Blame Isil for civilian deaths in Syria, not our remarkable RAF

‘Groups like Isil think nothing of capturing civilians and using them as human shields’

An airstrike ‘unintentionally’ killed a civilian in Syria, the Defence Secretary has admitted. With the MOD facing questions following BBC reports of innocent casualties in strikes against Isil, Con Coughlin examines the difficulties of such an intricate campaign

If anyone is to blame for any civilian casualties during the battle for Mosul, it is Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil), not the RAF as the BBC has reported. The military operation by the Us-led coalition to defeat Isil was one of the most sophisticated combat missions ever conducted. Isil deliberately sought refuge in densely populated areas in places such as Mosul and Raqqa, in order to protect themselves from outside attack. This meant that the coalition mainly had to rely on precision missiles.

For the RAF, which flew around 10 per cent of the sorties carried out by the coalition during the three-year mission, this meant using the highly effective Brimstone air-launched ground-attack missile, as well as the laser-guided Paveway IV bomb. Both weapons had previously been used to great effect in the 2011 campaign to overthrow Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

I have sat in one of the RAF’S control rooms while such missions are being carried out, and observed for myself the extraordinary care that is taken to avoid civilian casualties by the senior military officers responsible for overseeing such operations. If military satellites or other communications systems detect the slightest suggestion of civilian activity on the ground, even if it is in close proximity to clearly identifiable enemy activity, the mission is aborted.

And there is always a team of specially trained lawyers on hand to make sure the Government’s carefully stipulated rules of engagement are strictly adhered to. For the final decision to launch lethal weapons in such conditions is ultimately referred to ministers, which, for the majority of the anti-isil campaign, was Sir Michael Fallon, the defence secretary at the time. Fanatical groups like Isil, though, have no such regard for the sanctity of life, and think nothing of capturing civilians and using them as human shields. In densely populated areas like the old city of Mosul, it therefore becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between enemy combatants and innocent civilians, especially if they are being held captive underground, where not even the most sophisticated military satellite can detect their whereabouts.

The other important issue that the BBC appears to have overlooked in its report is that, if anyone has evidence that the British military has targeted civilians, the MOD is duty bound to investigate. To date, MOD officials insist no such evidence has been presented with regard to the RAF’S recent engagement in Mosul. They have, however, subsequently said that a civilian was unintentionally killed in Syria.

It is typical of the BBC’S coverage that, rather than celebrating the role played by the RAF in the remarkable feat of defeating Isil, it instead chooses to focus on the claims of an unknown whistleblower, who has yet to produce a shred of evidence about Britain being involved in acts that would, under international law, amount to war crimes.

For, let us not forget that, in the summer of 2014, when Isil first overran large tracts of northern Iraq and Syria, the stated aim of many Western governments – including Britain – of destroying its so-called caliphate seemed impossible. And yet, here we are less than four years later, with Isil defeated, and places like Mosul and Raqqa liberated from their vile perversion.

Of course civilians were killed during the operation – they are, after all, always the first casualties in any war. But it is important to take on board the bigger picture, where a determined enemy has been destroyed, a significant achievement that deserves better than to be tarnished by the unsubstantiated claims of anonymous whistleblowers.

If the BBC’S source has any proof that the RAF killed or injured civilians in Iraq, it should be given to the appropriate authorities to investigate. If not, we should take at face value the Mod’s insistence that it has “no evidence” its air strikes in Iraq caused civilian casualties.