No. You are wrong.
Your scenario suggests you help a friend by borrowing them money. The friend then gets kidnapped. While they are kidnapped, you continue helping them by letting them still borrow the initial money, but help EVEN FURTHER by also paying the ransom for their kidnapping. You are now currently out the initial money you borrowed them AS WELL as the ransom money. Two separate instances of help.
In the case of the Kurd scenario. This would be us providing troops (instance 1 of help). Then, once things get worse, us providing even more yet troops and support beyond the initial troops already there to help (instance 2).
What the US did is quite literally pull the money away that was just borrowed to the friend in the first place.
It's not pulling the money away, because that would mean the U.S. directly attacked the Kurds and/or free'd ISIS prisoners. It's the fact that, what good was the initial help, if it's basically useless now because of the new scenario you're stuck in, kidnapped or fighting the Turks and having ISIS prisoners being free'd? The U.S. pulling out and letting this happen to the Kurds, is like the new friend not helping with the ransom. Why not help now, if you already helped in the first place? Why is the new friend the only one who get's blamed when there's plenty of other people who are clearly to blame as well who could help but might not?
I say the new friend who paid in the first place, isn't helping with the ransom, or at least not yet, because I'm posing another example as a question, like I've been doing the entire time. I'm not taking sides, I'm just pointing out the possibilities from both sides, so why am I being placed on one side while others come at me from the opposing position? I'm not taking sides here, I'm just posing questions, and instead of legit answers, I'm getting spun to one side and being smeared.
Why did the man cross the road?
OMG what's with all the toxic masculinity, Eric?
The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau