As we witness the devastating impact of AI driven remote bombing campaigns on civilian life unfolding across Iran and Lebanon, Lauren Gould—together with BOOS (BNNVARA), Investico – onderzoeksjournalisten, and De Groene Amsterdammer—returns our attention to the civilian victims of Hawija, Iraq.
Ten years after a Dutch F-16 killed at least 85 civilians in Hawija, Iraq, the Dutch government continues to refuse individual compensation to survivors. What does life look like ten years after a Western airstrike killed and injured family members and destroyed homes and businesses? Why has the Dutch government refused to provide individual compensation for the harm these civilians have endured—despite having done so in other conflicts and in other cases?
Lauren’s central argument, building on the important work of Thomas Gregory, is that Western militaries were far more willing to offer individual ex gratia compensation when they had boots on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq prior to 2014. Compensation was then understood as part of a broader “hearts and minds” strategy, aimed at maintaining local support and reducing the risk of retaliation against Western forces.
However, as Western states withdrew ground troops from these theatres after 2014 and increasingly relied on large-scale airstrikes conducted from afar, investments in civilian harm tracking, acknowledgment, and compensation declined sharply. In this new mode of warfare, compensation was no longer perceived as serving a military–strategic purpose.
Yet, as the stories of victims in Hawija make painfully clear, recognition in the absence of compensation still leaves lives shattered and resentment deeply entrenched. Lauren argues that Defence’s claim that it evaluates the necessity and feasibility of individual compensation on a case-by-case basis does not amount to a meaningful or consistent policy.
In the Netherlands, we have already held an informed debate—and changed policy—on how we measure and transparently acknowledge the civilian harm we cause. The time has now come to extend that debate to how we can systematically address and alleviate the suffering our militaries have inflicted.
“We are actually seeing a world full of Hawijas, whether it is in Gaza, Lebanon, or Iran. It is time to demonstrate to our allies that we take civilian suffering seriously.” – Lauren Gould
In Lebanon, and Iran, algorithmically assisted strikes conducted from a distance are generating the same questions Hawija raised a decade ago, on how knowledge about the battlefield is generated, who decides what a legitimate target is, who is harmed, and who is accountable. AI targeting, with its distributed decision-making and algorithmic opacity, will make those harms harder to see and easier to deny.
