social-liberal D66 which is a part of the governing coalition, reminded the minister of her own party’s successful cross-party motion which calls for more detailed reporting on Dutch weapon deployments. “Wouldn’t you find it interesting if the Cabinet would publish the locations and dates?” she asked the Minister. Karabulut added that her party wholeheartedly supported this request for more transparency, stating that “SP and D66 have throughout the years always jointly pushed for this.” 

“We cannot report more than we do at the moment”, Minister Bijleveld responded. “You stated that our weekly updates on Wednesday are a step in the right direction. They are. But we will not do more than that because in the end the safety of the state always stands at first place.”

Karabulut in turn stressed that there is in fact a direct strategic incentive for the disclosure of airstrike data. “Because specific information on three incidents is not made public, the Netherlands can possibly be connected to hundreds of possible civilian casualty incidents.”

When Karabulut asked if the Minister did not want to rule out possible responsibility for these incidents, she replied that the Public Prosecution Service had concluded that there was no question of criminal offences in the four assessed Dutch strikes. “Because that is what it really is about”, she stated. “That is the method we use in the Netherlands and it is different from other countries, but that’s just how we do it”.

However, according to Airwars director Chris Woods, such a narrow legalistic approach to civilian harm is insufficient: “With most reported battlefield casualties in the Coalition’s war against ISIS likely occurring within the framework of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), we urge the Defence Ministry to tackle the broader issue of mitigating civilian harm from all actions. That means properly understanding where and when casualties occur – including those strikes which do not breach IHL.”

▲ Library image: Dutch F-16 takes off (via Netherlands Defence Ministry).

Published

June 20, 2018

Written by

Airwars Staff

As part of our new Libya monitoring project, Airwars and New America reached out to AFRICOM, the US military command for Africa, highlighting all known alleged civilian casualty events in which US aircraft had been implicated. We also included a list of all reported airstrikes by unknown belligerents between 2012 and 2018, and asked whether US forces had participated in any of those events.

AFRICOM’s full response from spokesman Major Karl Wiest is published below – lightly edited to remove personal details.

AFRICOM response to Airwars

“Thank you for contacting U.S. Africa Command and for allowing our team to assess the data you provided.

Before responding to the questions you posed, I would like to be clear that U.S. Africa Command has many processes in place to ensure the safety and protection of the local population remains a top priority. These procedures, combined with precision strike capabilities, safeguard civilians and infrastructure in areas of operation. The protection of civilians is fundamentally consistent with the effective, efficient, and decisive use of force in pursuit of U.S. national interests. As a matter of policy, U.S. forces therefore routinely conduct operations under policy standards that are more protective than the requirements of the law of war that relate to the protection of civilians. U.S. forces also protect civilians because it is the moral and ethical thing to do. Although civilian casualties are a tragic and unavoidable part of war, no force in history has been more committed to limiting harm to civilians than the U.S. military.

As for your questions, since 2012 U.S. Africa Command has conducted post-strike assessments of all U.S. Military actions. From the Fall of 2016, the command has assessed two (2) recorded CIVCAS allegations related to operations in Libya. After thorough investigations, both claims were deemed not credible. In fact, the evidence gathered in one of the investigations strongly suggested that our adversaries in the region were simply lying about alleged civilian casualties in order to bolster their public perception. Evidence found at the time of the respective investigation to support this finding included our adversaries publishing photographs from another area of responsibility while claiming they were new CIVCAS incidents in Libya.*

Also, with regards to the specific incidents you highlighted and asked our team to review, they are not assessed as credible with the information currently available.

Lastly, U.S. Africa Command does not maintain a list of Host Nation or other Nations’ strikes, nor do we track the military engagements of host nations. As such, we are unable to accurately assess the associated credibility of the unknown belligerent incidents on the spreadsheet you provided.”

In addition, in response to local reports that three civilians were killed along with an ISIS commander in a confirmed US strike on June 6th 2018, AFRICOM issued the following statement on June 20th:

“In coordination with the Libyan Government of National Accord (GNA), U.S. forces conducted a precision airstrike near Bani Walid, Libya, on June 6, killing four (4) ISIS-Libya militants, as previously released. Following reports alleging civilian casualties resulting from this operation, U.S. Africa Command performed a thorough review and determined the allegations of civilian casualties to be not credible. As with any allegation of civilian casualties, U.S. Africa Command reviewed all available relevant information concerning the incident. The command complies with the law of armed conflict and takes all feasible precautions to minimize civilian casualties and other collateral damage.”

* AFRICOM has declined to provide locations and dates for the two reported civilian harm incidents in Libya cited here that it has investigated.

▲ Library image: Reaper drones conducted 60% of almost 500 US airstrikes on the Libyan city of Sirte in 2016, coordinated through AFRICOM (Image: US AIR Force)

Published

May 30, 2018

Written by

Airwars Staff

Three months after the capture of Raqqa from so-called Islamic State, the Raqqa Reconstruction Committee (RCC) began the hard job of helping to resurrect the largely destroyed city, while recovering the remains of thousands killed in heavy fighting. RCC’s work is often dangerous. Since the end of hostilities in October 2017, hundreds of civilians have been wounded or killed by mines and IEDS left behind by ISIS. Still, the committee works daily to uncover the dead, seeking out mass graves and informal burial sites across the city. The mental and physical challenges faced by recovery crews are extraordinary. There is still little reprieve from death in this city.

In late May, Airwars spoke at length with a key member of the Raqqa Reconstruction Committee. For security reasons, they have asked to remain anonymous. The interview was originally conducted in Arabic and has been lightly edited for clarity.

Looking for his brother's body, daily and tirelessly ..never losing hope Alaa's sad story is one of hundreds the surfaced after the recent discovery of a mass grave in the center of Al Raqqa#Reconstruction_Committee#Raqqa_civil_Council#Initial_Response_team #RaqqaRC pic.twitter.com/59MVcC4qqx

— Raqqa Reconstruction Committee (@RaqqaRc) May 2, 2018

Airwars: Please tell us about the Raqqa Reconstruction Committee?

Raqqa Reconstruction Council: The reconstruction committee receives a lot of help through the Civil Council. We’re not sure where the money originates, but it’s all through the Council.

We started with the most important things to do after liberating the city. The civil defense duties were the most important. There were so many dead people – whether civilian or militant – so we made a team and called it the First Responding Team. It included Civil Defence duties such as the fire department and first aid.

We worked on getting people with relevant experience in these fields. Since we did not have forensic doctors, we had to bring [them in] from outside to supervise the process of collecting bodies. At first the team was made up of volunteers, and then we got financial support. We were asked by families – at the beginning we used unsophisticated tools and when we got funding we were able to buy better tools to dig, and a bulldozer, all the cars and bags and everything else we needed. And now we are expanding.

After attending to individual requests, we were faced with mass graves. We developed teams that would roam the city and make initial assessments. We had an initial evaluation of gardens, parks and empty lots and other related areas. We then made estimates about where there might be bodies. We started this on January 8th 2018.  

Airwars: You’ve said that there are thousands of open reports of bodies in Raqqa. How many bodies have been recovered and how many people do you think died in the city? RRC: Since we began working, we have recovered almost 700 bodies, but we don’t have an overall estimate of the number of people who died in the city. There are estimates on social media about Raqqa which put it at two, three or four thousand, but as a team we can’t tell how many civilians were killed overall. I can refer you to the UN, which mentioned that 80 percent of the city was destroyed as of April 1st. As a personal estimation, when I entered the city – I was among the first people to enter on October 21st, 2017 – I made the same assessment.

From the northern side it’s even worse, and could be 90 or 100 percent, but [the level of destruction] goes down when you move south and east, to 40 percent or 10 percent. But in the city generally, it’s 80 percent.

Airwars: Have you found mass graves?

RRC: There were buildings where we recovered 10 bodies and other buildings were we got 20 and 30, but we wouldn’t call it a mass grave. Mass graves are bodies buried by people, not under the rubble.

Some people came and told us they have someone buried in a specific park and asked if we could remove the body and rebury them. Then we asked why they were buried in the park, and they would tell us: during the final stages [of fighting] when there was heavy bombardment of cars, people couldn’t move the bodies in a normal fashion. They would gather all the bodies together and in the evening ISIS would bury them in the closest place.

Bodies would be put in bags and the ground was already dug so they would bring the bodies – they would put two, three, four bodies together and bury them in this ground. So it was due to initial assessments in the city and people’s testimonies and from working in the city. Once we started working on day one we started uncovering other places.

Airwars: The bodies in the mass graves, are they women, men, children, civilians, or fighters? How many are there?

RRC: The bodies belonged to women, children and men – for the latter we can’t tell if they were civilians or fighters. Some of them were militants but very few. The rest of the men, we can’t tell who’s a militant and who is a civilian.  It’s written on the bags [by whoever buried them] ‘a man, a woman, a child, a civilian.” Very, very few had written that this was a militant. But this does not mean that the rest are not militants.

We don’t have a final death toll of the number of women, men and children but we have so far recovered 150 bodies from Al-Rashid Stadium, and 27 bodies from  Hadika Baiyda [“White Garden” – a residential garden area of the city] where the second mass grave is.

Workers dig out bodies in a mass grave at the al-Rashid Stadium (Image courtesy of Raqqa Reconstruction Committee)

Airwars: Are bodies still being recovered from under the rubble?

RCC: We are still recovering them. Lately we’ve been busy with mass graves. We have more than one team – most of the team members are directed to the mass graves specifically, because it’s summer and the way they were buried was not 100% proper so sometimes there’s a smell. We try to allocate most of our efforts towards the mass graves but there is another team working on people under the rubble.

Airwars: How do you think people died in Raqqa? From airstrikes, artillery, from being shot?

RRC: Most likely, the majority died from aerial bombardment. Of course there were those who died from artillery but we could tell the difference with artillery. If there is partial destruction in the building then it’s artillery, but when it’s completely destroyed it is an airstrike. 

Airwars: Do you know how much artillery and how much airstrike destruction there was?

RRC: Probably 35% by artillery and the rest is airstrikes. It’s just an estimation.

Airwars: You told us that it’s summer, and that you want to recover the bodies. Could you please tell us more about the possible diseases you face from the heat and the decomposition of the bodies?

RRC: On the ground, until now we haven’t seen signs of diseases. But from initial assessments in the streets, there are areas where there’s a smell and other places there isn’t a smell but one thing that’s common is that the city is full of flies.

Airwars: What is the process when you recover bodies? When you have recovered 150 bodies from the stadium, what do you do to document those you have recovered?

RRC: When we recover multiple bodies [usually in bags], we put them near where they were recovered. With the presence of the forensic doctor, we open the body bag, and we try to identify the body. Then we write down what is written on the bag – whether it’s a number or a name. We identify the body if we can, as belonging to a woman, a child, a militant or a civilian; if the body is wrapped [in a Kafan] or wearing clothes.

We write the description of the clothes or the Kafan. Of course we haven’t seen a full body recovered. By that I mean that bodies have started to decompose even though they are in bags, but decomposed so you wouldn’t be able to tell what kind of injury the body had, whether it’s a head wound, or shrapnels or a cut. We write the condition of what we’ve seen. We place the remains in another bag which does not leak smells, and then transfer it to the cemetery and bury it properly.

To stop water wastingThe Water Sector in the reconstruction committee is on a mission to close all the open ends of the water pipes in abandoned buildings#Reconstruction_Committee #Raqqa_Civil_Council #RaqqaRC pic.twitter.com/oTR6gCBZgs

— Raqqa Reconstruction Committee (@RaqqaRc) May 8, 2018

Airwars: How much of a problem are unexploded munitions in Raqqa?

RRC: This is a very important point. The war has ended but a new one has just started. If you follow what ISIS releases [electronically], ISIS sent a message to the SDF and the civilians in general – people in this area – that we have left this land but will fight you for years. This was a remark alluding to the explosives which were intentionally planted, and other unexploded munitions.

For example, a few days ago, a guy was driving a bulldozer to help build a new house. There was an explosion while he was on the bulldozer, and in a 300 meter perimeter — or even half the perimeter was 300 meters — we couldn’t find him.

The danger is huge. Civilians have suffered badly, especially in the beginning when they entered the city in the first two months, when people returned to their homes. Explosives and mines were left in ways you wouldn’t imagine. Like if you opened the fridge, or the house door, or a window, and sometimes even if you opened the water tap or turned the switch or the water meters in the buildings – these are places that wouldn’t occur to you.

They even put explosives wired to a loofah. There was a woman with her children. They left Ain Essa camp and went back to her house in the city. After almost a week, she needed to use the loofah, so she moved it and it exploded and she died with her children. This danger is there from the beginning and it’s still present in the city and even the countryside. We have plenty of water stations that we have to rebuild and make work again, also power cables, government and public buildings, streets and even barriers. We assume that mines are everywhere.

Airwars: What about unexploded bombs and missiles?

RRC: There’s not a lot, only a few. ISIS’s strategy was to leave ammunition which would explode. We have discovered more than one ammunition factory. There is also some unexploded ammunition still in some parks, though not as many as the mines. They could be from SDF or anyone. We can’t tell whose ammunition it is. 

Airwars: When you recover the bodies and bury them again, do people know the location of the new graves? Or if people want to know if you have recovered a body, can they find out? Is there anything online or names in the new cemetery?

RRC: They are buried in a part of the city’s cemetery designated for these new bodies. It’s east of the city in a place called Tal Al-Bai’ya. We bury them individually. We leave marks here; if we have names [from the bags] we write them down. If not, we write numbers and we have in our files that body number X was found in such and such an area, and buried in this new area. If someone gives us information about a specific person, we would check and see if we have a match.

Airwars: Has anyone been able to identify or claim bodies? For example has anybody come to you and told you about a family member, and then it was possibly to identify them subsequently?

RRC: People can sometimes identify bodies while we are retrieving them, particularly where we recover the dead after receiving a family request. So we’d give people an appointment, for example a Saturday, so they would come and we then recover the bodies.

[Conversely] the bodies we recover from the rubble, nobody can identify even family members. The bodies have been exposed to the air and have decomposed, with only a few pieces left which cannot be identified. Not even their parents can identify them.

As for the mass grave, if someone had left a mark — some families for example left a mark in front of a hole, saying that a person related to me died in this hole —  then they can guess which person it is from the exact spot. When we find documents then some people recognize the victims – or from their clothes or the personal items they have on them. But these situations are very rare and only for those under the rubble, not the mass graves. Nobody was able to identify any body [in the mass graves].

Recovery crews handle a previously buried body at the Al-Rashid Stadium (via RRC).

Airwars: You have recovered 150 bodies from the stadium and 27 from Hadika Baiyda. Were you able to identify anyone?

RRC: No, not at all. We ourselves couldn’t identify them but there were some individual cases, I mean, for example Al-Rashid Stadium is different from Hadika Baiyda (White Garden).

Al-Rashid Stadium burials were done by ISIS members, because it is very close to the National Hospital in Raqqa. but  Hadika Baiyda was among many residential buildings. This area was besieged and bombarded especially in the last phase [of the battle for Raqqa.] People here were buried individually but there were also mass burials as well. Due to the bombardment, people weren’t able to take them to the cemetery, but buried them in the garden temporarily and left a mark.

Those buried individually, most people know who they belong to. Some people came back and were able to recover the body of their family because they were buried individually by their families, so these graves are known. But the bodies which weren’t recovered, we think their families left Raqqa and left Syria and never came back. If they went back, they would have recovered these bodies and reburied them properly.  

However, Hadika Bayda burials were carried out by the families. Due to the bombardment, they couldn’t go to the cemetery, which is almost 3km from the city center. People couldn’t transport the dead bodies in cars, because the cars were targeted by aircraft thinking they belonged to ISIS.

So people started digging in the garden to bury their families, and the same applies for other gardens and parks. Many of these people who buried their family members and and left the city, or who managed to flee, later came back and recovered the body even before we had started our project, and sometimes they ask us to recover them and rebury them in the city cemetery.

However for those who went to Turkey or Lebanon or any other country and couldn’t come back, they couldn’t recover the body. While they of course know where they buried their relatives, that knowledge is lost to us in Raqqa.

Despite the High temperature during #Ramadan.. The initial response team is never reluctant to help people identifying their loved ones, the bodies exhuming process continues in (Al Rasheed) field mass grave #Reconstruction_Committee#Raqqa_Civil_council#Initial_Response_Team pic.twitter.com/uxHG7BPnVP

— Raqqa Reconstruction Committee (@RaqqaRc) May 29, 2018

Airwars: Family members who come to ask you to recover their loved one’s bodies, do they tell you how they were killed?

RRC: Of the people coming to us, we don’t have statistics about how their loved ones died. But some have told us they were killed by ISIS snipers, when civilians tried to leave in the last days before the city was given to the SDF. Some said their relatives were killed by [air] bombardment, some by artillery. It seems to me the majority were killed by either air or artillery attacks. There are so many killed and under the buildings.

These graves – people used parks and stadiums due to air strikes. The bodies there definitely were not killed by ISIS because ISIS when they killed people, they had no manners. If you remember what they did in Shehaytat, in Deir Ezzor, they killed 750 people in cold blood, ISIS would show them in videos and on their media. But these people [in Raqqa] were killed in bombardments.

Airwars: You mentioned that the bodies in the stadium are not identified?

RRC: Yes, and I will tell you a story, A mother came looking for her son. He left the city when the SDF created a safe passage for civilians to leave. This guy took one of those passages, but he was shot by a sniper, that’s what his mother told us, so his friends who were with him took him to the National Hospital, but he died in the hospital and was buried at night in Al-Rashid Stadium.

His mother came to ask about him and gave us his name, but we didn’t have names. We showed her the documentations and marks of the bodies we found, a woman here, a child there, a man there, but there are no features, so she couldn’t tell where he was buried and even if she sees all the bodies, she wouldn’t be able to identify her son [due to the state of the remains]. If the body was not left with a mark from the person who was burying it, it is impossible to identify it at all. This was for Al-Rashid Stadium.

Airwars: You work with dead bodies on a daily basis. This must be very difficult for you due to the number of those killed, and the families who come to ask about their loved ones. How do you cope with this kind of work?

RRC: It’s such suffering. Working with dead bodies is still dangerous because you’re recovering bodies and you don’t know what’s buried inside. The mine removal teams are active in the city, but small things might put people in danger. We have recovered militants’ bodies and the explosive belts were still on them, and this puts the whole team in danger. Thank God, it still hasn’t happened [an explosion].

This job is difficult and dangerous. We’re still doing it and adapting, but working in the mass graves is highly dangerous both physically and mentally for team members. We have given days off to members of the team. We transfer them to another team to search for bodies under the rubble, and step away from the mass graves.

Working in mass graves creates a shock and leaves you in a state where you don’t want to eat or drink or even have a healthy life. So in order to adapt, we rotate the team members, some of them work in the mass graves, some search for bodies in the city, others recover bodies from under the rubble, and that allow us to keep a minimum effect mentally and physically on team members.

Published

April 13, 2018

Written by

Airwars Staff

The Netherlands Public Prosecution Service has found that Dutch forces killed or injured civilians during anti-ISIS operations in up to three historical incidents in Iraq.

However the country’s military has since told Airwars it is still refusing to divulge when between 2014 and 2016, or exactly where in Iraq the incidents took place for reasons of national and operational security.

The new findings relating to four separate airstrikes — all in Iraq — were released in a progress report on Dutch involvement in the anti-ISIS Coalition, presented to Parliament on April 13th.

While the report found that none of the strikes had violated the laws of war, it did reveal for the first time that Dutch aircraft had caused civilian harm. Until now the Netherlands has denied all such claims.

‘Civilian casualties did occur’

The report described in some detail the sequence of events surrounding each incident. But crucially it omitted the dates and locations for each event – preventing them from being matched against almost 1,000 alleged Coalition civilian casualty incidents in Iraq since 2014. The Netherlands has also given no indication of how many civilians were killed or injured in each event.

In the first case, Dutch F-16s were involved in an attack on a suspected vehicle-borne IED plant. “The IED factory turned out to have more explosives than previously known, or could have been calculated,” said the prosecutor’s office. The prosecutor noted that the attack “ led to the destruction of buildings in the area” and said ”it is very likely that civilian casualties occurred during this attack.”

In a second case – in which the Prosecution Service explicitly found that “civilian casualties did occur” –  Dutch aircraft were involved in attacking a building that had been identified as an “ISIS headquarters” but was later found to be a residential building. Notably, the report to Parliament cited faulty Coalition intelligence. “Before and during the deployment the F-16 pilots had no indication that the information was incorrect,” Parliament was told.

A third case was described as a car driving “suddenly” into the blast area of a strike on a building, during which time “civilian casualties were possible.”

The last case investigated involved the incorrect targeting of a building, which the report said was due to the wrong settings in an F-16 targeting system. No civilian deaths were believed to have resulted, the Dutch government report found.

Though civilian deaths were confirmed or likely in three of the four cases reviewed, the Public Prosecution Service determined that international humanitarian law had not been violated during any of the attacks. Even so, the investigation found that Dutch military actions had led to civilian harm.

‘Dutch government must now step forward’

The Netherlands now takes its place alongside the United States and Australia as the only members of the 13-member Coalition to admit to causing civilian casualties during anti-ISIS operations in Iraq or Syria.

However, unlike Australia or the US, the Netherlands is still refusing to release dates and locations for the strikes in question, making external evaluations of their findings impossible. Airwars asked the Dutch Ministry of Defense why, and was told by a spokesperson that on national and operational security grounds nothing further would be divulged.

Between October 2014 and July 2016, Dutch F-16s fired more than 1,800 munitions in hundreds of airstrikes against ISIS targets in both Iraq and Syria. In January 2018, the Netherlands once again resumed strikes after swapping in with its Benelux partner Belgium.

“With the Netherlands for the first time admitting civilian harm from its actions in the war against ISIS, it is unacceptable that the locations and dates of the airstrikes are still not being released,” said Airwars Dutch advocacy officer Koen Kluessien. “How can affected Iraqis and Syrians ever have accountability for their loved ones? It’s time for the Dutch government to step forward, and take full responsibility for these sad events.”

Published

March 15, 2018

Written by

Airwars Staff

A renewal of airstrikes by the Netherlands against so-called Islamic State in 2018 has been accompanied by some improvement in public transparency, an Airwars assessment of the first two months of the campaign has concluded.

While the Netherlands remains less transparent than the UK, changes to the way it publicly reports on military actions now place it on a par with France, one of the more transparent nations in the US-led alliance. Airwars Dutch advocacy officer Koen Kluessien welcomed “this positive move”, while encouraging the defence ministry to go further.

Since the renewal of its mission on January 5th, the Netherlands has included the location of the nearest large settlement to a Dutch strike in its weekly updates. Previously no locational data was provided – leading Airwars repeatedly to identify the Netherlands as the least transparent member of the 13-nation Coalition.

However, despite recent improvements the Dutch defence ministry still does not state on which precise date it conducted its actions, something the UK has been doing since the beginning of the war in 2014. That in turn means Dutch actions cannot be cross-referenced against specific public claims of civilian harm – a key demand from Airwars and others advocating for better public transparency.

“The improved reporting is a step in the right direction, but the Dutch Defense Ministry could do better. An advanced democracy like the Netherlands should be leading the way when it comes to public transparency and accountability,” said Kluessien, who has been closely monitoring the renewed mission.

Six F-16s

The Dutch rejoined the US-led Coalition with six F-16s on January 3rd, from an airbase in Jordan. This is the second time the Netherlands has taken part in the fight against ISIS. Military operations first began in October 2014, with the campaign paused in July 2016 when Dutch F-16s swapped out for Belgian aircraft.

The move towards greater public transparency has brought the Netherlands more into line with all other active Coalition partners. Among the four known active members, the UK remains the most transparent – publicly reporting on the date, location and target of each strike. France and the Netherlands now publish the same level of data – saying roughly where they bomb in any given week – though not precisely when.

The United States now finds itself the least transparent member of the remaining Coalition members it leads – refusing to publish specific data on where, when or what it bombs. However the US is also the only one of the four nations to have conceded any civilian casualties in almost four years of airstrikes, and has committed significant resources towards broader Coalition transparency (for example staffing Operation Inherent Resolve’s civilian casualty monitoring cell.)

An Airwars graphic showing improved Dutch transparency and public accountability – now on a par with the weekly reporting of the French defense ministry.

Parliamentary engagement

In the run-up to the renewed mission, Dutch MPs returned to the issue of transparency and public accountability in late 2017. Parliament’s earlier demands for improved reporting during the 2014-2016 campaign had been ignored by the defense ministry. As social-liberal D66 MP Sjoerd Sjoerdsma stated in a Foreign Affairs committee meeting: “I would like to challenge the Minister of Defense to see if we can do more with regards to the transparency side of things. I had tabled a motion about this. This was passed with a large majority. I’m not quite sure what happened with this, from an operational point of view.”

Airwars director Chris Woods had already warned Dutch MPs at a November 29th parliamentary hearing in The Hague, that the Netherlands risked being remembered as the least transparent partner in the entire Coalition against so-called Islamic State. This concern was later echoed by several Members of Parliament in a plenary debate on the renewed missions against ISIS.

As a result, another cross-party motion was passed calling for “more detailed reporting on military weapon deployments”. The motion was supported by then Minister of Foreign Affairs Halbe Zijlstra, who stated: “[…] we cannot and will not put aside this call for transparency.”

Perhaps as a result of that motion – and of the long running campaign for more transparency from Airwars and others – the weekly reports accompanying the renewed Dutch campaign marked a relative improvement in transparency.

The first update was issued on January 10th by the defense ministry and reported that for the period of January 3rd-9th its F-16s deployed weapons during one mission near Abu Kamal in Deir Ezzor, Syria. Since then, a total of almost 20 Dutch airstrikes have been reported.

‘No civilian casualties’ claim

While the more detailed weekly reports mark a welcome step towards greater accountability, the Dutch defense ministry still insists that hundreds of Dutch airstrikes in Iraq and Syria have never led to any civilian casualties since 2014.

Even with improved airstrike reporting by the Netherlands, it remains difficult for affected victims to understand responsibility.

Between January 3rd and February 27th, our Syria researchers tracked and assessed 19 civilian casualty incidents allegedly tied to Coalition strikes in the vicinity of Abu Kamal and Abu Hammam. Of these 19 events, Airwars presently evaluates 15 as fairly reported and estimates that between 104 and 249 civilians likely died in these incidents.

However, with multiple belligerents bombing the region from the air – and the Netherlands not providing specific dates of strikes – attribution for recent events has proven to be challenging.

Asked if the defense ministry has cross-referenced its own airstrike data with any of these 19 specific claimed events, a spokesperson told Airwars: “When it comes to examining a weapon deployment after the fact, it is assessed whether or not the strike conformed with the mandate; and checked for possible civilian casualties and collateral damage. We use any information available to do so.“

An Airwars map showing the general location of Dutch airstrikes from January 3rd until February 27th. Nearly all of the 19 missions in which weapons were deployed occurred near Abu Kamal and Abu Hammam in Deir Ezzor, Syria.

No release of previous strike locations

Despite recent improvements, for airstrikes conducted during the first leg of its anti-ISIS campaign the Netherlands is sticking to its former levels of poor transparency and accountability.

When asked if the defense ministry would also release the near locations of earlier airstrikes, a senior public affairs officer told Airwars that “The weekly updates for the period 2014-2016 will not be adjusted. These are previous publications that we will not revise.”

At present, almost nothing is known about Dutch strikes between October 2014 and July 2016, even though Dutch F-16s fired more than 1,800 munitions. Official data suggests that the Netherlands may at times have been the fourth most active member of the Coalition – after the US, UK and France. However, all freedom of information requests for information on the Dutch campaign have so far been refused.

▲ Library image: A Dutch F-16 pilot checking missiles before take-off from an airbase in Jordan (Netherlands defence ministry)

Published

December 1, 2017

Written by

Airwars Staff

Dutch F-16s will resume their part in the Coalition’s air war against ISIS on January 1st. Yet while other members of the US-led Coalition have maintained or improved transparency and accountability, the Netherlands has always refused publicly to share any information on the date, location and targets of its airstrikes. Airwars director Chris Woods was one of five speakers invited to a November 29th Dutch parliamentary hearing on civilian casualties in the fight against ISIS.

The Netherlands risks being remembered as the least transparent partner in the entire global Coalition fighting so-called Islamic State, Airwars director Chris Woods warned Dutch MPs at a November 29th parliamentary hearing in The Hague.

Official munitions data suggests that during its previous engagement against ISIS, the Netherlands may have been the fourth most active member of the Coalition, after the US, UK and France. Yet a near-complete lack of public transparency and accountability means that almost nothing is known about any Dutch airstrikes between October 2014 and July 2016 – when more than 500 civilian casualty events were alleged. 

Strikes are set to resume on January 1st when close ally Belgium steps down. Yet defence officials have indicated that there are no plans to improve on the Netherlands’ notoriously-poor public transparency record – citing fears for the personal security of military personnel.

An updated Airwars graphic which measures transparency among all remaining Coalition belligerents shows the Netherlands to be far below all other allies when it comes to saying where, when or what is bombed, the committee was told.

An updated Airwars graphic makes clear how far behind other allies the Netherlands is when it comes to public accountability in Iraq and Syria.

Dutch lack of transparency makes public scrutiny impossible

During the parliamentary hearing – which featured MPs from most political parties – Han ten Broeke, MP for the conservative-liberal VVD, challenged Airwars by pointing out that certain details about Dutch airstrikes are in fact being shared. However, such information is only provided to MPs in closed committee sessions which cannot be publicly discussed. Some MPs have complained privately that they are unable to check Dutch military claims against the public record, as could be done with British or Canadian strikes for example. 

Dutch investigative journalist Sinan Can, who recently met with civilian victims in Iraq,  stressed the importance of public transparency during his own testimony, citing his experiences working on a recent documentary in East Mosul. “It was almost impossible to conduct in-depth research. […] I would like to know where and how many civilians were killed. A little more transparency would build trust. It would enable us [journalists] to explain what happened to the people in Mosul”, Can told MPs.

Independent journalist Jannie Schipper, who in July broke a story on the possible involvement of the Netherlands in an airstrike on January 26th 2015, also addressed MPs. Schipper told the personal story of Ebtehal Mohammed Yosef (26) and Mohammed Mohammed Ahmed (29), who both barely survived the incident.

The account poignantly answered a question of Martijn van Helvert, MP for the Christian-democratic CDA, who asked why Iraqis and Syrians do not simply leave ISIS-held territory when it is being bombed. Schipper said that Yosef and Ahmed had left Mosul in a convoy of six taxis, but were bombed twice on their way to Baghdad.

Wilbert van der Zeijden, senior researcher at human rights organisation PAX, indicated during the hearing that the Coalition risks losing sight of its original stated goal: “ISIS has almost been defeated, but the factors that brought it to power are still in place,” he warned.

According to Van der Zeijden’s policy brief, the military campaign often hasn’t protected civilians, nor has it led to stability in the region. In fact, it has at times done quite the opposite. In both Iraq and Syria the lack of a clear political post-ISIS strategy may lead to a new conflict. Instability, insecurity and a power vacuum were exactly the circumstances ISIS had initially profited from.

‘Without facts there is no justice’

MPs were told that despite the high reported number of civilian casualties, the assumption at Airwars is that most of the Iraqis and Syrians harmed in Coalition actions are not unlawfully killed. Even so, with so many foreign and local powers bombing in Iraq and Syria, relatives are entitled to understand who was responsible for specific actions.

That was a key reason why Professor Liesbeth Zegveld said she had decided to represent Yosef and Ahmed – making her the first lawyer in any Coalition country to take specific action on behalf of those affected by airstrikes.

Prof. Zegveld emphasized the importance of transparency by indicating that with a lack of data it is impossible for victims to assert their rights. “Without facts it is impossible to make a legal assessment. […] Without facts there is no justice”, the human rights lawyer told MPs.

Airwars director Chris Woods concluded his own remarks by calling on the Dutch government to take a different stance on publicly sharing essential airstrike information: “Does the Netherlands really want to be remembered as the least transparent and accountable member of the Coalition?”

However a number of MPs at the hearing stressed that Dutch concerns regarding the safety of military personnel were very real – and were keen to hear from the panelists how other Coalition allies managed transparency issues.

Read our short report to Tweede Kamer MPs setting out our concerns [in Dutch and English]

▲ Library image of munitions being loaded onto a Dutch F-16 during the war against ISIS (via Defensie)

Published

September 15, 2017

Written by

Airwars Staff

In late August, Airwars published a news feature in conjunction with Foreign Policy examining Coalition actions at Raqqa. The article reflected the high civilian casualty count in the Syrian city, as reported by local monitors; NGOs such as Amnesty International; the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; and latterly the UN-mandated Commission of Inquiry on Syria. Former Coalition commander Lt General Stephen Townsend has drafted a robust response to our report. While Airwars would take issue with much of the Coalition’s own analysis, we believe there is significant public value in publishing Lt Gen Townsend’s comments unedited and in full.

Lt. Gen. Stephen J. Townsend, former Commanding General of CJTF-OIR: Response to Samuel Oakford on ForeignPolicy.com

Having commanded the Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve effort to defeat ISIS over the past year, I would like to offer your readers some perspective on the execution of the campaign. Specifically, I would like to address some points raised by Airwars’ Samuel Oakford in his recent piece on civilian casualties in Syria.

The global Coalition to defeat ISIS shares Oakford’s concern for the welfare of civilians, but commanders must also equally protect our partner forces and Coalition service members who are putting their lives at risk every day to protect and free civilians in Raqqah and throughout ISIS-held Iraq and Syria.

In accordance with the law of armed conflict, the Coalition strikes only valid military targets after considering the principles of military necessity, humanity, proportionality, and distinction. I challenge anyone to find a more precise air campaign in the history of warfare. The Coalition’s goal is always for zero human casualties. We apply rigorous standards to our targeting process and take extraordinary efforts to protect non-combatants.

Assertions by Airwars, along with claims by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and media outlets that cite them, are often unsupported by fact and serve only to strengthen ISIS’s hold on civilians, placing civilians at greater risk. The civilian casualty numbers quoted in Oakford’s article are based on unsubstantiated allegations rather than facts. The Coalition deals in facts, so here they are.

We conduct a detailed assessment of each and every allegation of possible civilian casualties.  We hold ourselves accountable with an open and transparent process to assess allegations of civilian casualties, and we publish these findings on a monthly basis for the world to see.

Our critics are unable to conduct the detailed assessments the Coalition does. They arguably often rely on scant information phoned-in or posted by questionable sources.  The Coalition would be pilloried if we tried to use similar supports for our assertions. Still, their claims are often printed as fact and rarely questioned.

That said, the Coalition does not shy away from the accountability placed on us by our leaders, the media and human rights organizations. Oakford fails to mention that since the summer of 2017, the Coalition has worked directly with Airwars to ensure we assess every allegation of possible civilian casualties available.

Out of the 270 allegations obtained from Airwars that have been assessed thus far, 258 have been assessed as non-credible. Of those, 119 were assessed as non-credible because the Coalition did not conduct a strike near the area of the allegation.  Another 60 of those allegations were so vague in regard to the date and location of the alleged casualties that they were impossible to assess. The remaining 79 allegations were found to be non-credible due to lack of sufficient evidence or are still being assessed.

To date, based on data between August 2014 and July 2017, the Coalition conducted a total of 24,160 strikes that included 51,038 separate engagements.

The percentage of all Coalition engagements that resulted in a report of possible civilian casualties is 2.29 percent. The percentage of engagements that resulted in a credible report of civilian casualties was 0.32 percent.

Not since World War II has there been a comparable urban assault on a city like Mosul or Raqqah.  ISIS had nearly three years to prepare for the defense of these cities and then cowardly used civilians as human shields to protect themselves even further. They booby trap houses, they weld doors shut to hold civilians hostage and they shoot civilians that attempt to flee to the safety of our partners’ lines. ISIS has tortured, beheaded, and burned those that did not agree with them and they have gunned down women and children fleeing Mosul and Raqqah. They post the evidence of their evil for the world to see on social media.

There is no doubt that civilians are at risk every day from ISIS, our partner forces’ operations to defeat ISIS, and Coalition strikes in support of them. As the battle intensifies in the heart of Raqqah, more civilians will be at risk as ISIS holds them hostage and refuses to let them flee.  However, if they are not liberated they will also surely die, either at the hands of ISIS or from starvation.

The Coalition has done, and continues to do, everything within its power to limit harm to non-combatants and civilian infrastructure. But let us be clear: ISIS brought misery and death to this region, and ISIS is responsible for the plight of civilians in the areas they hold. The Coalition was invited to this region with the full knowledge that if ISIS is not defeated, the human cost will be even higher; it will be paid not just in Iraq and Syria, but in our homelands across the globe.

The assertion that the Coalition reduce strikes or pause operations to enable the evacuation of civilians treats ISIS as an actor that respects human rights. In reality, ISIS repeatedly demonstrates complete disregard for human life.

Any pause in operations will give ISIS more time to strengthen their defenses and take the initiative from our partners, putting more people in harm’s way. A pause will also further reinforce ISIS’s tactic of using civilians as human shields, prolonging the fighting and increasing the danger to non-combatants.

This is exactly what ISIS wants – to attack the strength of the Coalition – to create doubt and diminish support for a just mission against an evil enemy.

As we saw in Mosul, a prolonged battle in dense urban terrain is devastating for ground forces and civilians alike. This is something only ISIS wants to see. Although a commander’s imperative is to accomplish the mission and protect his own troops, he constantly and conscientiously manages the pace and intensity of operations, balancing the need to accomplish the mission with the risk to his own forces and the protection of non-combatants and infrastructure.

The only way to save the people of Raqqah is to liberate them from ISIS.  The Coalition will continue to take great care in our targeting to protect civilians from harm but we must maintain our course. We must maintain the initiative and we must liberate the people of Iraq and Syria from this real and mortal danger.

▲ Lt. Gen. Stephen J. Townsend, commanding general for Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, N.C., provides his remarks during the transfer of authority ceremony for CJFLCC-OIR in Baghdad, Iraq, July 12, 2017. The 1st Infantry Division transferred authority to the 1st Armored Division after a nine-month deployment in support of CJFLCC-OIR. (US Army Photo by Sgt. Von Marie Donato)

Published

August 11, 2017

Written by

Airwars Staff

Additional research by Samuel Oakford

Belgium has been implicated in two events in Iraq which the US-led Coalition says killed two civilians and wounded four others, national officials have told Airwars. The revelation comes despite denials by the country’s Defence Minister that ‘Operation Desert Falcon’ against so-called Islamic State has harmed any civilians – even after hundreds of airstrikes.

In May of this year, a senior Belgian official told Airwars that Brussels was likely involved in a civilian casualty incident resulting from a strike in Al Qaim, Iraq, on February 27th 2017. Airwars was also told about another incident, in Mosul on 21st March, which it understands was still under investigation by the Coalition at the time.

While the Coalition as a policy does not identify the involvement of individual countries in allegations, it did confirm the investigative status of these particular incidents. Both cases have now been classed as “credible” – meaning that the alliance has determined that civilian casualties likely resulted from the airstrikes – according to an email from Coalition officials to Airwars.

Conflicting public statements

The Coalition’s own monthly civilian casualty reports show that each of the two cases were initially brought to their attention through a “self-report” by an unnamed partner nation.

In an interview with Airwars, Colonel J. Poesen, head of operations at the Belgian Air Force said that Brussels disagreed with the Coalition’s assessment of the February 27th incident at al Qaim, which was published in a monthly civilian casualty report published in late April. That report noted that one civilian was killed and another injured when a vehicle was driven into the target zone. “We do not agree with that analysis and we are also convinced that it is not right,” Poesen told Airwars on July 6th. He also suggested that Coalition officials had been “quite quick” in their assessment of the al Qaim incident.

The other Belgian incident divulged by the senior official to Airwars took place in Mosul on March 21st 2017. While the Coalition was still assessing the case in May, it listed it as ‘credible’ in a civilian casualty report released on June 2nd. This noted that a strike on ISIS fighters had also hit four civilians who entered the target area after the munition was released. One of them died and three were injured, the alliance determined.

Though there were multiple alleged civilian casualty incidents reported in Mosul on March 21st, as part of a routine enquiry a Coalition official provided Airwars with the exact coordinates of the raid in question – placing it in the city’s July 17th neighborhood. Airwars had previously monitored a public report of civilian casualties in the near vicinity for that date, though details were sparse prior to the Coalition’s admission.

It is unclear whether Belgium challenges the Coalition’s assessment for this Mosul incident too. On July 6th, Colonel Poesen informed Airwars that the case was no longer under investigation by Belgium.

Belgian aircraft in action (photo courtesy: U.S. Air Force, Sgt. Michael Battles)

‘100% mission effectiveness’

Belgium’s refusal to accept responsibility for any civilian deaths it has been implicated in may relate to its apparent insistence that only cases which might violate international law should be investigated. According to Colonel Poesen, all incidents reported to the national Public Prosecutor have so far been been declared not to have violated international law and so had been filed without further follow-up.

Poesen went on to say that “even if there were to be casualties, it would be completely in line with the rules of engagement and the pilot would not have been guilty.” In a press statement on July 6th Colonel Poulsen also repeated Belgium’s denial that any civilians had been hurt in either Iraq or Syria: “We can proudly state that we are achieving all of our goals. Our objective of 100% mission effectiveness, without civilian casualties, continues to be the reality,” he said.

Such remarks have implied that only incidents which potentially breached international humanitarian law might be investigated. This would place Belgium at odds with the Coalition, which has indicated that all 624 civilian deaths so far admitted in Iraq and Syria have resulted from lawful – if unfortunate – actions.

Public research also suggests that even with the greatest care and adherence to international law, airstrikes do kill civilians. Airwars researchers estimate that as of August 8th a minimum of 4,887 civilians had likely died in Coalition air strikes since 2014. In Mosul and Raqqa in particular, civilians have paid a high price in the fight against ISIS.

Even so Belgium – like all twelve other nations in the alliance apart from the United States – continues to proclaim zero civilian deaths. 

Belgian Defence Secretary Steven Vandeput declined to comment on the two specific incidents identified by Airwars this week when questioned by national daily De Morgen: “The procedure is that when there is a presumption of civilian casualties, Belgium itself requests an investigation by the International Coalition”, Vandeput told the newspaper. “I have no knowledge of an ongoing investigation into civilian deaths that involved the Belgian military.”

The Minister’s comments did not address the fact that Belgium now appears to be in dispute with the Coalition about whether civilians were harmed in the two events. 

Locations of Belgian F-16 actions until June 2017. While 14% of missions were carried out in Syria, Iraq saw the greatest share of Belgian air strikes – with 48% near Mosul (via Belgian MoD)

871 bombs since 2014 Belgium’s air campaign in Iraq and Syria, already in its third year, was recently extended by the government until the end of 2017. Personnel and F-16s were initially expected return to Belgium early in July, and according to Colonel Poesen “many had made different plans for summer.” However the Netherlands – which has alternated Coalition bombings with Belgium – decided not to go back to war prior to 2018. The Coalition therefore asked Brussels to prolong its own mission.

Despite the lengthy conflict and hundreds of airstrikes, apart from a select group of politicians it is not possible independently to assess how Belgian actions have impacted the lives of civilians in Iraq and Syria. Details about the location, dates and targets of airstrikes are publicly withheld “for security reasons.”

When asked, Colonel Poesen said that the Belgian military was not planning to follow Australia’s recent example of improving public accountability, since it claimed to be “fully transparent in the Parliamentary committee behind closed doors.” Some argue that now may be the time for Belgium publicly to account for any problematic actions it has been involved in, even if they are few.

“More transparency and accountability are urgently needed to avoid civilian victims caused by Belgium,” said Willem Staes, policy officer for the Middle East at Belgian group 11.11.11. “Our contacts in the field have been sending alarming signals for months now: citizens are increasingly caught between local terror, and scorching international bombings.”

The organization also emphasizes what it sees as the vital military-strategic importance of a stronger focus on the fate of Syrian and Iraqi citizens: “Secrecy around civilian harm gives room to ISIL propaganda. If civilian protection is not taken really seriously now, ISIL will never be sustainably defeated and we will just wait for an ISIL 2.0.”

No transparency in Europe

Belgian openness about the two Coalition-confirmed events might offer a positive example of increased transparency to other members of the alliance. So far, no country except the US among the 13-member Coalition has admitted that civilians were killed or injured as a result of its own air campaign against ISIS. In contrast, the United States has admitted causing around one civilian death for every 40 of its own airstrikes. 

Yet European countries have carried out more than 3,500 strikes against ISIS between them since 2014. Based on the Pentagon’s admitted casualty rates, it would appear impossible that no civilians were harmed during these non-US raids. As Airwars revealed in May, at least 80 civilians have in fact been killed in airstrikes carried out by allies other than the US. None of the countries involved will publicly accept responsibility. 

According to military data presented to Parliament last month, Belgium has launched a total of 871 bombs against ISIS – roughly 4% of the Coalition total – since 2014. While 324 bombs were dropped during the first round of missions (September 2014 to June 2015), the second campaign – which started on July 1st 2016 – has seen 547 munitions released so far.

Bombs were mostly dropped on Iraqi territory: with 48% around Mosul and 38% near the border with Syria. In total, 14% of the raids during the last year were flown above Syria. According to Poesen this number could be slightly higher, as some of the strikes listed as taking place in Iraqi border areas may have hit Syrian territory.

Belgian raids have been carried out exclusively with 500 lb or 2,000 lb bombs – and not the 250 lb Small Diameter Bombs (SDB) that were said to have been  ordered for raids in urban areas. In November 2016, Major-General of the Belgian Air Force, F. Vansina, told the Belgian daily De Morgen that munition had been ordered “which has only half of the explosive load and can therefore be used in densely populated areas.” According to Vansina, Belgium would refuse strike orders in residential areas until the smaller and more accurate bombs had arrived.

Last month however, Defence Secretary Vandeput revealed that the American-made precision munitions had still not been delivered and would not arrive before 2019. This raised key questions about Belgium’s involvement in the bloody battle for Mosul. Contrary to what Major-General Vansina had suggested, nearly half of all Belgian raids since July 2016 were reportedly launched above Iraq’s second city – clearly a densely-populated urban zone.

Moreover according to the Minister, compared to the 2014-2015 Belgian campaign the “duration of missions has increased over time, as well as the intensity of strikes.”  

▲ Two Belgian Air Force F-16s flying in support of Operation Inherent Resolve June 23, 2017. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Michael Battles)