Media briefing with Air Marshal Mel Hupfeld regarding Coalition Airstrikes

[T]oday I'd like to inform you of Australia's possible involvement in a civilian casualty event that occurred in Iraq in 2017.

Tomorrow, the Coalition will issue its monthly statement updating the status of its investigations into civilian casualty allegations. Today's media briefing therefore is embargoed until that statement is issued. You'll be advised by Defence when the embargo is lifted and that will be through the issuing of our own statement which will summarise the information that I will provide you today. We have endeavoured to provide a full account of incidents potentially involving Australian aircraft ahead of the monthly Coalition statement in the past, and so today we continue that practice.

So now on to the particulars of this incident. I can confirm that an Australian airstrike or nearby coalition air strikes in the Al-Shafaar neighbourhood of West Mosul on 13 June 2017, may have caused civilian casualties. An Australian investigation found that it is not possible to determine the number of civilian casualties that occurred as the result of these air strikes. The Airwars website report on this incident cites local media reporting and social media posts with a wide variation in the assessment of numbers killed. The coalition assesses that between six and 18 civilians may have been killed and that's based on assessment of population densities. Due to a seven month delay between the incident and Australia becoming aware of the claims, we could not verify the numbers killed. Moreover, it's not possible to determine if the civilian casualties occurred as a result of the Australian air strike, the nearby Coalition airstrikes or indeed from other actors. This incident occurred at the height of the battle for Mosul when Iraq security forces were engaged in intense urban warfare. Iraqi positions and fleeing civilians were being routinely attacked by Daesh with a combination of small arms, heavy machine guns, mortars and rocket propelled grenades. On this day, the Iraqi security forces identified three enemy personnel in a building and four enemy personnel in a courtyard adjacent to that building, armed with heavy weapons. It was assessed that the enemy was establishing a defensive firing position in the building and the courtyard ahead of the Iraqi advance. There had been previous engagements in this area and the Iraqi forces were nearby and in fact the closest being 70 metres away.

Following an Iraqi request for Coalition air support and an assessment of the legality of the requested air strikes, Coalition aircraft, including two Australian F/A-18F Super Hornets struck a number of targets. The Australian aircraft released one weapon each, striking a building and a courtyard identified as the enemy positions. Post-strike assessments confirmed the 500 pound precision guided munition struck the intended targets and achieved the effect that was desired by the Iraqi ground commander. Based on the proximity of the enemy to the Iraqi forces, the nature of the target and the circumstances of the fighting in Mosul at the time, I can confirm that this action complies with Australia's Rules of Engagement and the Laws of Armed Conflict. Australia was first advised by our Coalition partners in January 2018 that one of these Australian strikes - the strike against the building - and nearby Coalition strikes, potentially caused civilian casualties. The civilian casualties were claimed via local media and social media to have been located in a building in the vicinity of the Australian and Coalition strikes. Following an investigation that concluded in December of 2018, the Coalition assessed the claim to be credible. They are expected to announce that finding in the coming day. Our own investigation concurs it is possible the Coalition unintentionally caused these casualties.

While the allegation has been assessed as credible, there is a degree of uncertainty surrounding this incident. We know that that the Australian strike does not precisely correspond with the information provided in the claim, however it was close by. We do not definitively know how these people were killed, but we do know from our review of the events that our aircrew made no error in this mission. They delivered their ordinance precisely onto the designated target in accordance with their rules of engagement. All authorities for the strike were valid and lawful. There was no specific intelligence to indicate civilians were present at the targeted site, but given the urgent circumstances facing the Iraqi forces at the time, it was impossible to be certain. Throughout the Mosul campaign, Daesh deliberately and deceptively caused civilian casualties by concealing non-combatants under fighting positions and exposing their fighters to induce Coalition air strikes. Any loss of civilian life is highly regrettable. We treat all allegations seriously and publically account for them and I can say from personal experience that the responsibility to take lethal action in war time is a heavy burden to carry. Our pilots and decision makers involved in the targeting process do everything that they can to avoid civilian casualties, but sometimes it is not possible. This is an extraordinary thing to ask of our young women and men, the gravity of which is not lost on any of us.

So before I take your questions can I please remind you that this information is embargoed until the release of the Coalition statement, which we expect later tonight or tomorrow Australian time. The uncertainty as to when that will be released will be defined to you with the release and issue of our own media statement.

If I could- offer for questions.

QUESTION:                           

So you won't be able to tell us in advance about when that's going to be released?

MEL HUPFELD:                     

All I can - and truthfully, it's the knowledge that I have - they make the announcement each on the last Thursday of the month, or the release of the civilian casualty report. The timing of that depends on during the day, whatever time they chose to release the information.

QUESTION:                           

So that goes up from that Coalition website, is that right?

MEL HUPFELD:                     

I'll check with my experts on that. I believe it does go up on the Coalition website. We can get you the source for that and appropriate links if necessary, so you can go to that site.

QUESTION:                           

What access of the investigations by the Australian and Coalition investigations have to the actual ground site in Mosul where the deaths are supposed to have taken place.

MEL HUPFELD:                     

No access, so- and I highlight that the incident on 13 June - of course, we carry out appropriate post-strike review to make as best an assessment, both of the success of the military objective, but also to see if we can gain any information about civilian property damage, and indeed, civilian casualties. There was no apparent elements to that in the initial assessments. But then given we weren't aware of the allegation that came through Airwars, through their website, until January of 2018. So at the time of the strikes, as I said, it was an intense and complexed war zone, not available for us to go in and see the site deliberately. And then seven months later, the state of the site has changed significantly. And so, we rely on information through the Coalition, through our partner forces, and our own access to videos and other imagery that we have to do the investigation.

QUESTION:                           

So is the suggestion that the civilians were in a neighbouring building, or is that in terms of when you say there's some uncertainty our aircraft delivered the [indistinct] munitions precisely, but- is that what your suggestion is?

MEL HUPFELD:                     

That's correct. So the Iraqi security forces, as they conducted their action to defeat Daesh and liberate West Mosul, came across these enemy personnel in the positions that I've described. The targets that were then engaged by the Coalition aircraft, including the Australian aircraft - and I emphasise again, those weapons were delivered accurately to those targets - were in close proximity to the way the social media sites and the Airwars website reported where the civilian casualties occurred. So, the building that was highlighted there wasn't quite the same building as those points that were targeted, but the proximity was close enough that we can't discount that the impact and effect of those strikes may well have resulted. It's a credible assessment that may well have resulted in civilian casualties in that area.

QUESTION:                           

Is there any information as to how many Coalition aircraft were involved in this raid? Was the Australian aircraft two or three, or two of six? And is there any information as to the civilians; were they a sole family, an extended family, simply refugees [indistinct]? What do we know about them?

MEL HUPFELD:                     

So, first question regarding numbers of aircraft. So I will comment on the Australian contribution, and that was two F/A-18A- sorry, two F/A-18F Super Hornets, one of which dropped a single GPS guided, 500-pound explosive weapon that was deemed to have impacted a target that was in proximity to the presence of civilians, or could have been in proximity to civilians that may have caused civilian casualty. In terms of the civilian casualties themselves, the only information that we have available is the information that was on the Airwars website that refers to four people by name, and then there is an association and a discussion on the website that reports the potential involvement of their family members as well.

QUESTION:                           

Both [indistinct] aircraft dropped bombs in the same area …

MEL HUPFELD:                     

[Talks over] Yes, there were other …

QUESTION:                           

… was there other action taking place at the same time?

MEL HUPFELD:                     

That's correct, there were other Coalition aircraft involved that did deliver weapons and it's a small built-up but busy urban block where these buildings were targeted. There are a number that were destroyed, but there's a number that still remains standing.

QUESTION:                           

So more than one bomb hit the same site?

MEL HUPFELD:                     

Ah … Generally, one bomb was applied to each of the targets. I don't have the information as to whether there were multiple weapons, but they were all guided to their specific targets, whether it was one or two. I don't have that information about the Coalition aircraft; I do have it about the Australian strikes.

QUESTION;                           

There were two Australian bombs dropped …

MEL  HUPFELD:                    

[Talks over] That's correct.

QUESTION:                           

… one from each aircraft. Can you tell us, where those weapons or the guidance system used to direct those weapons, because there are a couple that operate on these weapons?

MEL HUPFELD:                     

[Talks over] That's correct.

QUESTION:                           

What guidance system was directing the two Australian weapons?

MEL HUPFELD:                     

So they were GPS guided weapons. It's called a GBU38 - a 500-pound class high explosive weapon that uses GPS signals, and you enter the coordinates, very accurate GPS coordinates, into the weapon, and then it guides using the GPS signal.

QUESTION:                           

Is it fair to say that had you known the proximity of civilians at the time that the weapons were fired, they wouldn't have been fired.

MEL HUPFELD:                     

That's correct.

QUESTION:                           

So where is the failure in the system? Clearly, you don't believe it's with the pilot. Where is the failure in the system that allowed this to happen?

MEL HUPFELD:                     

So the Iraqi security forces, the forces that requested the strike, so they assess the environment they're in as much as possible. We would have as much surveillance as we can of the area to understand what we would call the pattern of life. In this particular situation, this was a defensive response, so the opportunity to do that surveillance in more detail was not available due to the direct threat to serious injury and imminent loss of life to the Iraqi security forces in the mission that they were engaged with. So, we take action to examine in the legal assessment prior to the authority being provided to release those weapons and that's an authority provided to the pilots for them to then release. We make an assessment on the balance of what we can see as to whether we think there might be civilians there or not.

QUESTION:                           

So was it the case that if the airstrike hadn't been launched, the Iraqi security forces would have been killed themselves by the enemy?

MEL HUPFELD:                     

That's correct. And indeed, as I've said, I am not certain that it was the result of the Australian strike, or Coalition airstrike, or ground fire from the Iraqi security forces aiming to take the objective, or indeed, action by other actors - and by that, I also mean Daesh themselves. We just are not certain what may have resulted in the loss of life in this case that's resulted in the report on the Airwars website.

QUESTION:                           

So it's GPS-guided bomb, so you know exactly where their coordinates of exactly where it fell?

MEL HUPFELD:                     

We do. And the aircrew, with the targeting systems they use, they can observe where the impact was.

QUESTION:                           

[Indistinct] second crew, was it observing this as well? So, where were the casualties?

MEL HUPFELD:                     

I wouldn't assume that. The second crew may have incidental video footage of what their wingmen's bomb - where it impacted. But the other crew is predominately focusing on delivering their weapon accurately.

QUESTION:                           

So how far from the drop site were the casualties?

MEL HUPFELD:                     

It's within half of a normal urban block.

QUESTION:                           

So, I'm just thinking, what's the radius of destruction of a 500-pound bomb, and does that fall within that range?

MEL HUPFELD:                     

It may do, so I won't give you the details on the actual distance, but you know, you could talk in the order of 100 or so metres. And a key point for us is the weapons, high explosive weapons, they're designed to cause damage, and indeed, death to adversaries. But we can manage how we deliver that weapon. For example, by adjusting the fusing setting on the weapon we can have an impact or explode as soon as it hits the ground.

QUESTION:                           

Or above the ground?

MEL HUPFELD:                     

In some cases we could have it explode above the ground. And in cases of buildings, for example, to destroy a building, we would delay the fusing to make sure the bomb explodes within the building. And the reason I raise this is that then contains the damage to that building, and it allows us to be very precise in our assessment of damage, and indeed trying to minimise collateral damage to other areas. And that's, in this case, two different fusing settings. And I won't go into which ones were used where, but two different fusing settings to achieve the effects that we were asked to achieve by the Iraqi security forces. The air crew made the correct selections of those settings to deliver what the Iraqi security forces needed to neutralise the threat at the time. And in also minimising any collateral damage as a result of their strikes.

QUESTION:                           

To be clear, though, is it your belief that the urgency of protecting the Iraqi forces on the ground compromise the business of determining whether civilians were nearby?

MEL HUPFELD:                     

It's certainly the priority for Defence, collective defence, of the Iraqi security forces. This has to be taken into account in proportion to the risk of collateral damage and we take all feasible precautions to minimise civilian casualties.

QUESTION:                           

And that was at play in this case?

MEL HUPFELD:                     

Absolutely. And legally assessed before the authority [indistinct] …

QUESTION:                           

[Interrupts] So the business of determining whether civilians were there was compromised by that urgency?

MEL HUPFELD:                     

No, I wouldn't say it's compromised. The assessment was that there were- that the likelihood of civilian casualties or civilians present there was low, but there's always the likelihood.

QUESTION:                           

You made a particular point, I think three or four times now, talking about that legal organisation. Can I just clarify - is that a normal part of the assessment of any airstrike that the Australians maybe involved in? Or are you implying that there was a particular challenge to this request made by Australians involved in authorising that?

MEL HUPFELD:                     

That is a normal process. It's our obligation under our, first of all, the laws of armed conflict, which are internationally recognised and set; and secondly, under the rules of engagement that our Government authorises us to operate under. There is a very deliberate chain to go back through the Command and Control Centre to an Australian authority who has the authority from the Australian Government, in accordance with our rules and engagement, to authorise a strike that takes into account those civilians at risk.

QUESTION:                           

[Indistinct] …the responsibility to the Iraqi ground forces for their scoping of the scene. In essence, saying that you can't blame the executioner for what was carried out here. Is anyone being reprimanded on the ground for this action? Is that process going to take place or is this merely for lack of a better way of describing part of the process of war and sometimes things happen?

MEL HUPFELD:                     

So I'd change your words slightly there. We're not blaming the Iraqi security forces for this event or this incident. We're very cognisant of the risk of inflicting civilian casualties in a very intense, complex war zone. The action in Mosul was the most ferocious air campaign that we have seen in our generation. It is an unfortunate consequence of war that these civilian casualties have occurred, and as I've said, this is not lost on us.

QUESTION:                           

[Indistinct] Just before, you said that the Airwars had done a report on this. So, how long after the incident had Airwars published that report? And then, when did Defence first became aware that Australian forces could be involved in it? It seems to me you're saying that you became involved from the Coalition report. And then when did the Australians investigations start?

MEL HUPFELD:                     

So as I've said, I can't really add anything else to that. We were first aware of the allegation of civilian casualties in January of 2018, and the incident occurred on 3 June. If I can just provide a little bit of context here. I think the figures and I think you'll probably see this in the Coalition civilian casualty report. Over the period of the campaign to defeat Daesh up to that point, in excess of 33,000 strikes that have occurred. The numbers - and they will report this in the Coalition summary this evening, I feel certain - in the order of, or more than- slightly more than 1000 civilian casualties. But within that, the impact on Daesh and the enemy forces, the ability to liberate in the order of 8 million Iraqis back to their sovereign state. These are the sort of statistics that we have to have a think about in the very grim business of a country, the Government of Iraq, fighting for the sovereignty of their country.

QUESTION:                           

Can I just- so when you found out about it, Defence found out about it, in January 2018 …

MEL HUPFELD:                     

Yes.

QUESTION:                           

… so that's six months after the strike or something like that.

MEL HUPFELD:                     

Seven months, yes.

QUESTION:                           

Seven months. So that was from the Coalition or from the Airwars report?

MEL HUPFELD:                     

That's from Coalition but I think they gathered their information coming out of the Airwars website.

QUESTION:                           

Okay. So why didn't we monitor the Airwars website considering that they had some idea of the location of the strike?

MEL HUPFELD:                     

The global coalition for the defeat of Daesh that- we have to have some semblance of coherency and approach to that. We still monitor all these things but we take our lead from the Coalition and that's through Operation Inherent Resolve.

QUESTION:                           

I wanted to ask if there's any room to provide compensation to surviving family members, given you've got names and the [indistinct]?

MEL HUPFELD:                     

As I've just explained, the global Coalition for the defeat of Daesh is commanded and led through the Operation Inherent Resolve. Claims for compensation are dealt with through that organisation. I do note that Australia has committed funds to the reconstruction and humanitarian assistance to Iraq - our Government has provided, I think it's in the order of $100 million, and there's a period of that over a three year period. But we don't take deliberate or direct action from an Australian Government perspective for the compensation on it, that's managed through Operation Inherent Resolve.

QUESTION:                           

I just have one question. How many inquiries are under way at the moment, if any, that we might be hearing about down the track?

MEL HUPFELD:                     

I'd have to get that information for you, and it will be apparent in the Coalition report. They will have a long list and I won't quote the number because I'd hate to get it wrong for you, but there's a considerable number of strike and events that the Operation Inherent Resolve are continuing to investigate.

QUESTION:                           

Including Australian involved in [indistinct]?

MEL HUPFELD:                     

It may, it may include Australian strikes that have occurred. If new information comes to light, then we will investigate fully any further allegations of this nature.

QUESTION:                           

Can I just ask one last broad question on this? So you're talking about urban warfare, where you can't by its nature know who's in every building against an opponent that does not recognise any rules of war, in fact flaunts them, you're putting troops in harm's way and you have a choice of whether or not you should defend them. You have a population in Australia who won't accept any civilian casualties. Is it getting more and more impossible for the Australian Army, Navy and Air Force to fight wars?

MEL HUPFELD:                     

I think that challenge has always been in place. The visibility of what we do and the difficult task that we're given becomes very apparent to the Australia public. That is a matter for Government in their decisions to commit Australian military capability, to pursue violence if necessary in pursuit of Australia's national interest - that remains a challenge for us. All I can really add is that we are highly trained, we have great equipment that allows us to be as accurate, as disciplined, in accordance with international rules and the rules of engagement that our government sets. And the people on the ground, in the air, on board our vessels, are always called upon to make very difficult decisions and they do that on behalf of the public and some of those decisions result in actions that can be regrettable. But in either way, the horror of war is certainly not an easy thing to deal with.

QUESTION:                           

Can I just ask quickly, will these two pilot go on to be decorated for their service?

MEL HUPFELD:                     

That will be determined through our normal processes.

QUESTION:                           

But it won't stand in the way?

MEL HUPFELD:                     

No, absolutely. And I emphasise that the aircrews and those in the authority chain performed in accordance with the rules of engagement and that's, rest assured, all that's being deeply investigated. Two, coming back to your original question there Tim, to ensure that we learn as many lessons as possible to take all feasible action to ensure that we minimise civilian casualties.

QUESTION:                           

Airwars has long historically had far higher casualty numbers than Coalition estimates. Do you now consider Airwars a credible source, and particularly in terms of those estimates?

MEL HUPFELD:                     

I don't judge Airwars in that regard. I note their assessments and in this case for, as an example, their allegation began with a number of about 50, but then came back to about 34 and then it talked about people being pulled alive from rubble. So we just have to be careful in taking context of their assessments, I'm not saying they're right or wrong. But what I am saying is that the inquiries that we conduct, the investigations that we conduct apply to the best level of our knowledge the basis of information that indicates to us what civilian populations may be. And that's why we deem in this case that the allegation is credible, but we will never truly know how many people nor indeed how they were killed.

Ladies and gentlemen thank you very much.