Posted on Jan 9, 2015
What is the Operational purpose behind the Charlie Hebdo/Paris attacks?
12.3K
62
34
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 10 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 14
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)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google