Apparently not. I personally find it way too convenient that we all of a sudden have the perfect justification for waging more war in Iraq. However I am just a conspiracy nut, so pay no attention. It's not like we had anything to do with these guys becoming more militarized...
Gee, and poor judgment and lack of understanding to boot.
Did I ever say that "we" had nothing to do with arming, or helping to arm, these terrorists? No, I did not. In point of fact, I agree that we did. Where we part company is that I prefer a little more reality and a lot less cliche than you apparently do. The role we played (and continue to play) in arming groups like this has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with that cliched bogey man, the Military/Industrial Complex. The political role during the Cold War had to do with fighting by proxy: conflicts between the Soviet Union and the US (or sometimes China and the US) that were real but which were not so important that the two superpowers could risk becoming directly involved, in large part because that would run the risk of a Vietnam-style loss (and loss of face). The trouble with war by proxy is that the proxies (a) usually don't agree with the principals when the war is over and (b) usually have a lot of left-over equipment that, once let off-leash by their principals, they turn to a variety of other projects, many of which had been suppressed by the principal during the proxy war. You saw this, for example, with the arming of the Afghan rebels during the Soviet occupation - which was, in fact, one of the few pairs of clay shoes Reagan wore.
Then there are more abject failures - also known as liberal democrat party policies - such as Obama's ignominious abdication in Iraq which left tons and tons of material in the hands of weak local forces whom ideologically driven terrorists like ISIS could overwhelm with ease. Had Obama not abdicated his responsibility as Commander in Chief to the luddites, antediluvians, and "useful idiots" - otherwise known as the democrat party base - and maintained US forces in Iraq, these weapons would not have fallen into ISIS' hands.
In other words, the reason ISIS is so well armed now has very little to do with the MILITARY/INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX (looks so much more scary in all caps, don't it) and everything to do with liberal democrat party politics.
To be perfectly blunt, 'twas Barack Obama and the liberal democrats who armed ISIS.
I'd suggest a return to high school, but unfortunately these days you wouldn't learn a whit more of real history or real thought.
