September 2, 2014--ISIS

Most objective historians contend that George W. Bush and, before him, Bill Clinton ignored the many early signs that Al-Queda represented a deadly threat to the U.S. homeland.

Famously or infamously, President Bush was cutting brush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas and didn't want to be disturbed by a National Security memo that warned of an imminent attack by Al-Qaeda on America.

It was a failure to "connect the dots," both critics and apologists said retrospectively. It was at least that. Worse--why did citizens and our government have to learn about the reach and power of Al Qaeda for the first time on 9/11?

Which brings me to today to ISIS, the even more radical successor to Al-Qaeda.

ISIS, the jihadist faction that has recently swept out of Syria, where it was incubated, and is rampaging through central Iraq, slaughtering Shiites, Kurds, and Christians as it expands the borders of its self-procliamed Caliphate is now commanding the attention of Western leaders. President Obama as well as British Prime Minister Cameron cut short their vacations to pay more attention to this dangerous movement.

Where did they come from seemingly so quickly? How did they develop the capacity, apparently overnight, to take on first Syria's army and then roll back Kurdish and Iraqi armed forces? Armies that we equipped and trained for years to be self-sufficient retreated across Iraq with hardly a fight in the face of ISIS's self-trained militias.

Why does it appears that the president and other world leaders are just now learning about ISIS and finally taking action to halt its advance? Including, President Obama implied late last week, seeking them out at their sanctuaries in Syria.

Did we again forget to connect the dots when we began to notice that scores of Americans and hundreds of Europeans were making their way to Syria to join the rebels fighting the Assad regime and then to enlist in ISIS's brigades?

It is understandable that we did not want to get directly involved in arming the rebels in Syria much less supplying air cover or, worse, boots on the ground. The situation is a quagmire, best to remain uninvolved; but if we had evidence that the situation there was an incubator of jihadist terrorists who might ultimately threaten us directly, maybe we should have reconsidered keeping our hands off.

Perhaps we should have learned some lessons from our own history of involvement in the region. First, how we intervened in a surrogate Cold War confrontation with Russia in Afghanistan. How we armed the Mujahideen who in turn defeated the Russians and then, without pausing to thank us, using our weapons, transformed themselves into the Taliban who shortly thereafter supported and provided sanctuary to Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda fighters. As a result there was 9/11.

A version of the same thing is now happening in Syria-Iraq.

After we brought down Saddam Hussein, with the full participation of the American occupying forces, we agreed with the Shiite majority to rid the government and, more importantly, the military of any Sunni Muslims who were members of Hussein's Baathist Party. We took the lead in the de-Baathification of the country and placed our support behind the Shiites who, in the process, disenfranchising this talented group of government officials and military leaders, also doing all they could to publicly humiliate them.

So it should come as no surprise to find them now in leadership roles within ISIS. A major reason ISIS is so effective, so able to fight with discipline and precision, is because of their Baathist allies, who, as in Afghanistan, have taken possession of massive amounts of American arms and weapon systems that they seized from the retreating Shiite forces.

As a consequence, again because of inept American and European leadership, expect to see us engaged soon in various forms of combat in the lands now controlled by ISIS--in Iraq, Kurdistan, and even Syria, where, as a result, ironically, we may wind up helping Bashar al-Assad to keep his grip on power.