Now Wouldn't We Be Stupid?

If we had armed Syrians against Assad, we'd have directly armed ISIS.
But why do we keep saying, "military strikes in Iraq"?
That phrase is a misnomer of what we would do or not do in the country of Iraq.
We will not go in to attack the country or its leader.
When we go to the country, it will be to fight islamic jihadists who have no and claim no
national affiliations.
If we had armed the Kurds years ago, we'd have helped incite a civil war against the Maliki
government the U.S. installed.
The news keeps giving us pinpricks of a multi-faceted glomerulus of facts.
What's wrong with the entire picture?
If we ignored the Yezidi people, even though they have no army- we'd be plain dumb.
The Yezidi helped U.S. soldiers during the war in Iraq. They were an isolated minority who
had no reason to expose themselves to either desperate Shiites, or armed Sunnis.
Now what sort of loonies could we be to sit around and let Isis kill all its enemies?
Do we think that would have no effect on us, or should we wait around for that?
Picture this: Isis is governing multi regional land masses in the Mideast with no enemies.
At what point would history have said we should have understood, that by the time ISIS was
allowed to kill all people in the Middle East who were not in favor of blood-drenched crises for the
all the West, we had become silly enough to wait too long-  to wait way past the time we could save allies without arming enemies or fomenting new war?
Why would President Obama want that as our history of his process?
Our President is not engaging IRAQ.
ISIS is not a state actor, except in its own quite fertile imaginings.