Reflection: Obama's speech referring to ISIS

Previously I wrote about the United States’ obligation to intervene in the matters of the Middle East, seeing as they had direct involvement in the creation of these terrorists groups. President Obama, in his speech, has declared war on the Islamic State (which apparently is neither Islamic or a state), and has done this with the alleged support of the Iraqi government. This point, at least, coincides with what to me appeared to be one of the most important factors to be considered: that the countries where ISIS is actually spreading have an active participation when it comes to planning and deciding on when it's appropriate to use airstrikes. This is the case in Iraq, but the US' relationship with Syria is drastically different. 

This is what stood out to me the most. Obama's words make sense, why give weaponry to a government you do not trust? It is logical that the US government would refuse to work with Assad's regime, but financing the opposition while at the same time trying to tackle a terrorist group that's quickly spreading makes the chore even harder, not to add slightly reminiscent of the latin american dictatorships. Clearly there is no easy way to deal with ISIS, particularly in Syria, and it would appear that the government of the United States has chosen to tackle to problematic situations at the same time rather than choosing to ally with the lesser of two evils. 
Obama explicitly says that he will not hesitate to take action in Syria, but any attack should be considered carefully and in depth, since bombing Syrian land without their consent could mean creating new enemies for the United States. Unmeasured violence can only lead to more violence, which is why those involved in the conflicts of the Middle East should perhaps consider looking past their country's personal interests and think about what is best for everyone.