Explosions and gunfire reverberated
through the streets of Paris on a Friday night. A series of six attacks yesterday
inflicted terror upon the entire world. This coordinated attack with 3
different teams resulted in at
least 129 dead, 352 injured with 99 in critical condition. It reminded
everyone of their vulnerability, even when going about everyday life in the
West. Targets included a soccer stadium, where a friendly match between France
and Germany was occurring, a concert hall, and five different streets. The goal
was clearly to kill or injure as many civilians as possible at once, as seen by
the coordination behind the attack and the
volatile type of explosive that was used.
But what was the main motivator for
imposing such terror on the world? The
Islamic State (IS) has claimed that they perpetrated the attack, with the
targeted locations “accurately chosen” and this operation as the “first of the
storm”. They did not include any proof of their involvement in the attack,
and this attack is out of character for the group. While they have primarily
focused on maintaining and expanding their territorial reach in Iraq and Syria
in the past, this type of coordinated attack on foreign soil is more of al-Qaeda’s
expertise. If the Islamic State is indeed behind the attack, it signals a shift
in strategy that directly targets the West.
Previous foreign attacks claimed by
the Islamic State were thought to be perpetrated by “lone wolf” style
attackers. Analysts have long thought that these attacks in Tunisia, Kuwait,
France, Egypt, and other places were perpetuated by supporters of the Islamic
State, not directly planned and orchestrated by IS’s central leadership.
Becoming more deliberate about planning foreign attacks could allow IS to
become more like al-Qaeda: externally and not internally focused.
The change in style to increased
attacks on foreign soil could be motivated by the current situation on the
ground in Iraq and Syria. Key
supply routes and cities have been taken, especially in Iraq, by new Sunni
militias and Kurdish forces. These losses could have motivated the IS
attack on Paris. Every overt spectacle of an attack showcases their power and
can be used to draw in more foreign fighters. Islamophobic blowback is typical
following such attacks, and could potentially spur others to fight for jihad no
matter where they are located. The reaction of France and the rest of the West
will be instrumental in whether such an attack is deemed a success for IS in
terms of its recruitment.
Thus far, the dust has not yet
settled from the attacks in Paris. It is impossible to know all of the policy
implications in the fight against IS that will be implemented in the coming
weeks. However, France’s
Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier was already scheduled to go to the
Mediterranean to help stage French airstrikes against IS. This allows
France to have the resources necessary to strike back. French President François
Hollande has made some notable statements about the attacks, including that
they constituted an “act
of war”. His statement points to the possibility of invoking Chapter 5 of
NATO, which could force increased military involvement from NATO members. Until
more information is known, we must prepare ourselves for all of the
consequences that a terrorist attack can bring.
No comments:
Post a Comment