Before ISIS had formally split from al-Qaeda, there was often talk about “good al-Qaeda versus bad al-Qaeda” in Syria, centering around ISIS as the more extreme group, and Jabhat al-Nusra as the slightly less extreme group.
That talk sort of died on the vine, as Nusra lost fight after fight to ISIS, and became less relevant. Now, with al-Qaeda taking much of the Idlib Province and setting up a little statelet of their own, there is a new push in the US to endorse them as new allies against ISIS.
It’s the Hitler vs. Stalin thing all over again, and hawks desperate for a successful ally on the ground in Syria are desperately trying to rebrand al-Qaeda of all people as the “lesser of two evils,” and hoping to repair the terrorist group’s image domestically, which is still considerably tarnished after 9/11.
Can it really work though? After over a decade of war against al-Qaeda and with no intervening period of calm, it is hard to imagine that the administration or anyone else is going to be able to sell a de facto alliance with al-Qaeda as the lesser of two anythings, let alone a plan for “winning” Syria.
Underscoring exactly what a tough sell this is going to be, al-Qaeda is on the warpath in its newly conquered territory, attacking a Druze village and killing at least 20 civilians there. Attacks on religious minorities are every bit as de rigueur in al-Qaeda as they are in the ISIS caliphate, and that reflects the reality that Jabhat al-Nusra is the same old al-Qaeda.
Who else would USG support, they already supporting all other terrorist organization, they might as well support this one as well, that is to say if they are not on the list of terrorist group supported by either European or USG.
If the goal is to defeat IS, why not ally with…the government of Syria you morons in DC! That way you won't have to chose between terrorist A or terrorist B.
Does anybody remember September 11, 2001? It wasn’t Iraq or Syria. It was al-Qaeda, the chamber maiden of SA and now US. a clean break from reality.
It makes sense. The raison d’etre of US foreign policy is to make money for weapons makers and the banksters who finance them. In the 80s, the US openly supported Iraq in their war against Iran, while at the same time made secret arms deals with Iran. Their only consistant policy is to enrich the MIC.
sorry, not possible. the owner of congress won't allow it.
The owners of "our" congress already pay a massive fortune to the Saudis, as well as their ammo depot and first aid station, Israel.
Isn't it a crime to provide material support for AQ? Even to make a call for doing so?
Pretty sure people are getting locked up or killed for less.
nit-picker…
The linked Wall Street Journal article seems proof that the whole War On Terror enterprise has always been a bait-and-switch scheme, using the "al Qaeda menace" as a means to insert US and NATO militaries into the region and then from there massage the public into viewing Iran and its allies as the true enemy who must be overthrown. The article depends on two lies: 1) Saudi Arabia is an "enemy" of al Qaeda 2) "moderate" opposition in Syria was betrayed by Obama. The article also downplays in a major way the Nusra Front policy that all Syrian Alawites would have to convert to the al Qaeda version of Islam or be put to death. It needs to also be pointed out that no where in these calculations are the interests or desires of the Syrian people ever considered. All information I have seen is that given the choice between Assad or Nusra, the population overwhelmingly prefers Assad.