“Having more ground forces… could have improved US and coalition capabilities to mitigate and respond to civilian harm through interactions with local populations inside Raqqa.”

“US forces faced a considerable risk trade-off in conducting what was primarily an air campaign against ISIS in Raqqa and relying only on a limited ground presence,” the report said. The choice to encircle the city was a “more aggressive approach,” that likely made it harder to create “civilian exit corridors” and may have caused ISIS to go further into the “densely-populated heart of the city,” the report said. The report was sponsored by the Department of Defense Office of the Undersecretary for Policy, Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said Thursday. Strategic choices the US and coalition forces made in the battle, like choosing to encircle the city and focus primarily on an air campaign in order to have fewer troops on the ground and decrease risk to them, ultimately had a greater impact on civilian harm, the report from the RAND Corporation said. US and coalition forces that fought in Syria in 2017 to recapture the city of Raqqa from ISIS could have done more to decrease harm done to civilians living in the city during the months-long battle, a think tank report released on Thursday found.

New tank battle Syria