When Daniel Byman explains Islamic matters to readers: How the US media picks its Middle East expert

The Washington Post wanted to explain Islamic and Islamist matters to its readers. So who did it pick? A former US government official who never studied the Middle East and whose only qualifications in this regard is Zionist advocacy and a lousy book that he wrote about "Israeli counter-terrorism" (read my review of that lousy book here).   And notice that he, liker other Zionists and pro-Saudi/pro-Qatari Syrian exile opposition groups, favors the Nusrah Front: "when Zawahiri designated the relatively more restrained Jabhat al-Nusra".  But my problem with this guy is not only his Zionist politics or even his deep ignorance of Middle East matters (do you know he was hired as a Middle East expert by the Congressional Sep. 11 commission?), but he is--how to say it nicely--not very bright:  "As the Islamic State, it hopes to gain legitimacy by governing according to its extreme interpretation of Islamic law and thus gain more volunteers and financial support.  Islamist terrorists can govern successfully: Hamas has controlled Gaza for seven years now, and Hezbollah has exercised de facto control over parts of Lebanon for decades."  So according to this guy, ISIS (and its presumably "allies, Hamas and Hizbullah") win legitimacy by applying harsh interpretations of Islam.  Did I not tell you the guy is not very bright?  He then carries the unsubstantiated allegation that Syrian regime refrained from bombing ISIS in Syria:  "The Assad government has at times refrained from military operations in some IS-controlled areas".  And you click on the hyperlink for his source and it is an interview with former US Marines, Dexter Filkins (being a US marine qualified the latter to become a Middle East expert--I am not making this up, ask the media who hire him as a Middle East expert).  But as I told you before: when the Syrian regime bomb ISIS sites, the Saudi and Qatari media carry headline: Syrian regime bombs Sunni women and children, and when they don't bomb them, they carry such headline: "Syrian regime is not bombing ISIS on purpose".  But as if this propaganda from this non-Middle East expert is not enough he then lies and fabricates:  "Assad depicted it as a sectarian fight against terrorists".   Of course, this is a blatant lie (which once was carried by New York Times correspondent Anne Barnard before the paper had to print a correction after they were pressed by me on evidence).  In reality, let me explain it once and for all: the Syrian regime is a dictatorship but like the fellow Ba`thist regime in Iraq, it never ever resorts to sectarian language and rhetoric--like in the Saudi, Qatari, and Hariri media.  You need to dispel this lies that is fed by Syrian exile sectarian groups.  The official regime media don't even use words like Sunni and Shi`ites. It is a fact, and all claims to the contrary are blatant lies.  It is quite shameful that Georgetown would allow this guy to teach courses there.  He knows about the Middle East as much as I know about Mongolian meat dishes.