What is the Operational purpose behind the Charlie Hebdo/Paris attacks?

Capt Richard I P. — Fri, 09 Jan 2015 18:41:51 -0500

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

Response by CMSgt James Nolan made Jan 9 at 2015 7:03 PM

CMSgt James Nolan — Fri, 09 Jan 2015 19:03:21 -0500

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.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 9 at 2015 7:10 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 09 Jan 2015 19:10:03 -0500

Option 1, plain and simple,

Response by TSgt Charles Warren made Jan 9 at 2015 9:32 PM

TSgt Charles Warren — Fri, 09 Jan 2015 21:32:13 -0500

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.

Response by SPC Stewart Smith made Jan 9 at 2015 10:40 PM

SPC Stewart Smith — Fri, 09 Jan 2015 22:40:16 -0500

They had their feelings hurt so they wanted to show the world that they are above criticism.

Response by MSgt Keith Hebert made Jan 10 at 2015 9:21 AM

MSgt Keith Hebert — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 09:21:42 -0500

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.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Jan 10 at 2015 9:31 AM

SSG Gerhard S. — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 09:31:51 -0500

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.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Jan 10 at 2015 7:06 PM

SSG Gerhard S. — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 19:06:47 -0500

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).

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 13 at 2015 6:19 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 13 Jan 2015 18:19:03 -0500

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.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 20 at 2015 10:02 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 10:02:13 -0500

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.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 20 at 2015 11:39 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 11:39:11 -0500

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?

Response by SFC Michael Jackson, MBA made Jan 20 at 2015 12:22 PM

SFC Michael Jackson, MBA — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 12:22:31 -0500

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

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Jan 20 at 2015 1:00 PM

SGT Bryon Sergent — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:00:42 -0500

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.

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Jan 20 at 2015 1:10 PM

COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:10:18 -0500

- 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.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Nov 14 at 2015 5:47 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sat, 14 Nov 2015 17:47:15 -0500

This is war and they do not have the numbers, but they have asymmetrical tactics.