Denmark withdraws from airstrikes in Syria and Iraq
by Nicolas Boeglin, Pressenza, 05 December 2016. Denmark announced on Friday 2nd of
December, its decision to suspend military operations of its seven F-16 fighter
jets in Syria and Iraq. A few days beforehand, a military investigation
indicated that Danish fighter jets were involved in a September 17th airstrike
by the coalition, in which a series of “unintentional human errors” killed
fighters aligned with the Syrian government instead of targeted Islamic State
(ISIS) militants.
December, its decision to suspend military operations of its seven F-16 fighter
jets in Syria and Iraq. A few days beforehand, a military investigation
indicated that Danish fighter jets were involved in a September 17th airstrike
by the coalition, in which a series of “unintentional human errors” killed
fighters aligned with the Syrian government instead of targeted Islamic State
(ISIS) militants.
A 2,000lb bomb is attached to a Danish F-16 for its
last Iraq mission, Sept 29th 2015 (Image by Danish MoD/Ronny Rasmussen)
last Iraq mission, Sept 29th 2015 (Image by Danish MoD/Ronny Rasmussen)
After Canada (February 2016), Denmark is the second
member of the so called “coalition against ISIS” to withdraw its participation
in airstrikes in Syria and Iraq, whose legal basis is not as solid as argued by
France, The United Kingdom and The United States. It must be recalled that
since August 2014, the so called “coalition against Islamic State (ISIS)” led
by the USA has been bombing Iraqi and Syrian territories. In the case of Syria,
without the consent of Syrian authorities: this last point is a key issue, from
an international legal perspective and the United Nations Security Council.
member of the so called “coalition against ISIS” to withdraw its participation
in airstrikes in Syria and Iraq, whose legal basis is not as solid as argued by
France, The United Kingdom and The United States. It must be recalled that
since August 2014, the so called “coalition against Islamic State (ISIS)” led
by the USA has been bombing Iraqi and Syrian territories. In the case of Syria,
without the consent of Syrian authorities: this last point is a key issue, from
an international legal perspective and the United Nations Security Council.
Last Friday December 2, Denmark officially announced
that it will suspend its participation in airstrikes on Syria and Iraq. In this story in
The Local, we read that Danish Foreign Ministry Anders Samuelsen said, “We
have decided to withdraw the Danish fighter jets as planned“. A few days
before, top officials from United States recognised errors in recent
operations, and in this story
in The Local, it can be read that: “Defence Command Denmark, the command
centre for the Danish armed forces, released a short statement following the
attack that confirmed that Danish fighter jets were part of the mission. The
Danish forces said it was “of course unfortunate if the coalition mistakenly
struck anything other than ISIL forces“.
that it will suspend its participation in airstrikes on Syria and Iraq. In this story in
The Local, we read that Danish Foreign Ministry Anders Samuelsen said, “We
have decided to withdraw the Danish fighter jets as planned“. A few days
before, top officials from United States recognised errors in recent
operations, and in this story
in The Local, it can be read that: “Defence Command Denmark, the command
centre for the Danish armed forces, released a short statement following the
attack that confirmed that Danish fighter jets were part of the mission. The
Danish forces said it was “of course unfortunate if the coalition mistakenly
struck anything other than ISIL forces“.
The results of this particular mission in Syria were
the following, according to this note of
September 19, 2016: “British, Danish and Australian warplanes took part in
the U.S.-led coalition’s airstrike Saturday that reportedly killed more than 60
Syrian government troops and threatened to unravel the “cessation of
hostilities,” military officials said Monday. The Syrian army and a key rebel
leader declared that the cease-fire had collapsed and blamed each other for
violations, but U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said he was working for a
possible extension of the seven-day-old cessation period that ended Monday“.
the following, according to this note of
September 19, 2016: “British, Danish and Australian warplanes took part in
the U.S.-led coalition’s airstrike Saturday that reportedly killed more than 60
Syrian government troops and threatened to unravel the “cessation of
hostilities,” military officials said Monday. The Syrian army and a key rebel
leader declared that the cease-fire had collapsed and blamed each other for
violations, but U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said he was working for a
possible extension of the seven-day-old cessation period that ended Monday“.
Last November 30, an article published
in Australia stated that: “The United States-led review into the air strike
released early Wednesday morning highlights two key points about the
international coalition air war over Syria: first, that even the best planned
military campaign will make mistakes and kill innocents, and second, that the
Coalition air campaign has been one of the most tightly controlled in the history
of air power. The remarkable thing is that more people haven’t been wrongly
killed by Coalition strikes. This constraint on air operations is legally and
morally right, but the effect has been to render much of the Syrian air
campaign useless. The review makes it clear that a number of factors
contributed to inadvertently targeting a position near Dayr az Zawr, on 18
September occupied by Syrian Army or militia forces. For some reason
intelligence reporting incorrectly identified the position as occupied by
so-called Islamic State fighters“.
in Australia stated that: “The United States-led review into the air strike
released early Wednesday morning highlights two key points about the
international coalition air war over Syria: first, that even the best planned
military campaign will make mistakes and kill innocents, and second, that the
Coalition air campaign has been one of the most tightly controlled in the history
of air power. The remarkable thing is that more people haven’t been wrongly
killed by Coalition strikes. This constraint on air operations is legally and
morally right, but the effect has been to render much of the Syrian air
campaign useless. The review makes it clear that a number of factors
contributed to inadvertently targeting a position near Dayr az Zawr, on 18
September occupied by Syrian Army or militia forces. For some reason
intelligence reporting incorrectly identified the position as occupied by
so-called Islamic State fighters“.
Denmark and Belgium, as well as France, The
Netherlands and United Kingdom are the only European countries engaged in
airstrikes operations in Syria and Iraq in the so called “coalition against
ISIS“. Denmark’s
first airstrikes in Syria took place last August 5, 2016.
Netherlands and United Kingdom are the only European countries engaged in
airstrikes operations in Syria and Iraq in the so called “coalition against
ISIS“. Denmark’s
first airstrikes in Syria took place last August 5, 2016.
It is the first time that a European country has
decided to suspend its engagement in this kind of military operation. However,
it is not the first time that airstrikes in Syria and Iraq have been suspended
by a State: On February 22, 2016, Canada
officially suspended all operations consisting of bombing
targets in Iraq and Syria, ending a controversial action inherited from Prime
Minister Harper administration.
decided to suspend its engagement in this kind of military operation. However,
it is not the first time that airstrikes in Syria and Iraq have been suspended
by a State: On February 22, 2016, Canada
officially suspended all operations consisting of bombing
targets in Iraq and Syria, ending a controversial action inherited from Prime
Minister Harper administration.
DANISH INVOLVEMENT IN THE COALITION AGAINST ISIS
In the last report by Airwars.org (see report on November
2016 operations) the last mission involving Denmark was dated December 1st, “Update
from Danish MoD on December 1st: [For Wednesday November 23rd to Wednesday
November 30th, Denmark report 11 missions over the Iraqi province of Nineweh
and the Syrian governorate of Ar Raqqah. They dropped eight precision bombs,
launching attacks on ISIL roadblocks, buildings and facilities that
manufactured improvised explosive devices to vehicles.]”
2016 operations) the last mission involving Denmark was dated December 1st, “Update
from Danish MoD on December 1st: [For Wednesday November 23rd to Wednesday
November 30th, Denmark report 11 missions over the Iraqi province of Nineweh
and the Syrian governorate of Ar Raqqah. They dropped eight precision bombs,
launching attacks on ISIL roadblocks, buildings and facilities that
manufactured improvised explosive devices to vehicles.]”
In this report by
Airwars from October 2015, Denmark initially asked for Danish operations to not
be reported in press releases: “Colonel Andersen confirmed that the Danish
military had asked CENTCOM not to identify Danish actions in its press
releases, though argued that the introduction of the ‘partner nation’ term was
a result of “several interests that had to be united” rather than a Danish
request exclusively. A FOIA request by Danish reporter Charlotte Aagaard later
confirmed the Danish policy of rendering it impossible to identify Denmark’s
role in strikes, “neither directly or through deduction”, specifying that “the
Danish contribution should not be mentioned in Coalition press releases if
fewer than three nations are mentioned in relation to the activity in
question.” Under pressure from Danish media, mission updates were initially
expanded in November to include the names of provinces and cities targeted –
although dates and locations of attacks were still withheld.”
Airwars from October 2015, Denmark initially asked for Danish operations to not
be reported in press releases: “Colonel Andersen confirmed that the Danish
military had asked CENTCOM not to identify Danish actions in its press
releases, though argued that the introduction of the ‘partner nation’ term was
a result of “several interests that had to be united” rather than a Danish
request exclusively. A FOIA request by Danish reporter Charlotte Aagaard later
confirmed the Danish policy of rendering it impossible to identify Denmark’s
role in strikes, “neither directly or through deduction”, specifying that “the
Danish contribution should not be mentioned in Coalition press releases if
fewer than three nations are mentioned in relation to the activity in
question.” Under pressure from Danish media, mission updates were initially
expanded in November to include the names of provinces and cities targeted –
although dates and locations of attacks were still withheld.”
In this other report on The
Netherlands transparency on airstrikes, it can be read that Dutch
extreme discretion has suffered indiscretions twice: “On only two occasions
have the locations and dates of Dutch airstrikes in Iraq been revealed – on
neither occasion by the Netherlands itself. Following a strike on Fallujah on
July 25th 2015, France later reported it had carried out the mission with Dutch
assistance: “Cette mission fut réalisée conjointement avec des avions
américains et hollandais.” And in September 2015, Airwars in collaboration with
RTL Netherlands was able to show that according to a declassified CENTCOM
document, Dutch aircraft had been implicated in a possible civilian casualty
incident ten months earlier”
Netherlands transparency on airstrikes, it can be read that Dutch
extreme discretion has suffered indiscretions twice: “On only two occasions
have the locations and dates of Dutch airstrikes in Iraq been revealed – on
neither occasion by the Netherlands itself. Following a strike on Fallujah on
July 25th 2015, France later reported it had carried out the mission with Dutch
assistance: “Cette mission fut réalisée conjointement avec des avions
américains et hollandais.” And in September 2015, Airwars in collaboration with
RTL Netherlands was able to show that according to a declassified CENTCOM
document, Dutch aircraft had been implicated in a possible civilian casualty
incident ten months earlier”
In this report or
Airwars.org, entitled “Cause For Concern Hundreds of civilian non-combatants
credibly reported killed in first year of Coalition airstrikes against Islamic
State”, we read concerning Denmark’s information on civil casualties in Iraq: “In
a written response to questions from parliament’s Defence Committee, the then
Defence Minister Nicolai Wammen suggested that in the case of civilian deaths
or injuries from Danish strikes, affected family members could seek redress in
Denmark’s courts: ‘Compensation lawsuits [in relation to the Danish
contribution to the war on ISIL] can be filed at the Danish courts in
accordance with The Danish Administration of Justice Act.’ Wammen also
confirmed that no agreement had been made between the Danish and Iraqi
governments to ensure compensation for civilians killed by Danish air strikes.
When asked what options were open to relatives of civilian victims in seeking
to clarify whether an attack had been carried out by Denmark, Wammen responded
that ‘relatives can contact the Iraqi authorities, a Danish authority or the
Coalition.’
Airwars.org, entitled “Cause For Concern Hundreds of civilian non-combatants
credibly reported killed in first year of Coalition airstrikes against Islamic
State”, we read concerning Denmark’s information on civil casualties in Iraq: “In
a written response to questions from parliament’s Defence Committee, the then
Defence Minister Nicolai Wammen suggested that in the case of civilian deaths
or injuries from Danish strikes, affected family members could seek redress in
Denmark’s courts: ‘Compensation lawsuits [in relation to the Danish
contribution to the war on ISIL] can be filed at the Danish courts in
accordance with The Danish Administration of Justice Act.’ Wammen also
confirmed that no agreement had been made between the Danish and Iraqi
governments to ensure compensation for civilians killed by Danish air strikes.
When asked what options were open to relatives of civilian victims in seeking
to clarify whether an attack had been carried out by Denmark, Wammen responded
that ‘relatives can contact the Iraqi authorities, a Danish authority or the
Coalition.’
Recommendation: That Denmark
adopts Canada’s best-practice, reporting regularly on where, when, and with
what assets it carries out airstrikes in Iraq.
adopts Canada’s best-practice, reporting regularly on where, when, and with
what assets it carries out airstrikes in Iraq.
Danish response: Did not reply to
queries from Airwars” (p.30)
queries from Airwars” (p.30)
It must be noted that information provided officially
by members of the so-called “coalition” is not necessarily very clear,
and numbers differ from one official source to another one, but data base and
reports elaborated by Airwars.org allow for a better idea of the logic behind
airstrike campaigns launched by the so-called “coalition against ISIS“.
by members of the so-called “coalition” is not necessarily very clear,
and numbers differ from one official source to another one, but data base and
reports elaborated by Airwars.org allow for a better idea of the logic behind
airstrike campaigns launched by the so-called “coalition against ISIS“.
Graphic on airstrikes in Syria launched by United
States (blue) and “Arab allies and Canada” (in red) from December 2014 to
August 2015, published in a report of Airwars.org entitled: “First year of
Coalition airstrikes helped stall Islamic State – but at a cost “
States (blue) and “Arab allies and Canada” (in red) from December 2014 to
August 2015, published in a report of Airwars.org entitled: “First year of
Coalition airstrikes helped stall Islamic State – but at a cost “
An updated chart shows that as of November 27, 2016,
5673 airstrikes in Syria had been launched by The USA, and 306 by Canada,
Australia, France, UK, Saudi Arabia, The UAE, Jordan, Bahrain and Turkey (see
Chart “Cumulative US and allied airstrikes in Syria” available here).
5673 airstrikes in Syria had been launched by The USA, and 306 by Canada,
Australia, France, UK, Saudi Arabia, The UAE, Jordan, Bahrain and Turkey (see
Chart “Cumulative US and allied airstrikes in Syria” available here).
In a recent special report from US Defense Secretary (see text),
we read also that: “As of 6:45 a.m. EST Dec. 2, 2016, the U.S. and coalition
have conducted a total of 16,592 strikes (10,590 Iraq / 6,002 Syria).
we read also that: “As of 6:45 a.m. EST Dec. 2, 2016, the U.S. and coalition
have conducted a total of 16,592 strikes (10,590 Iraq / 6,002 Syria).
U.S. has conducted 12,876 strikes in Iraq and Syria
(7,183 Iraq / 5,693 Syria).
(7,183 Iraq / 5,693 Syria).
Rest of Coalition has conducted 3,716 strikes in Iraq
and Syria (3,407 Iraq / 309 Syria).
and Syria (3,407 Iraq / 309 Syria).
The countries that have participated in the strikes
include: In Iraq: (1) Australia, (2) Belgium, (3) Canada, (4) Denmark, (5)
France, (6) Jordan, (7) The Netherlands, and (8) UK.
include: In Iraq: (1) Australia, (2) Belgium, (3) Canada, (4) Denmark, (5)
France, (6) Jordan, (7) The Netherlands, and (8) UK.
In Syria: (1) Australia, (2) Bahrain, (3) Canada, (4)
Denmark, (5) France, (6) Jordan, (7) The Netherlands, (8) Saudi Arabia, (9)
Turkey (10) UAE and (11) UK.
Denmark, (5) France, (6) Jordan, (7) The Netherlands, (8) Saudi Arabia, (9)
Turkey (10) UAE and (11) UK.
Between Aug. 8, 2014 and Nov. 28, 2016, U.S. and
partner nation aircraft have flown an estimated 127,764 sorties in support of
operations in Iraq and Syria”.
partner nation aircraft have flown an estimated 127,764 sorties in support of
operations in Iraq and Syria”.
