Psychological Counterterrorism and the Response to the Paris Terror Attacks

By Caleb R. Newton

    In the aftermath of the Nov. 13 Paris terror attacks leaving over 120 dead, including Americans, British, Spaniards, and Jews, France and the West perceive brute force as a reasonable response. On Nov. 14 and 15, airstrikes against ISIS intensified, who had earlier claimed responsibility for the Nov. 13 attacks. A senior ISIS leader in Libya was reported as killed on Nov. 14.

    But the brute force response extended to the European home as well. In the aftermath of the attacks on the night of Nov. 13, France's borders were closed, leaving stranded persons around the world. Roadblocks were set up around the city of Paris. One reporter affiliated with CNN told of a young man driving away from his home who was confronted by police with an automatic weapon and told to "turn around." He complied, and other incidents similar almost certainly took place.

    And there is the element of the future of the counterterrorism operation and continued force against the citizens of France and other nations of the European Union and the world. Will all public gatherings be suspect in Paris from now on? Will they be required by law to have a restriction on the number of attendees, the venue for the event, among other requirements and restrictions? Will France, like Israeli Moshe Ya'alon suggested, adopt a law similar to the American Patriot Act in which mass surveillance of the citizenry is forced by law? Are intensified airstrikes and increased actions at home like the American Patriot Act really effective at counterterrorism?

    Force entailing airstrikes and entities such as the Patriot Act may stop some terrorism, but it is not the most effective response mechanism. Force is responsive and it provides a further stage for the terror attacks. Think of it like a criminal and security systems - a criminal arrives at a random home intending to break in and commit robbery. He sees that there is a security system, so he moves on to the next house and breaks in.

    Overall, then, the security system has not prevented a robbery, it has only made the next stop more vulnerable and therefore increased the expense required to stop the criminal without him doing any more acts. It is highly questionable that force should actually be able to cover 100% of the possible scenarios - in a local district of Central Florida, as elsewhere, it is difficult to even cover 100% with bear-proof garbage cans.

    It is conceptual - even in science, to a certain extent, there is always a smaller particle, as has been discovered by physicists. The terrorists will use the stage provided by the force to commit their acts of terrorism. Such a scenario was the case in France - the French and the rest of the anti-ISIS coalition bombed ISIS in the Middle East, so strategically they moved to Europe, both in Paris and in proxy in the Russian airliner over the Sinai.

    Furthermore, the psychological brutalization of the population through restriction and surveillance is exactly what the terrorists want - it extends their reach and the reach of their attacks and makes the citizens of the world go into an enclave of continuous psychological terror.

    Brute force has questionable effectiveness - something smarter must be used. To start, the terror attacks themselves must be placed in the proper context. Calling on University of Central Florida Professor Jonathan Matusitz's summary of the academic definition of terrorism developed in the late 20th Century, terrorism is "the use of violence to create fear for political ends." Fear is a psychological concept and must lend such an understanding to effectively understand terrorism like the attacks in Paris. Terrorism is psychological warfare, and as such, it is able to withstand a conventional military response.

    The response that is most efficient at establishing an effective confrontation with the psychological warfare of terrorism is psychological counterterrorism. With a fleeting 2003 reference to the concept in an article by Dr. George Everly, the focus has instead been on "blowing the terrorists off the face of the earth." Such an approach would be fine, if it worked. However, one can't destroy an ideology and an attribute of the human psyche.

    Instead of focusing on conventional counterterrorism for unconventional warfare, there should be much less pressure placed on innocent civilian populations by the stress of conventional counterterrorism. The ideology of the terrorists should be attacked. Their ideology includes a wide range of components - from violent Islamism to the degradation of the value of the individual person. Reversing these ideologies is the answer to the terrorism in Paris, Israel, Beirut and potentially the United States and elsewhere in the near future.

(Image: State of Emergency in Paris [Edited] - Google Images)

[The views expressed in this publication are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dissecting Society]