Despite “considerable efforts to protect civilian life” during the 2017 battle against the Islamic State group for Raqqa, Syria, U.S. and coalition forces made harmful errors, according to a new report from the RAND Corporation.
The forces made certain strategic decisions, such as the encirclement of Raqqa, which “likely increased civilian harm,” the report, which was released Thursday, states. They also relied on an air campaign in order to have fewer troops on the ground, which decreased risks to them but ultimately put civilians at greater risk.
“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 says. “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.”
PENTAGON: ‘SMALL NUMBERS’ OF RUSSIAN TROOPS LEAVING KYIV, ‘NOT A REAL WITHDRAWAL’
The battle for Raqqa began in June 2017 and lasted until October of that year, when U.S.-based forces retook the city, the last major stronghold held by IS in Syria at the time.
By the end of the battle, an estimated 60%-80% of the city was left uninhabitable.
Despite concluding that the United States could have done more to prevent civilian harm, the report notes that the Syrian government and its “Russian and Iranian partners undoubtedly contributed far more to civilian harm and suffering in Syria overall.”
“The battle for Raqqa is a cautionary tale about civilian harm in urban combat,” said Michael McNerney, RAND senior researcher and lead author of the report. “It should serve as an extra incentive to the DoD to strengthen its policies and procedures to mitigate, document, and respond to civilian harm.”
They defined civilian harm as more than just “civilian casualties,” referencing the “displacement of populations and damage to structures and community infrastructure, such as bridges, hospitals, power sources, education and healthcare facilities, religious and cultural sites, and transportation hubs.”
The report comes amid a series of high-profile reports of civilian casualties in recent months.
The U.S. launched an airstrike targeting Zemari Ahmadi, an aid worker who had no terror ties, during the military’s final days in Afghanistan. There had been intelligence to suggest that terror attacks on U.S. forces evacuating Afghans and third-country nationals seeking to flee the new Taliban regime were likely.
He was killed along with nine other civilians, including some of his children. The military surveilled Ahmadi for eight hours before greenlighting the strike, and his actions during that day concerned U.S. officials, though a military investigation that concluded last year found that confirmation bias on intel played a large role in the mistake.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The investigator concluded that there were no illegalities with the strike, and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has signed off on it. Pentagon spokesman John Kirby announced Dec. 13 that no military personnel would be punished for the botched strike.
U.S. Central Command is still investigating reports of civilian casualties resulting from a Dec. 3 strike in Syria, while Gen. Michael Garrett is reviewing a March 2017 Syrian strike that killed 80, including dozens of whom CENTCOM could not say were definitively terrorists.
He was given 90 days to complete his investigation, and that window has closed. The review “is in its final stages,” though they “do not have any additional timeline to announce or speak to but will provide additional details as they become available,” Defense Department spokesman Capt. Mike Kafka told reporters late last month.
