“伊斯兰国”还会有哪些阴谋？

继发动巴黎恐怖袭击之后，“伊斯兰国”（ISIS）11月18日宣布，他们已经杀害了一名中国人质和一名挪威人质。中国政府随后证实了该消息，并对这一泯灭人性的暴行予以强烈谴责，表示一定要将犯罪分子绳之以法。

今年1月，当法国讽刺漫画杂志《查理周刊》（Charlie Hebdo）巴黎总部遇袭之后，我曾写过一篇专栏文章，主张我们必须改变立场，都拿出强硬的态度。当时，考虑到ISIS标榜要的是领土合法性，我估计该组织攻击西方的目标范围有限，所以我推测，ISIS对国际社会的任何打击都是单兵作战，或者只有一两个合作伙伴协助。

但是，最新恐怖主义事件证明，我错了！

自从ISIS自行划定了横跨伊拉克和叙利亚的“领土”，并首次宣称建立了“哈里发统治帝国”以来，ISIS的领导者就一直在表明，他们会在这些“领土”上发动类似传统战争。在几次出乎意料的胜利之后，他们更坚定了这种武力策略，进而寻求对中东雅兹迪（Yazidis）教徒开战。目前，美国大屠杀纪念馆（American Holocaust Museum）已经将他们对雅兹迪人的杀戮定性为种族灭绝。

在美国出手干预后，ISIS开始急于建立一支由所谓“圣战士”（Jihadist）组成的军队，直接对抗美国。此后，面对伊拉克库尔德族民兵组织“自由战士”（Peshmerga）的还击，“伊斯兰国”转变了策略，改用新的战术——采用非常规战形式，打响了更为常见的游击战。这种游击战的形式正是臭名昭著的反政府武装塔利班组织，在阿富汗屡屡制胜的法宝。在“伊斯兰国”肆虐之前，伊拉克境内的武装分子也常常使用这一战术。

另一方面，从今年9月末以来，俄罗斯开始发动空袭，公开支持叙利亚总统阿萨德领导的政府。虽然俄罗斯的最初目标不是“伊斯兰国”的要塞，但出兵再次改变了中东战局。“伊斯兰国”的领导者深知，俄军的铁血无情举世闻名，在美俄两个军事大国两面夹击之下，他们的时间所剩不多。要同时迎击美俄两个超级大国，其难度远远胜过对抗其中任何一方。于是，始终采用灵活战术的“伊斯兰国”领导层启用了升级版的新战术：恐怖战。

可以预见，“伊斯兰国”未来将会有三大目标。

其一，在欧洲国家颇有象征意义的场所杀害当地平民。这么做的意图是煽动欧洲民间对本国卷入叙利亚和伊拉克战争的争议，浇灭西方国家反“伊斯兰国”的政治热情。换言之，就是要警告西方，要他们为军事干预付出代价。

其二，对未来召入麾下的新人进行有限的培训，并说服他们相信，今后仍然可以扮演举足轻重的“殉道者”角色。毕竟，如果愿意像“殉道者”那样为信仰舍弃生命，恐怖主义的信徒应该会更希望在巴黎街头献身，而不是选择荒无人烟的沙漠中心地带。那样一来，“殉道者”的所作所为就会为千千万万人所知。

其三，ISIS试图让西方相信，无论身在何处，“伊斯兰国”都还是一支无坚不摧的力量。

新战术需要随机以一些平民为攻击目标，除了欧洲当地居民，也会影响欧洲以外地区。在ISIS的战术思想看来，敌人无处不在，也无处遁形。这是典型的恐怖主义式回应。11月初，一架俄罗斯客机在西奈半岛坠毁。这起空难很可能就是由“伊斯兰国”安放的炸弹所致。上周，巴黎多处又遭到多起恐怖袭击，这是包括我在内的许多美国游客常常游览的地区。“伊斯兰国”已承认事件系其所为，国际社会对该组织一片声讨。发生袭击当晚，我心急如焚，设法联系家人和好友。我弟媳劳伦·阿尔达布拉是一位以演唱为职业的音乐人，常去巴黎的巴塔克兰音乐厅欣赏音乐。那一晚，优雅的音乐厅却上演着恐怖分子屠杀的惨剧。只有当你不得不大费周章搜寻大洋彼岸亲人的踪迹时，你才能真正体会到“伊斯兰国”发动新一轮战争意味着什么。

巴黎的悲剧发生后，各国纷纷表示支持，这令人感动又鼓舞。美国总统奥巴马和以往一样义正言辞，伦敦市长鲍里斯·约翰逊听来像温和版的丘吉尔，以色列总理本杰明·内塔尼亚胡开门见山，直指人心。可我们能预计到，这类恐怖袭击不会结束。法国政府宣布进入全国紧急状态，欧洲和北美的安全服务也上升到警戒状态。上周五晚，我妻子从华盛顿坐火车去纽约，一路上随处可见警犬和警察。十多年前“9·11”事件引发的举国恐慌又可能在美国重演。

恐怖袭击发生几小时后，大批巴黎人自发组织起来，高举标语告诉世界“我们不怕”。他们做得对！他们不怕什么？当然是恐怖分子。

然而，我们也不能忘记，不要害怕将恐怖分子和寻求避难的叙利亚难民区分开来，不要害怕分清策划袭击的邪恶势力和谴责袭击的伊斯兰伊玛目，不要害怕分辨谁是我们的穆斯林朋友和邻居，谁是狂热的敌人。

从2015年11月13日起，巴黎人的生活不同以往了。但以我对这座城市及其市民的了解，我相信，巴黎人民不会失去自由的空气，不会为伊斯兰教圣战士或是欧洲极端民主主义者鼓吹的仇恨所蒙蔽。在挥出铁拳的同时，他们也会做出文明人的回应。

西蒙·赖克教授任教于美国罗格斯大学政治系，专攻国际事务。（财富中文网）

译者：Pessy

校对：詹妮

When in Paris after the Charlie Hebdo attacks last January, I wrote a column suggesting that we all had to demonstrate a new toughness. At that time, I thought the scale of ISIS’ attacks on Western targets was contained by its avowed doctrine of territorial legitimacy. I assumed any attacks in the West would be carried out by lone wolves or with one or two partners. I was wrong.

Ever since it first declared a caliphate, ISIS’ leadership consistently expressed the intent of fighting a more or less conventional war in a well-defined piece of territory spreading across Iraq and Syria. Their surprising initial victories reinforced that strategy. And it allowed them to pursue a war against the Yazidis, which the American Holocaust Museum has declared a genocide. But then the Americans arrived, eager to engage a Jihadist army in direct combat. And the Kurdish Peshmerga fighters began to make inroads. So ISIS responded, by shifting its strategy towards new tactics: fighting a more common, irregular, guerrilla war, as the Taliban had often done successfully in Afghanistan and militants had done in Iraq before them.

New tactics

Then the Russians arrived to support Syrian President Al Assad. Although their initial targets have not been ISIS strongholds, it has changed the dynamic once again. ISIS leaders understand that with the U.S. on one side and the characteristically merciless Russians on the other, time is running out. It is one thing to take on one of them. It is quite another to take on both. They can replenish their forces with raw new recruits. But they probably can’t do it fast enough to hold off all sides. And the apparent execution by drone of Jihadi John, their poster child, threatens a further dent in their recruitment campaign. So, the ever flexible ISIS leadership has moved to a new stage in their tactics — war by terror.

New goals

The goals are predictable.

First, killing civilians at home in Europe in highly symbolic settings. Their intent here is to provoke a debate about these countries’ involvement in Syria and Iraq and thus break the political will of the western countries. There is, in other words, a cost to be paid for military intervention.

Second, to convince potential new recruits that with limited training they can still play a crucial role as a martyr. After all, if you are going to die as a martyr, you don’t want to do so by the side of the road in the middle of the desert. You want to do so on the streets of Paris where everyone will know who you were and what you did.

Third, to convince the west that you are still a formidable force — everywhere.

The new tactic involves soft civilian targets. They involve country nationals and foreign recruits. The enemy is everywhere and nowhere. It is a classic terrorist response. First came the Russian plane crash in the Sinai – most probably caused by an ISIS bomb.Then these horrific attacks in Paris — claimed by ISIS and blamed on ISIS — in neighborhoods that I, and many American tourists, frequent when we visit. I spent the evening of the attacks frantically trying to reach my family and friends. My sister-in-law, Lorene Aldabra, is a professional singer and musician who often visits the Bataclan concert hall, scene of so much carnage. When you have to spend time tracking down loved ones, you really understand what this new war means.

The declarations of support are encouraging and touching. President Obama was as eloquent as ever. London’s mayor Boris Johnson sounded mildly Churchillian. Benjamin Netanyahu from Israel was blunt and forthright. But we can assume these attacks won’t be the last ones. France is in a state of emergency. The security services in Europe and North America are on a state of alert. My spouse traveled on the Washington, DC-to-New York train Friday night and it was full of sniffer dogs and police. We risk a return to the national fear that gripped us after 9/11.

Parisians got it right when they assembled in large numbers and unfurled a sign saying “not afraid” in the hours after these attacks. But not afraid of what? The terrorists for sure. But also let’s not be afraid to distinguish between terrorists and Syrian asylum seekers. Between those who invoke the forces of evil and those imams who decry it. Between our Muslim friends and neighbors and our fanatical enemies. The lives of Parisians will not be the same after November 13. But, knowing the city and its inhabitants well, I believe that they will not be deprived of oxygen and disappear into the vortex of hate preached by jihadists – or Europe’s extreme nationalists. Civility, albeit wrapped in an iron fist, will be their response.

Simon Reich is a professor in the division of global affairs and the department of political science at Rutgers University, Newark.