The below article first appeared on Professor McCauley's blog for Psychology Today.
The attacks in Paris have left a big question. Why would a group aiming for a Sunni state in Syria and Iraq, a group already under attack by the government forces of Syria, the U.S., the U.K., France, and Russia, mount a terrorist attack in Paris?
Every terrorist attack and every counterterrorist response is a communication to multiple audiences. We need to look at these audiences separately to see the logic of the Paris attacks.
For Sunni Muslims chafing under Shi’a power in Iraq and Syria, the message is power. ISIS can best defend Sunnis because ISIS has the power. For young Sunni men in the Middle East, the message is “Don’t think about joining ‘moderate’ Sunni rebels, don’t think about joining a local tribal militia, join the winning team — ISIS.”
For Muslims in Europe there is also a message of power, but more important there is jujitsu politics—ISIS trying to use Western strength against the West. With jujitsu politics terrorists aim to elicit an over-reaction that mobilizes new sympathy and support for the terrorists. A response to terrorism that creates collateral damage, that harms individuals previously unsympathetic to the terrorists, can bring new status and new volunteers for the terrorists.
This is the result ISIS seeks in France and in Europe more generally. In France and in other European countries they hope for a government response that will target Muslims with new restrictions and new surveillance. They hope also for a public reaction against Muslims, and the strengthening of anti-immigrant political parties, not only in France but in other European countries. They want increased discrimination and hostility aimed at European Muslims.
In short, ISIS looks for European reactions to push European Muslims toward joining in the construction of a new Caliphate. There are over 20 million Muslims living in the European Union (link is external). So far perhaps 2,000 have traveled to Syria to join ISIS. Jujitsu politics can bring more volunteers, more home-grown terrorists, and more security costs for European countries.
Will it work? Political speeches and newspapers are full of war talk. French forces have joined with U.S. forces in more bombs dropped on the ISIS controlled areas of Syria and Iraq. As ISIS tries to blend in with civilians, the escalation of bombing means escalation of collateral damage.
In France new powers of investigation and detention are being advanced for police and security forces. These will be felt more in Muslim immigrant neighborhoods than elsewhere.
Perhaps the most dangerous force for hostility and discrimination is the definition of the enemy as "fundamentalist Muslims." Marine LePen, leader of an anti-immigrant party in France, offered this target in an interview with NPR's Robert Siegel: "...we must eradicate Islamic fundamentalism from our soil."
Siegel did not challenge LePen's definition of the problem. But the fact is that the great majority of Islamic fundamentalists are devout rather than political. Defining religious ideas and religious practice as the enemy will attack ninety-nine peaceful Muslims for every jihadist reached. Jujitsu politics will be winning.
Every voice saying this is war is a voice for ISIS. Every voice for criminal justice against murderers is a voice against ISIS.
Every voice saying the enemy is fundamentalist Muslims is a voice for ISIS. Every voice saying political violence is the enemy is a voice against ISIS.
It isn’t clear yet which voices will be stronger.
Read the testimony of a Frenchman who spent 10 months as a prisoner of ISIS: theguardian.com/commentisfree (link is external)
Read Simon Jenkins from the Guardian. Except it is anger-mongering that is the threat, not fear-mongering. theguardian.com/commentisfree (link is external)
Read Brenda Stoter from al Monitor. Except it is not chaos ISIS seeks in Europe but a unity of European hostility toward Muslims. http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/11/isis-attack-paris-euro... (link is external)
See also:
McCauley, C. (2006). Jujitsu politics: Terrorism and response to terrorism. In Paul R. Kimmel and & Chris E. Stout (Eds.), Collateral Damage: The Psychological Consequences of America's War on Terrorism, pp. 45-65. Westport, CN: Praeger.
McCauley, C. (2007). War versus justice in response to terrorist attack: competing frames and their implications. In B. Bongar, L. M. Brown, L. E. Beutler, J. N. Breckenridge, P. G. Zimbardo (Editors), Psychology of Terrorism, pp. 13-31. New York: Oxford University Press