I wonder if there wasn't a fat dossier on this guy that the Israeli's might have offered to share with their American counterparts. If so, what path did such information take, and was there any in the administration covering for the guy?
HF
Well, there is Heinlein's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity
The US military has an awful task. We can either plan to kill over a billion Muslims and convert them, or we can dissuade them while taking out their more radical elements. In either event, we must get into their heads to predict their behavior, learn their plans, and undermine their efforts. That takes people both familiar with Arabic and capable of understanding viscerally the Jihadi worldview. It also takes spies. Were you given the task of training such people and given the cost of the education, you might have to develop organizational tolerance for the early stages of a long-term personnel development regimen. You would definitely have to present an alternative psyche for your student to adopt as a shell when the point of disillusionment with Islam is reached, for which secular psychiatry is perfect. It is possible that this monster's handlers were sending him to the front to give him a taste of reality as part of his training and eventual conversion to "our side." They might well have been willing to tolerate a degree of radicalism along the way given the sunk costs. At least he would be developing the education and contacts with which to become an effective mole. The problem is that such strategies can blow up in your face.
Needless to say, every system is subject to budgetary pressure, to produce an acceptable "yield" of people who will do the job. That leads a manager to apologize for apparently excessive deviation along the way and affords our budding jihadi a degree of protection for his youthful deviant behavior.
Oops. Fortunes of war and all that.
Dunno, but it fits. All I am pointing out is that there are all sorts of possibilities here that can explain these events. One thing is certain, that we are not likely to be party to the determinate information as long as cover for such operations is necessary. That cover protects both screw-up and traitor equally. It's a devilish thing to separate the two, particularly when they can be one and the same as essential parts of an extended process.