As Pantucci puts it, “The marauding-shooter scenario has maximum effect and only really requires people with guns.” Commando-style attackers need some training—the Indian government has long alleged that members of Pakistan’s intelligence services played a role in training and coordinating the Mumbai attackers—but not necessarily a whole lot. The Paris shooters clearly were well-equipped and weren’t complete amateurs, but also made some major tactical mistakes. Military experts interviewed by the Washington Post have said the Kouachis’ shooting stance betrayed a lack of professional training. Plus, they initially got Charlie Hebdo’s address wrong.
Given the amount of damage the Paris attack caused and the international attention it has garnered, the natural question is whether we’ll see more attacks of this type in the future. The director of MI5 warned Thursday that Britain is at risk of what are now being called “Paris-style” attacks. (It’s worth noting intelligence agencies have a habit of hyping threats to justify their own activities and budgets.) As for the United States, al-Qaida has been suggesting for years that the country is “awash with easily obtainable firearms” that could be used in a jihadist attack.
The good news is that in order for urban-warfare-style attacks to be really effective, they require multiple participants and some amount of coordination. That means they’re easier to catch before they happen. “It requires plotters, not just a plotter, and Western intelligence services are better at stopping groups,” says Gartenstein-Ross.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member