- Moderator
- #1
Interesting analysis
Extremist Islamist groups often choose between two options: controlling territory locally or carrying out terrorist attacks abroad. In claiming responsibility for the Paris attacks, the Islamic State has made clear it thinks it can do both.
Traditionally it's been an either-or choice for extremist groups because it's so difficult to do both. For a group like ISIS that resembles a government and has a fixed address, it's risky to attack and antagonize another country. As a result, extremist groups that strike abroad tend to operate underground because they need to guard against retaliatory strikes.
Consider two basic models. One is the Taliban, which dominated life inside Afghanistan with their extreme brand of Islam, but displayed little interest in the world beyond their borders.
The other model is al-Qaida, a group that lives in the shadows and needs no permanent home. It can seem dormant for months or years, yet vows to carry out terrorist attacks anywhere on the globe at the time and place of its choosing.
The Islamic State now appears to be adopting both models simultaneously.
....but the six coordinated strikes in Paris on Friday night pointed to a high degree of organization and planning, as did the other recent attacks claimed by ISIS.
Why would ISIS do this when it could provoke a more powerful military response from its enemies?
William McCants, a Middle East analyst at the Brookings Institution and author of The ISIS Apocalypse, says the group's motives are not clear. But he notes that ISIS has lost about 25 percent of its territory in the past year and is feeling increased pressure from opponents that include the U.S., France, Russia and Iran.
"My suspicion is that [ISIS leaders] see these strikes as a deterrent, but they have miscalculated, and that it will serve rather to galvanize the international community to increase their efforts to destroy its government in Syria and Iraq," he told The Washington Post.