by Justin Raimondo The American Conservative
By 1999, in defense of Clinton's war, McCain was declaring, "I think the United States should inaugurate a 21st-century policy interpretation of the Reagan Doctrine, call it rogue state rollback, in which we politically and materially support indigenous forces within and outside of rogue states to overthrow regimes that threaten our interests and values." …
Prefiguring the revolutionary Jacobinism of Bush's second inaugural address, which proclaimed the goal of U.S. foreign policy to be "ending tyranny in our world," McCain was straining at the bit to launch a global crusade while George W. Bush was still touting the virtues of a more "humble foreign policy." Neither time nor bitter experience has mitigated his militancy.
Other politicians were transformed by 9/11. McCain was unleashed. His strategy of "rogue state rollback" was exactly what the neoconservatives in the Bush administration had in mind, and yet, ever mindful to somehow stand out from the pack while still going along with the program, the senator took umbrage at Rumsfeld's apparent unwillingness to chew up the U.S. military in an endless occupation. He publicly dissented from the "light footprint" strategy championed by the Department of Defense. More troops, more force, more of everythingathat is McCain's solution to every problem in our newly conquered province.
And I wonder where old Johnny Boy first heard this term “rogue state roll back”:
“The scheme for “rogue states rollback” is, in fact, part of a long-range plan by higher-ups in the international policymaking elite, specifically the hard-line supporters of Israel. This plan for “rogue states rollback”—specifically targeting Iraq and Iran—was first enunciated on May 22, 1993, in a then-secret speech by a former Israeli government propagandist, Martin Indyk before the Washington Institute on Near East Affairs, a private, pro-Israel pressure group. “
I read the article and that wouldn’t surprise me, though I consider the “other” AFP to be trash.
Actually, I consider both AFPs to be trash, now that I think about it…
the most interesting thing about that article is mccain’s former position on lebanon and the war in iraq. just like the cheney that explains why we didn’t move onto baghdad in the first gulf war. how did two seemingly intelligent, rationale leaders do an about face? what happened? are they being blackmailed? bribed?
Scott
I have issues with AFP also but I clearly remember this article in 1993 when it was first printed. They have been right about many things going back into the 1960’s. They have won awards for Project Censored in the past.
My question for you is how do you reconcile a paper like theirs which has some pretty good reporters?
“I clearly remember this article in 1993 when it was first printed.”
–Cool. That makes it mean more right there for sure since they provided no link or anything.
“how do you reconcile a paper like theirs”
–Not sure what you mean. I don’t reconcile it. I mean sure, the rightwing/nationalist/Jew-hating/”Patriot”/Spotlight types have been right about certain stories, but it’s the context that they have all fucked up. Even in that article, the RIIA/CFR are the center of Zionism rather than WASPyness? Come on. To me, anything kookier than The New American is not worth the time. And I don’t really even read them anymore now that Will’s gone.
Interesting note about Indyk, but there are many imperialist theorists of many descriptions who push the same sort of “rogue state rollback” without Israel much in mind at all.