Without any indepth knowledge of the situation it seems that CIA is more careless here despite it being Pentagon supported group who have initiated the conflict. Pentagon's approach seems to be to gather a coalition and co-ordinate them with real consideration for the politics of the situation: having Arab groups within the coalition in order to minimize the chance to inflame Kurd-Arab conflict. Of course, since their target is ISIS they don't need to hide their involvement unlike CIA when they oppose Assad.
CIA's approach seems to be to use their resources to provide indirect support to groups that are against Assad and not linked to Al-Qaeda and then let them do their thing. The point is to keep more pressure against Assad while not officially allying against him and Russia but by keeping their distance they also lose even the little control Pentagon has over "their" guys. With the chaotic situation on the ground the resources provided by the CIA have a much bigger chance to end up in the wrong hands either by being captured or by one or several of the groups evolving into something much worse.
In the end, I guess I'd rather have the Syrian Democratic Forces control the north than the Knights of Righteousness. If nothing else, at least the coalition isn't as openly islamistic as the other groups. Since my tax money doesn't go to either side I can carefully wish for success for the SDF while hoping against the odds that nothing goes too badly wrong. On the other hand, I have no idea what this would mean for the power balance in the actual civil war between Assad and the rebels and how much the fallout would even matter in the end.
