Posted on Jan 9, 2015
What is the Operational purpose behind the Charlie Hebdo/Paris attacks?
13K
62
31
3
3
0
Unlike my other discussion question interested in the reaction of France and the US to the attacks and some of the news-source based discussion questions of what actually occurred and one debating the proximate motivations of the attack, this thread is about the Operational purpose.
The Strategic is policy outcome (most Jihadists want a Caliphate) Tactics win battles (or terrorist attacks) and Operations link Strategy and Tactics. The Operational level of war is concerned with picking when, where, how and with whom and what to fight in order to bring about the Strategic Objective or "Why".
These attacks appear to have been pretty tactically sound: single-shot selection on AKs, not automatic, picking targets, exploiting unarmed police, ex-filtration plan, follow-on attacks.
So why did they do it?
Option 1. Punish the Infidel: Punishing un-believers for mocking the prophet and/or vengeance for casualties of wars in Muslim lands: a simple explanation, plausible, done before and a (supposedly) legitimate aim in establishing a proper Caliphate, but small picture and limited, likely to be self-initiated. (This is what AQAP claimed in their statement -and what one of the attackers is alleged to have said in an interview. But troops don't always know the real purpose they fight when and where they do.) "Some of the sons of France were disrespectful to the prophets of Allah, so a group from among the believing soldiers of Allah marched unto them, then they taught them respect and the limit of the freedom of expression."-AQAP
Option 2. Provocation: To provoke over-reaction from the French Government, to drive a wedge between non-Muslim French and Muslim French by creating friction, aggressive police and societal response further alienating believers and potentially gaining more sympathy and recruits in order to grow the campaign for Caliphate? (This is my personal suspicion, these were valuable, trained and disciplined troops-you use those to carry forward strong parts of your plan-you don't spend them on small bits)
Option 3. Demonstration: To demonstrate the operational superiority of one faction over another. NPR pointed out AQ and ISIS have been at odds and one may be trying to demonstrate itself as the true representative of the Ummah (the faithful people) over the other. Similar actions have happened with splinters of the IRA, PLO and other terrorists groups trying to show their own power by attacking targets better (vice fighting one another directly).
Option 4. Combination of above (cop out) pick one that's dominant or explain in detail below.
Option 5. Other (Please explain this-I may have forgotten an option)
A good summary of reporting so far:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/01/09/376052770/the-latest-on-paris-attack-police-appear-to-close-in-on-two-suspects
The Strategic is policy outcome (most Jihadists want a Caliphate) Tactics win battles (or terrorist attacks) and Operations link Strategy and Tactics. The Operational level of war is concerned with picking when, where, how and with whom and what to fight in order to bring about the Strategic Objective or "Why".
These attacks appear to have been pretty tactically sound: single-shot selection on AKs, not automatic, picking targets, exploiting unarmed police, ex-filtration plan, follow-on attacks.
So why did they do it?
Option 1. Punish the Infidel: Punishing un-believers for mocking the prophet and/or vengeance for casualties of wars in Muslim lands: a simple explanation, plausible, done before and a (supposedly) legitimate aim in establishing a proper Caliphate, but small picture and limited, likely to be self-initiated. (This is what AQAP claimed in their statement -and what one of the attackers is alleged to have said in an interview. But troops don't always know the real purpose they fight when and where they do.) "Some of the sons of France were disrespectful to the prophets of Allah, so a group from among the believing soldiers of Allah marched unto them, then they taught them respect and the limit of the freedom of expression."-AQAP
Option 2. Provocation: To provoke over-reaction from the French Government, to drive a wedge between non-Muslim French and Muslim French by creating friction, aggressive police and societal response further alienating believers and potentially gaining more sympathy and recruits in order to grow the campaign for Caliphate? (This is my personal suspicion, these were valuable, trained and disciplined troops-you use those to carry forward strong parts of your plan-you don't spend them on small bits)
Option 3. Demonstration: To demonstrate the operational superiority of one faction over another. NPR pointed out AQ and ISIS have been at odds and one may be trying to demonstrate itself as the true representative of the Ummah (the faithful people) over the other. Similar actions have happened with splinters of the IRA, PLO and other terrorists groups trying to show their own power by attacking targets better (vice fighting one another directly).
Option 4. Combination of above (cop out) pick one that's dominant or explain in detail below.
Option 5. Other (Please explain this-I may have forgotten an option)
A good summary of reporting so far:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/01/09/376052770/the-latest-on-paris-attack-police-appear-to-close-in-on-two-suspects
Terrorism
Operations
Strategy
Edited 11 y ago
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 13
0
0
0
- The above survey questions are limited and limiting. Plus they are tactical level effects, not operational level. Therefore, the "combo" option is not a cop out but the only logical answer without knowing the Islamic Radicals actual strategic objectives.
- It is possible for one tactical action to have tactical, operational, and strategic effects for Islamic Radicals.
- Strategic. Pick a strategic objective. Continued relevance, recruiting, funding, rear echelon operations, etc. The strategy, however, boils down to classic and doctrinal insurgent strategy.
- Operational. Ties the strategy to the tactics. The operational purpose depends the strategic objective that the enemy intends. This one attack could service several simultaneous strategic objectives.
- Tactical. Akin to the 9/11 attacks where 19 terrorists, $0.5M in funding, and two years of planning resulted in 3,000 KIA, several billion dollar economic impact, and several year commitment by the US and its allies. From the enemy perspective this was time, money, and personnel well spent. Charlie Abdo attacks (including follow on operations included 4 personnel, I assume limited funding and planning but tied up over 80,000 security personnel over four days.
- It is possible for one tactical action to have tactical, operational, and strategic effects for Islamic Radicals.
- Strategic. Pick a strategic objective. Continued relevance, recruiting, funding, rear echelon operations, etc. The strategy, however, boils down to classic and doctrinal insurgent strategy.
- Operational. Ties the strategy to the tactics. The operational purpose depends the strategic objective that the enemy intends. This one attack could service several simultaneous strategic objectives.
- Tactical. Akin to the 9/11 attacks where 19 terrorists, $0.5M in funding, and two years of planning resulted in 3,000 KIA, several billion dollar economic impact, and several year commitment by the US and its allies. From the enemy perspective this was time, money, and personnel well spent. Charlie Abdo attacks (including follow on operations included 4 personnel, I assume limited funding and planning but tied up over 80,000 security personnel over four days.
(0)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM Sir, the forum seems to require some limitation. It is entirely possible that I don't understand the difference in tactical vs operational vs strategic as well as I thought (I've spent the vast majority of my time at the tactical level).
I think I assumed (in order to allow further discussion-so a doctrinal assumption) the strategic goal of an implemented Global Caliphate (tends to be what most people think the Jihadists want.)
I strongly concur that a single action can have effects through the multiple levels of war, but anyone planning an operation, deciding when and where to commit a team with training and discipline has a primary goal, and that's what I was trying to generate debate about.
If you found the choices too limited and limiting, are there others you think are more likely? If the ones I selected (thinking them operational level linkages from the observable tactical actions to the assumed strategic goal of Caliphate) were in fact tactical effects as you mentioned, what would be some alternative operational level aims? Thanks for the input.
I think I assumed (in order to allow further discussion-so a doctrinal assumption) the strategic goal of an implemented Global Caliphate (tends to be what most people think the Jihadists want.)
I strongly concur that a single action can have effects through the multiple levels of war, but anyone planning an operation, deciding when and where to commit a team with training and discipline has a primary goal, and that's what I was trying to generate debate about.
If you found the choices too limited and limiting, are there others you think are more likely? If the ones I selected (thinking them operational level linkages from the observable tactical actions to the assumed strategic goal of Caliphate) were in fact tactical effects as you mentioned, what would be some alternative operational level aims? Thanks for the input.
(0)
(0)
COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM
Capt Porter,
- Comments not meant to be a poke in the eye but rather to provide a greater level of detail and understanding to the discussion.
- The levels of war (strategic, operational, tactical) are described and defined in ADRP 1-02 Terms and Symbols SEP 13. In a nutshell, strategic level is focused upon guidance, endstate, and resource issues; tactical level is focused upon wining battles, and the operational level is focused upon translating one to the other.
- Each level will therefore have its own sets of possible answers and the answers at lower levels depend upon the answers at higher levels of war.
- Agree that strategic goal is re establishment of an Islamic Caliphate.
- I would have to put more thought into the operational and tactical level goals to answer your above questions. A quick answer is that if I was ISIS right now and was an operational planner then I would be thinking in terms of different theaters of operation (European, North American, African, Middle Eastern). My operational and tactical level plans would be different by theater based upon a variety of factors. For example funding would be a higher priority in North America and Europe but recruitment would be a higher priority in Europe. Training would be a higher priority in Africa and the Middle East. Stuff like that.
- Comments not meant to be a poke in the eye but rather to provide a greater level of detail and understanding to the discussion.
- The levels of war (strategic, operational, tactical) are described and defined in ADRP 1-02 Terms and Symbols SEP 13. In a nutshell, strategic level is focused upon guidance, endstate, and resource issues; tactical level is focused upon wining battles, and the operational level is focused upon translating one to the other.
- Each level will therefore have its own sets of possible answers and the answers at lower levels depend upon the answers at higher levels of war.
- Agree that strategic goal is re establishment of an Islamic Caliphate.
- I would have to put more thought into the operational and tactical level goals to answer your above questions. A quick answer is that if I was ISIS right now and was an operational planner then I would be thinking in terms of different theaters of operation (European, North American, African, Middle Eastern). My operational and tactical level plans would be different by theater based upon a variety of factors. For example funding would be a higher priority in North America and Europe but recruitment would be a higher priority in Europe. Training would be a higher priority in Africa and the Middle East. Stuff like that.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Revenge. These are in essence, dirt bags who have nothing other than their religion that gives them a self of worth and pride. They are insulted by the cartoons and feel the need to strike back.
(0)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
SSG (Join to see) I'd say the tactics indicate greater planning training and discipline than that. Further, the French are now looking for additional people involved. Its looking much more like a team, not a couple angry guys. Teams are used for goals, not just emotions.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I don't know, why only 12 people then... I understand they had support and were networked into a larger network to some extent... however if real serious planing went into this why were casualties not in the hundreds? Timothy McVeigh and his small network were hardly rocket scientists and yet they managed to injure almost 700, kill around 200 and do over half a billion dollars worth of damage.
I guess it's possible that the goal was to to take out select group of people instead of just racking up big numbers.
I guess it's possible that the goal was to to take out select group of people instead of just racking up big numbers.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google