Maybe We Should Switch Sides?

My, what a difference a few weeks makes.  It seems like just yesterday that the media were filled with stories about the brave Syrian rebels, our aid for them and need for more, maybe even a U.S. air assault (Obama pushed the idea himself).  Now we've have days of reports on how--as many of us charged way back when--the rebels are actually led by jihadists and this could be the main staging ground for al-Qaeda.  The NYT attests to this in story at the top of their site now.  One could read that maybe think that we should actually bolster Assad--since our main goal in the unending war on terror has been stemming al-Qaeda.  Classic:

Some analysts and American officials say the chaos there could force the Obama administration to take a more active role to stave off potential threats among the opposition groups fighting against the government of President Bashar al-Assad. But striking at jihadist groups in Syria would pose formidable political, military and legal obstacles, and could come at the cost of some kind of accommodation — even if only temporary or tactical — with Mr. Assad’s brutal but secular government, analysts say.

“We need to start talking to the Assad regime again” about counterterrorism and other issues of shared concern, said Ryan C. Crocker, a veteran diplomat who has served in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. “It will have to be done very, very quietly. But bad as Assad is, he is not as bad as the jihadis who would take over in his absence.”

One also needs to pause and imagine what would have happened if everyone had rolled over a couple months backs and not convince Obama to change his mind on bombing and backing (even more than now) those formerly brave/now jihadist rebels.