Speculation: The Paris Attacks Were Not Perfectly Executed. They Were, In Fact, Botched

[alcibiades_mystery]

To begin with, I think it's obvious that the stadium attack was a nearly complete failure. You have three suicide bombers attempting to make entrance to the stadium. They are thwarted, and end up killing only themselves and one innocent civilian. As suicide bombings go, that's fairly dismal, even if you assume that one of the main goals was distraction from the other attacks. But there's clear evidence that they missed their goals in other ways. First, we know that one bomber tried to get into the stadium, and was refused and approached by security. That's when he detonated.

We've heard a lot about the sophisticated coordination, but I think this was a surprise to the other stadium bombers. They heard the blast, then essentially wandered around for some minutes trying to figure out what to do. Nothing else explains the failed attempt to enter followed by the delay between detonations.

So, what was the plan at the stadium: 1) to gain entry (failed), and therefore, 2) to detonate inside the stadium, either simultaneously or in staggered succession. The actual result was that they detonated early, causing problems down the line for teams 2 and 3.

So, teams 2 and 3. I'd suggest that these were meant to be ONE team, both destined for the Bataclan Theater. Their actual goal? To seal the entire theater, take the entire crowd hostage, and kill as many as possible. But the plan went awry at the stadium. Teams 2 and 3 essentially panic. The bar and restaurant killings are not planned and coordinated, but improvisation killings once the plan went south early at the stadium. In other words, the terrorists realize that the stadium action has gone wrong - probably because it went off far too early, so they modify the plan, attacking the Cambodian restaurant and the bar as a way to increase casualties.

One team gets to the theater, but they really needed two or three of these teams there. They fail to follow through on the plan: they do not seal the exits (as planned) but basically come in shooting. It's well executed as a "come in shooting" two person job, but they really needed six or even eight people to do the real job of sealing the theater. The death toll (excruciating) makes it seem like a success, but it's really a failure relative to goals.

But here's the real upshot: some of the teams may have aborted once it was clear the plan was falling apart. What if there were in fact eight or even ten dedicated to the theater take-over? Two teams of two went through with parts of it or improvised, but two other teams hit pause?

[Recursion]

1. I largely agree on two points

1. All of the suicide bombings were nearly complete failures for some reason

2. The bar and restaurant attacks definitely seem like targets of opportunity rather than planned

On the other hand, the sheer scale and audacity of the attacks retains the "brand effect" that ISIS wanted (though they seem to have handled the media side of this badly -- IRA, AQ, LTTE, etc. always had codes included in the attack that the responsibility claim would "unlock", which doesn't seem to have happened here).

[alcibiades_mystery]

2. I don't doubt that this was an ISIS operation

We're still trying to understand the mechanics of the operation. For my money, the event makes sense if we see it as a series of failures followed by opportunistic follow-through.

[NobodyHere]

3. Personally I think the stadium bombers were trying to kill the President

[alcibiades_mystery]

4. All I know is that one of them tried to make entry, failed, and detonated

He was the first to detonate.

Then there is a delay. Why? Clearly, no other bomber tries to make entry (there's already been a bombing!). So what do the other bombers do? One detonates on the stadium grounds, but not until a few minutes after the first explosion. One wanders off and detonates in a McDonald's near the stadium, clearly not the intended target. That third bomber has gone opportunistic, I'd call it, abandoning the plan and just seeking to inflict loss of life.

What we see at the stadium are cascading failures.

I'd suggest that the cascade continues down the line.

If you ask me, the plan was to have the stadium bombs go off at three different places in the stadium at the same time that or just before the theater was sealed off. This was probably to happen late into the first half of the game, or early second half to get the theater teams into position. Once the stadium plot failed, the theater teams were forced into action.

[Yorktown]

5. What a weird conspiracy assessment. The ISIS operation was a success.

They managed to strike to create maximum psychological trauma by striking in three very different and complementary (from a terrorist point of view) styles.

- stadium: the French President gets evacuated (qualitative hit)
- cafes: random terror at two key city points (extensive hits)
- bataclan: mass murder ininterrupted for 1 hour. (intensive hits)

All that coordinated to show efficiency and create panic in the fog of war.

To achieve this with so few people is clearly (and quite regrettably) a terrorist 'win'.

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. Hmmm

I don't think it's a conspiracy assessment at all.

That they had relative success (relative to nothing) doesn't show that they achieved their goals, and indeed, the actual unfolding of this event (as I've described) does not seem like a well-planned operation running smoothly. Rather, it seems like a well-planned operation that went off the rails and became opportunistic.

That's not a "conspiracy assessment." It is an analysis of what we know.

Moreover, I said nothing about "wins" or "losses." This event was obviously a tremendous operational victory for ISIS (as unfortunately defined by their standards). My questions here are about tactics and execution. The plan, as I see it, didn't work, but that doesn't mean they didn't cause a remarkable amount of damage and misery.

[Yorktown]

7. I really don't know why you think the 'plan' didn't work

- create mayhem in the vincinity of a standing President: check
- create mayhem in the artery linking two major city nexuses (bastille/republique): check
- mass slaughter people at a concert hall: check

What do you suggest they could have done better?
Blow up a military base and a large petrol refinery at the same hour on the same day?

[alcibiades_mystery]

15. We're defining plan differently I suppose

You're defining it as overall strategy, while I'm looking at actual tactics. We can look at Columbine as an illustration. As a matter of overall strategy (say, kill a lot of people, get famous), Columbine worked spectacularly well for Klebold and Harris, yes? But as we know, their actual plan for the event failed at several levels, forcing opportunistic modifications. They planned, for instance, to set off s large bomb in the school cafeteria. They even placed the bomb there and waited for it to go off. It fizzled. They planned to shoot students escaping the building from locations in the parking lot. But the bomb failed, so they modified their plan.

That's the level at which I think we see cascading failures in the Paris attacks. Like Klebold and Harris, these guys achieved a strategic plan even as their actual tactics failed at every level. You might say "What does it matter?" Fine. But I think it does matter that we understand what they were trying to do tactically.

[Yorktown]

19. Oh sure, but then, most things 'fail' by your definition

Hardly anything works according to an ideal plan. That's why backups and plan B's are for.

All in all, on a project assessment basis, the ISIS attackers got a fairly good bang for their buck.

[alcibiades_mystery]

24. Sigh

[CJCRANE]

10. It was the same with 9/11 and Flight 93.

It was taken down before it reached its target.

If that plane had hit the White House or US Capitol Building we would be in a different world now. How different is hard to tell.

[Hortensis]

20. I agree the stadium was an obvious failure, not that

I've studied and thought it through like Acibiades. But my husband and I both assumed that immediately when were heard the bombs went off outside, when most people were inside, and killed almost no one compared to what could have been.

[Yorktown]

23. Still, the Stade de France attack is a media win: French President exfiltrated

There was an extra 'bonus' which didn't happen: had the Stade de France been evacuated, the A1 highway would have been jammed, adding to the confusion.

[Hortensis]

25. Sure.

[Yorktown]

22. Sadly, ISIS is boosting a worldwide 2nd Amendment

You can't put SWAT teams in every mom & pop store.

So, give it a few more attacks like this, and the only answer will be generalized open carry.

[Yorktown]

31. Rules depend on circumstances

A: If terrorism becomes widespread, fully expect a spread of open carry by popular demand.

B: Petrodollars keep funding the spread of religious fundamentalism.

A+B=

[joshcryer]

8. The restaurants were on the way to the theater.

They dropped off suicide bombers at restaurant locations as they went toward the theater.

One of them blew themselves up, the other was captured alive (I guess he chickened out).

It's possible that they didn't intend to drop guys off but they got return fire from the police at that point and just started leaving guys behind, and so they didn't have a larger crew when they got to the theater.

But I think it went as well as it could have, what I mean is, I don't think the plan was botched midway and they carried it out as planned, with the potential for losses along the way.

Doing drive bys at restaurants conferred a sense of confusion to the entire city, so the theater then was an open target.

[CJCRANE]

9. The cops waited for 2 hours before going into the theater.

That's where most of the casualties came from as the terrorists had time to pick people off.

[MFM008]

11. I agree with OP

the last attack was next to the concert, you can hear a concert. it was not the original target but unfortunately achieved almost the same results, the only ones that were "LUCKY" that night were the terrorists.

[world wide wally]

12. They keep harping in newscasts about how sophisticated these attacks were, but the only level of

sophistication I see is that they all had wrist watches and a given time.

[JonathanRackham]

13. It makes no difference to the dead people.

Only the politicians making excuses.

[oberliner]

14. I completely agree - I think the soccer stadium was supposed to be the centerpiece of the attack

And the plan was to kill huge numbers of fans in attendance (including the President of France), but, thankfully, they were prevented from doing so.

[BootinUp]

16. Sure, it could have been worse. Hopefully

enough is learned to reduce the threat, because we don't want to give them another shot.

[Gothmog]

17. It does appear that this plan fell apart in places

[closeupready]

18. Insightful ideas. I think you may be correct.

K&R

[Quixote1818]

26. These are very good points worth looking into. nt

[flamingdem]

27. Sadly it's just a first round

and the first time a suicide bomber was used in France..

They will learn from this.

[Ex Lurker]

28. Question: How did the other teams know the stadium bombers failed?

IIRC the stadium is ~5 miles from the other locations, so they wouldn't have heard the bombs go off. The dead bombers couldn't have called or texted, and even the people in the stadium didn't know immediately what had happened, so the other terrorists couldn't have learned it from the media.

[alcibiades_mystery]

30. The stadium attacks came at 9:20, 9:30, and 9:40

The first bar attack was 9:25. Here's how I see it: the first stadium bomber attempts to make entry and fails, detonates at 9:20. A second stadium attacker has eyes on this, sees the thing is going sideways and calls Team 2 at 9:20. That team goes opportunistic and attacks the bar at 9:25.

Your objection assumes all the stadium bombers detonated at once and couldn't therefore have contacted the teams five miles to the south. But that's not true. They had time to contact those teams.