McCaffery's PPT is presumably proprietary in nature since he briefed NBC as a consultant. That means it is copyrighted. Therefor, I will not quote it.
McCaffery judges that Israel may use nuclear weapons against Iran.
The military logic behind his judgment that Israel may use nuclear weapons is clear. As I have repeatedly said, Israel is not capable of doing more than "moderate" damage to Itan with conventional weapons. Therefore, they are pushed in the direction of nuclear weapons by their probably incorrect belief that Iran will be an existential threat to Israel based on; nuclear capability against Tel Aviv and Haifa, parity of geo-political power with Israel once it has deliverable nuclear power, and a diminishing level of support for Israel arond the world except in the US where the sheeple still believe Israel to be America's friend.
The implicit (or explicit) threat of Israeli use of nuclear weapons is certain to be a factor in the US-Israeli discourse on the subject. pl
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/28/gen_mccaffrey_privately_briefs_nbc_execs_on_war_with_iran/singleton/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_McCaffrey
The only definition I found of venery was as follows:
noun Archaic.
the gratification of sexual desire.
Posted by: Medicine Man | 01 March 2012 at 06:05 PM
Dan:
Are you sure it's not "murder" of crows?
Posted by: alnval | 01 March 2012 at 06:15 PM
I'd make that a murder of crows.
Posted by: gizmo | 01 March 2012 at 06:17 PM
Israeli PM demands Obama commit to military action if Iran sanctions fail: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/01/israeli-pm-demands-obama-military-action-iran
“Last week, 12 senators sent the president a letter warning that he should not allow Tehran to buy time by engaging in fruitless diplomatic negotiations, expected to begin in the coming weeks.” A proposal to demand from these 12 senators a loyalty oath to the US does not seem absurd. The experienced brass warns of dare consequences of an attack on Iran for the US interests, but the senators are not bothered by the warnings since their loyalty is profit-contingent.
Posted by: Anna-Marina | 01 March 2012 at 07:19 PM
Consider me guilty of it, then. Well, I will be tomorrow night since it's wine night.
Posted by: Morocco Bama | 01 March 2012 at 07:27 PM
Dan, alnval and gizmo,
It is a murder of crows. I was working a crossword puzzle this evening and that was one of the answers. Surely, a USA Today puzzle can't be wrong. And I thought of you all!
Posted by: Jackie | 02 March 2012 at 01:10 AM
Maybe McCaffery said it to give people a chance to rally and organize pressure against it and lower the chances of the Israel government actually dropping atom bombs on Iran.
(If the Israel government is really thinking of doing that rather than just trying to scare-pressure someone else into doing something).
Posted by: different clue | 02 March 2012 at 02:29 AM
Mr. Lang,
I don't believe in social progress, I would merely welcome it. But man is man, with all his shortcomings and vices. A tribal mindsets is part of that, and that is a powerful force.
My point was that, as long as the grievance exists, the Palestinians will express that grievance. A secular person would express his views in secular terms. A Marxist will express it in terms of dialectical materialism and historical materialism. A religious person will express it religiously, and will search for and find religious arguments. My grandma, bless her, vetoed my dad being sent to an Adolf Hitler school because that would have been godless. People use the language they have.
As for group identity, religious or secular, of course that matters. And of course shared religion is a powerful bond. Yet I would narrow it down: It's not the group identity per se that kills. What makes group identity murderous is the extent to which it becomes exclusive.
That's what kills. It doesn't matter what the mortar holding together the group is - religion, ethnicity, social status, some ideology. The murderous part begins when groups decide they cannot coexist at the status quo any more.
Posted by: confusedponderer | 02 March 2012 at 05:40 AM
Jackie
As I recall "A Murder of Crows" was the title of a Lord Peter Wimsey story. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 02 March 2012 at 08:00 AM
CP
You are far too dismissive about this. You sound like all the social scientists in the word who want to know "what is REALLY going on." Islam specofically defines itself as an exclusive world community obeying God's will. The arguments among them are over deciding what is God's will. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 02 March 2012 at 08:02 AM
@MB wine night....
but that would be vinery or maybe oenery, wouldn't it?
Posted by: rjj | 02 March 2012 at 09:23 AM
Pat Lang,
I know McCaffrey or, rather, Iknew him, way back when he was a captain. He was a good fellow then and had good reputation as a company commander. My impressions don't jibe with what you heard about him not taking care of his men.
I think the remarks about Israel attacking Iran with nuclear weapons reflects reality. That is an option and we've heard repeatedly and ad nauseam from the Israeli and American governments that "all options are on the table". Having said that, I still can't conceive of Israel being that insane.
WPFIII
Posted by: William Fitzgerald | 02 March 2012 at 10:08 AM
It would be both. Double Jeopardy. That about covers it, so I guess, considering that, I'm also plenery.
Posted by: Morocco Bama | 02 March 2012 at 10:09 AM
WPFIII
I was a good company commenader. So what? That was 40 years ago.
"I still can't conceive of Israel being that insane."
Why? pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 02 March 2012 at 02:06 PM
Pat Lang,
I'm thinking that even the more messianic members of the cabinet and IDF realize that a nuclear attack on another nation would be a catastrophe for Israel. Still, I havn't heard anyone exclude the nuclear option from all the options on the proverbial table.
Yes, it was a long time ago, just thought Id contribute a personal impression
Cheers,
WPFIII
Posted by: William Fitzgerald | 02 March 2012 at 04:37 PM