The New York Times notes our double failure in fighting al Qaeda:
A number of factors are helping the Qaeda affiliate. The terrorist group took advantage of the departure of American forces to rebuild its operations in Iraq and push into Syria. Now that it has established a strong foothold in Syria, it is in turn using its base there to send suicide bombers into Iraq at a rate of 30 to 40 a month, using them against Shiites but also against Sunnis who are reluctant to cede control.
We left Iraq after defeating al Qaeda with the surge and Awakening when we should have stayed t0 pursue them, thus allowing al Qaeda to rebuild in Iraq.
Then we failed to push Assad when he was weakest, giving the rebuilding al Qaeda in Iraq and opportunity to expand into Syria.
Then al Qaeda in Syria recreated the ratline that Assad established during the Iraq War to push suicide bombers back into Iraq to help al Qaeda fight in Iraq.
And now we ponder allying with Assad--mass murderer though he is when only in the summer it was a moral imperative to strike Assad over his chemical weapons use--in order to fight al Qaeda in Syria.
I always thought that nuance meant something other than sheer ineptitude. I guess I'm wrong.
Will we really make this a triple mistake by thinking Assad is a member of the coalition of the willing to fight jihadis?
