A negative development, at least in part due to our approach for targeting ISIL and an al-Nusra element planning to target western interests. Al-Nusra is affiliated with AQ, although there is some debate on how close al-Nusra is to al-Qaeda core in Pakistan. ISIL and al-Nusra have apparently agreed to work together, even if it is an uneasy partnership. This appears to be a balance of power decision for both organizations.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Ne...6#.VGVJh5t0zIU

Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS Reach Agreement in Syria

“Islamic State” (ISIS) leaders together with those of the Qaeda-linked Jabhat al-Nusra convened last week at a farmhouse in northern Syria to form an agreement on a plan to stop fighting each other and to join forces against their opponents, according to what a high level Syrian opposition official, together with a rebel commander, told to the Associated Press.
These two groups allegedly will combine to target U.S. backed rebels.

Our response?

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article..._syria_options


Rout of Moderate Rebels Leaves Obama With Vexing Syria Options

The Obama administration is edging closer to establishing a safe zone in northern Syria that will allow rebel fighters to remain in the country without being forced out by President Bashar al-Assad's regime and rival militant groups, according to analysts.

Setting up such safe zones inside Syria will also address a key demand by Turkey, which sees the Assad regime as a greater threat than the self-proclaimed Islamic State, and has been pushing the United States to set up such areas as a condition for fuller participation in the coalition against the Sunni militant group that is also known as ISIS and ISIL.
This is probably doable, and should have been done a long time ago IMO. It would have relieved the humanitarian crisis to some extent, and given our forces an achievable objective (not unlike the Southern and Northern no fly zones in between the Iraq wars). Can't recreate history, but if have done this first, and then targeted ISIL it all would have been in accordance with international law. Protecting innocent civilians from being targeted, especially since chemical weapons were used, and then targeting terrorists. Apparently Turkey wanted this, and like them or not, Turkey is key to the solution. It also would have maintained our credibility with the Syrian people who now feel betrayed. I don't know if removing Assad would be legal without some sort of UN mandate, but creating safe havens would have probably led to his fall over time with less blood shed.

It would also be nice if there was at least one other country besides the U.S. that would be willing to step up and take the lead.