Thread by @Charles_Lister

I'd be remiss if I didn't add that this move - described by @charlie_savage as "#Trump's secret rules" - was praised by several then-#ISIS-focused USG officials now serving as #Biden appointees.

This isn't an entirely partisan issue.

https://twitter.com/Charles_Lister/status/1389209275923378179

@charlie_savage #pt: Speaking at @MiddleEastInst
in July '17, @brett_mcgurk (now in @JoeBiden's NSC) said #Trump had introduced "key changes... that've made key differences..."

- "We've adopted a campaign of annihilation... a surround, constrict & annihilate strategy."

@charlie_savage @MiddleEastInst @brett_mcgurk @JoeBiden #pt: There's little/no debate across the partisan divide about the costs associated with "collateral damage" in CT strikes - BUT there *is* an active bipartisan debate about where to draw the line of risk under certain conditions.

The scale of the D-#ISIS campaign drew that out.

@charlie_savage @MiddleEastInst @brett_mcgurk @JoeBiden #pt: The D-#ISIS campaign's reliance on "by-with-through" also necessitated a greater focus on supporting airpower -- as a recent @RANDCorporation study underlined -- as less capable ground forces (ISF, Pesh & #SDF) required far greater air & artillery support to move forward.

@charlie_savage @MiddleEastInst @brett_mcgurk @JoeBiden @RANDCorporation To clarify the thread above: the "#Trump secret rules" reported by @charlie_savage were tied to non-conventional theaters (i.e. not #Syria) -- by bringing in OIR, I was to make a broader point on the challenge of determining lines of risk in C21st CT campaigns writ-large.

@charlie_savage @MiddleEastInst @brett_mcgurk @JoeBiden @RANDCorporation It's been clear to me at least that the debate on risk associated with CT-linked airstrikes (incl. drones) has not necessarily been a partisan one -- it's a genuine tactical/strategic debate with *a lot* of different inputs and positions.

OIR went very aggressive in D & R hands.