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
3
3
0
Appreciate the second response. They can hide behind "Punishing Infidels", they want an authentic World War - plain and simple.
The Western response to ultimatums, John Kerry can deliver it personally.
The Western response to ultimatums, John Kerry can deliver it personally.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Capt Richard I P.
CW5 (Join to see) I'll echo what I sad to CMSgt James Nolan It's hard to argue with the statement from the perpetrators themselves...
But I cant help but feel like this was too organized to be so simple, which is why I lean toward 2. Likely they told the shooters it was #1, I would.
But I cant help but feel like this was too organized to be so simple, which is why I lean toward 2. Likely they told the shooters it was #1, I would.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Option 1 is what got the mess started, "they were poked fun at". I think then it moved toward option 2, which is to provoke, alienate and recruit more radicals in the movement.
(3)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
CMSgt James Nolan I appreciate the input. It's hard to argue with the statement from the perpetrators themselves...
(1)
(0)
CMSgt James Nolan
Capt Richard I P. ( I did not see an actual statement from the shooters, was that in the link?)
Every thing they do is to Punish the Infidel (especially ones who poke fun...)
And with domination being the end game, I would strongly argue that the purpose also incorporated the Provoke (a response, from the police/public/Christians etc), Alienate-the Muslim population (many of whom are decent folks, some of whom are radicals) and Recruit-more who see attacks like this as glamorous, some who see it as a calling, and others who are just animals with no lives so what the hell...
The truth is that only a cell will know what the reality is, but it does make for interesting conversation. When dealing with fundamentalist religious zealousy, there will never be common ground.
Every thing they do is to Punish the Infidel (especially ones who poke fun...)
And with domination being the end game, I would strongly argue that the purpose also incorporated the Provoke (a response, from the police/public/Christians etc), Alienate-the Muslim population (many of whom are decent folks, some of whom are radicals) and Recruit-more who see attacks like this as glamorous, some who see it as a calling, and others who are just animals with no lives so what the hell...
The truth is that only a cell will know what the reality is, but it does make for interesting conversation. When dealing with fundamentalist religious zealousy, there will never be common ground.
(1)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
CMSgt James Nolan Yes, there was a quote by one of the shooters in the link, but the statement I meant was the one released by AQAP that I re-pasted above and do so again here: "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
I agree that there is likely a blend of two or more of the options I specified and I can accept the selection of any of the three as primary, though I prefer #2 as the ultimate operational goal myself.
I agree that there is likely a blend of two or more of the options I specified and I can accept the selection of any of the three as primary, though I prefer #2 as the ultimate operational goal myself.
(0)
(0)
CMSgt James Nolan
Capt Richard I P. ahhh, the sons reference. I was thinking that came from the "leadership" not the shooters.
we are on the same page, I am more on #2.
we are on the same page, I am more on #2.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Clearly, this particular attack was to punish certain individuals in retaliation for some perceived transgressions with the dual purpose of terrorism. Random, unpredictable, and deadly attacks to bring about political, social, or religious change is the hallmark of terrorism.
(2)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
Though I voted for option 1 as the most prescient, I don't think we can divorce their actions from the realm of "terrorism" as an operational agenda. Terrorism by definition is asymmetrical, in nature, and is designed to encourage the expenditure of enormous resources by the recipient, at relatively little cost to the aggressor.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Well this is my humble opinion. They where fishing, and this was the perfect way to do it. Their is a running joke of the French. I have a rifle I'll sell yea, never fired and only dropped once. They have the sleeper cells there I gar-on-tee. They wanted to see how, they would respond if at all. What they respond with, Cops, military, armed civilians???? Well it worked. France will be the next country possibly over ran with ISIS attacks. This is only an Opinion.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Think it had mostly to do with attracting attention to the cause. They were quick to claim responsibility so they could capitalize on the media attention
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Any organization that beheads a woman in the middle of the street are filled with maggots. The worst kind of vermin. The only demonstrations should be by Muslims sick of those muslims who are terrorizing the world without it being called terrorism. What kind of ass backwards world do we live in?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
These words spoken in 1899 by a young (25 yr old) Winston Churchill.
Though the idiom is dated, the sentiment is not.
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.
No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."
Sir Winston Churchill; (Source: The River War, first edition, Vol II, pages 248-250 London).
Though the idiom is dated, the sentiment is not.
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.
No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."
Sir Winston Churchill; (Source: The River War, first edition, Vol II, pages 248-250 London).
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
the whole purpose of islam is to be the only religion in the world, and the Koran gives them the authority (in their mind) to accomplish this goal at any and all costs.
(1)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
MSgt Keith Hebert I think we all agree on the Islamic Strategy of Caliphate. 1LT L S and SFC John Gates outlined their perception of that strategy in some detail. This post posed a question about the Operational linkage between the grand Strategy of Caliphate and the Tactics of discrete terrorist attacks. Which way do these Tactics connect to the Strategy you outlined?
(0)
(0)
MSgt Keith Hebert
I really think that they will use what ever tactics they have to in order to establish a world wide caliphate.
Do not get me wrong I think these guys are smart and capable. But in the long run they will not think in the future just the present goals
Do not get me wrong I think these guys are smart and capable. But in the long run they will not think in the future just the present goals
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
To strike fear in those who would question the word of Islam. To push for the fear of not converting to Islam as this is their ultimate goal for the world.
(1)
(0)
CMSgt James Nolan
TSgt Charles Warren It has been a minute.
Yes, they operate on fear, excessive violence and hatred, no doubt. Anyone who thinks that total domination (caliphate) is mistaken....
Yes, they operate on fear, excessive violence and hatred, no doubt. Anyone who thinks that total domination (caliphate) is mistaken....
(0)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
CMSgt James Nolan I think you might have meant to have a couple more words in there.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google