As I’ve stated repeatedly, the recent presidential election and its aftermath have been amazingly clarifying. Come to find out that the torrent of propaganda spewed out by the corporate media in the run up to the invasion of Iraq, wasn’t a one time affair. If anything, in the age of Trump they’ve become more brazen in their push for war as their shameful coverage of the Syrian civil war demonstrates.

Case in point. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, (aka The Weathervane), has a new column where he drops all pretext that the US isn’t using terrorists as proxies and urges the US to arm not just Al Qaeda, but ISIS, in the ongoing neoconservative effort to affect regime change in Syria.

“Why should our goal right now be to defeat the Islamic State in Syria?” Friedman asked before proposing outright support for the jihadists: “We could dramatically increase our military aid to anti-Assad rebels, giving them sufficient anti-tank and antiaircraft missiles to threaten Russian, Iranian, Hezbollah and Syrian helicopters and fighter jets and make them bleed, maybe enough to want to open negotiations. Fine with me.”

Yes, you heard that right. America’s leading foreign policy columnist wants to work with ISIS, the terrorists who decapitate hostages for live video streaming on the internet. Doesn’t this bold idea by Friedman negate the very purpose of the war-on-terror, or are we too far down the rabbit-hole of our Alice in Wonderland, topsy-turvy, foreign-policy funhouse to even notice the glaring inconsistencies?

The dirty little secret of the war-on-terror, is that the US cynically employs terrorists as either proxies or patsies to carry out its foreign policy, while waging a  a never-ending war against terrorism.

Going further, if we define terrorism as–the asymmetrical use of violence to achieve political goals–then the US, with it’s invasions, regime changes and drone assassination programs, is certainly guilty of its very own, ongoing terrorist campaign.

Elite media columnists and talking heads justify and sanctify the US’s secret foreign policies of war and terror. They appear to delight and rush to support any military intervention or act of aggression the United States wages against a foreign power. Friedman, if you’ll recall, stated in an interview: “The Iraq Invasion Was Worth Doing Because We Needed To Tell The Middle East To Suck On This.” 

Rather than facing ridicule and scorn, people like Friedman are amply rewarded for being wrong, but wrong in the very same way as the US foreign policy elite that comprises the Washington Consensus. Instead of facing consequences for backing an Iraq invasion based on lies and criticizing war opponents, many of these media figures continue to hold positions of influence and continue to provide foreign policy reporting and commentary.

Thomas Friedman is a vaunted NY Times columnist precisely because he mirrors and reinforces elite opinion. He also signals the depravity of our elite with his calls for greater and greater crimes to preserve the American-Empire.