Why was the intelligence community wrong about Putin?
I’ve not been impressed by the intelligence community’s take on much of anything Russian (or maybe anything in general), and that’s not just lately. I’ve written before about how the intelligence community failed to accurately foresee and predict the collapse of the USSR (see this post, for example).
So this observation about the intelligence community, from former CIA officer Mike Baker, is unsurprising as well:
Putin has been “pretty damn consistent over the years.”
“If you look at what he did in Chechnya, if you look at what he did helping Assad in Syria, if you look at what he did annexing Crimea, if you look at Georgia, Abkhazia, South Ossetia. Every step of the way he’s been following in his mind this stated desire, that he’s made very public over the years, to rebuild his sphere of influence.”
Baker also says that “intelligence on what Putin actually wants is hard because his inner circle keeps getting smaller and smaller.” I have little doubt that’s the case, but as Baker said in the featured quote above, Putin’s actions indicated he would attack Ukraine at some point.
The Biden administration seemed an opportune time.
I think what should have been the biggest surprise was the scope and furor of the attack on Ukraine. But even that was apparently foretold in Chechnya, where apparently tons of civilians were killed. Russia’s actions in Syria, likewise. However, I suppose those were distinguished from Ukraine by being mostly Moslem populations, whereas Ukrainians are fellow Russian Orthodox. Perhaps our intelligence community didn’t think that Putin would unleash so much ferocity on a population that he claimed was a brother population to that of Russia.
But unleash it he did. Those who claim “well, he might have been even more ferocious than he has been” are mounting an argument that makes little to no sense to me. Hey, he might done any number of even more awful things. But the things he did have been awful enough.
[NOTE: Of course, all of this assumes that the intelligence community actually was wrong about Putin. I’m going to assume it was.]
Because they suck at their jobs. See Reuel Marc Gerecht on how promotions in the CIA are awarded.
What % of CIA agents have foreign language skills?
[NOTE: Of course, all of this assumes that the intelligence community actually was wrong about Putin. I’m going to assume it was.]
Because otherwise, the situation with the US IC is even worse.
Do we get to ask about what else they are wrong?
As for Putin being a threat to world order, what about
1. Chinese desire for world domination
2. Islamic desire for world domination, with conflict between Sunni and Shia
3. New World Order/ World Economic Forum desire for control and world domination (which will require American subservience)
4. North Korean craziness
5. Other—the possible Black Swans
6. Disruptions from catastrophic natural events, such as
i. massive earthquake/volcanic eruption in Eastern Atlantic triggering tsunami on US East Coast,
ii. Grand Solar Minimum triggering global crop failures,
iii. massive volcanic eruption in Asia
Hopefully somebody somewhere is making notes on an incredible array of what-if scenarios followed by —then we….
I believe Ukraine is Catholic.
Interesting you bring this up.
I’ve been hearing (talk radio as well as internet) how well our intel guys are doing on this, predicting Russian actions and providing intel to Ukraine. Not saying that’s true, just what I’m hearing.
My impression generally has been that we are very bad at doing human intelligence, but good at signals intelligence. No doubt we can provide good information on Russian troop movements, that sort of thing.
I found Biden administration statements about Putin’s intentions and actions since the lead up interesting in that they suggested inside knowledge. I’m skeptical. And if we do have that not sure why we would let Russia know. More likely they are lying and trying to create a narrative of their super competence, and they don’t know and likely don’t much care about the reality. They just want to gaslight and improve their election changes.
My grandparents who left the Ukraine in 1907 never claimed any relationship with Russia to include the church. Christianity came north in 988.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Greek_Catholic_Church
Don:
Look it up:
Neo, here is a fascinating interview with Andrey Illarionov, a former economic advisor to the Putin government in the early 2000’s. He is on the record as believing the 2020 election was possibly stolen, and was fired by the Cato Institute over his statements to that effect.
He has no illusions about Putin and taking seriously his desires to return to pre-1997 NATO lines with Eastern Europe reverting to Russian influence, and he believes Biden intended to toss Ukraine to Russia in order to assure Russian support for the Iran deal.
https://www.samizdata.net/2022/03/andrey-illarionov-explains-putin/
Here is a Twitter thread summarizing his points, as the interview is pretty long:
https://twitter.com/BRyvkin/status/1508287247736623112?cxt=HHwWkMC-ydbQwe4pAAAA
I think the “intelligence community” has fallen for the same lazy thinking that many Americans have.
That facts are simply ways to reinforce our preconceived notions.
And now most intelligence is simply cherry picked PR for previous choices.
ArtDeco “What % of CIA agents have foreign language skills?”
Back in the days of the Iron Curtain, NSA had plenty of Russian speakers, so I’m guessing the CIA’s analysts didn’t need the ability like the field agents did.
Neo, I think that the intelligence and defense community always erred on the supposedly supremacy of the Soviets. Take the Foxbat and the T-72s as examples. Both were supposedly game changers and when we got our hands on them (the Foxbat) or saw them in action (Iraq), neither lived up to their hype.
The cynic in me says that laziness, greed, and arrogance (embrace the and) all we’re/are major contributors to CIA/State Dept ineptitude, not only with the Soviets/Russia, but with everywhere else.
They’re so poor at their jobs, I’d think they went to J school or something.
What % of the CIA is currently some kind a leftist? I bet it is pretty high at this time just going by the % in the rest of government. Leftists often have difficulty with seeing downside risks of their policy positions.
The Intelligence Community has been politicized since GW Bush, at least. When Reagan was president, it was the State Department. The CIA was emasculated around Vietnam and “analysts” took over from agents like Bob Baer and Ruel Marc Gehrect. Baer, in his book, describes the Agency sending him, as replacement in Turkmenistan, a sexual harassment expert.
For many years I was a consumer of US intelligence from a variety of agencies. I was generally happy with what I was reading on a daily basis, although there were times I was pretty disappointed. Keep in mind that the field reports are generally raw intelligence intended for the analysts and are not meant to be considered as the Agency’s final word on a person, place or action. Field reports even carry a notation that they are raw intelligence, not yet fully analyzed.
The interesting thing to me was to come back to Washington after an assignment to our embassy in a very small and unimportant country. As part of my out briefing, I spent an afternoon at CIA headquarters talking to several analysts. They were amazingly up to speed on the country I was meeting with them about, knowing names of minor players in the government and historical references of little importance to anyone else, but showing a very wide knowledge of the country I was coming home from. They, after all, consumed the raw intelligence I was seeing in the field, but they were also reading intelligence from a wide variety of other agencies, and doing a good job of retaining it.
What did disappoint me was seeing a report home from our CIA station classified at a very high level, and occasionally it was something I had reported home at a low level of classification, or none at all. It just seemed like overkill. On the other hand, the fact that the information was being reported by an intelligence agency was significant, and they wanted to hold that closely.
What is really curious is seeing someone in an intelligence agency come out after an important event and say “I was reporting that all along!” Either the analysts were downplaying the information or the guy is lying.
Finally — a person who works for the CIA is a case officer, or field officer, or something like that. He recruits and “runs” people who are known as agents. He himself is not an agent.
Oh, and from my experience, overseas intelligence agency employees frequently have a very good command of the local language. I wouldn’t play that down.
I have two words to say about the CIA: Valerie Plame.
When you rhetorically ask whether the CIA is right or wrong about Putin, you’re making an assumption that the CIA has agreed to report to us and tell us the truth as they see it, as a processor/handler of intelligence information. I do not believe this is the case.
I disagree with your opening hypothesis. Asking the question is on the basis that our government was unprepared and/or reacted poorly to world events. Criminals will most certainly lie about the facts of an event, but when other evidence is reasonable and contradictory, it is fairly common to recognize the wrong of the criminal.
The other intelligence failure appears to have been on the Russian side. Reports are that Putin was told that this operation would take only a few days and that Ukrainians would welcome a coup and a pro-Russian government. Wrong.
Neo, you say “Ukrainians are fellow Russian Orthodox.” That’s one of the bones of contention. Orthodox Ukrainians are now divided between churches under the authority of the Moscow Patriarchate and a separate Ukrainian Orthodox church which is autocephalous (governs itself).
I have two words to say about the CIA: Valerie Plame.
And Aldrich Ames and Michael Scheuer and Philip Agee and Frank Snepp.
Reading F’s remarks, I had to wonder why such people would be working for the intelligence services and not the Foreign Service.
Kate,
I do not think that it is surprising that the Russian intelligence was wrong. They have always been stronger at gathering intelligence from people and turning them. Then the wide ranging intelligence organization gathering the US has engaged in. Each one has its strengths.
The Russian version is certainly cheaper, can have more specific results. But also is more prone to counter intelligence if done properly.
The American version relies far more on expensive brute force of simply gathering up EVERYTHING. Then trying to parse out the good from bad. I think the best take we have learned from this approach over the last 1/4 century. Is that while you may have the information you need. Its pretty easy to miss the forest though the trees. And that basic misunderstanding and misplaced emphasis. Can make for lots of piss poor conclusions.
Sadly the Chinese I think have been primarily using the Russian method. But to infiltrate the US network. And basically use our own network to gather the information to use against us. And that nudging the aforementioned understanding and emphasis. Can greatly benefit them with far lower investment.
IIRC the vaunted American “intelligence community” (scare quotes intentional) completely MISSED the fall of the Soviet Union.
Also … the ENTIRE intelligence community completely missed 9/11
Also … the ENTIRE intelligence community thought Hunter Brandon’s laptop was fake
The entire morass should be fired. Won’t ever happen though. I’m sure they have piles of dirt on all 3 branches of the Federal government.
Tuvea. I’d be more inclined to say the IC thought the laptop and its information was scarily close to being valid, but they lied.
The ability of the intelligence community (IC) to now read everyone’s mail and listen to their phone calls has resulted in a gusher of information. It has not necessarily improved their insight into the plans and policies of our adversaries. But even in the bad old days of the USSR, their insights have not been so good – especially on the bio things – capabilities of the USSR, fall of the USSR, intentions of the Chinese Communists, Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, 9/11, etc.
Is the IC too unbred and uncreative as to be able to consider all possibilities? Is there no one at CIA who has been assigned to know everything about Putin – especially his beliefs and modus operandi? A person who tries very hard to think like Putin and understand his psychology? Does the top brass in the IC even listen to such people?
Haave not worked in intelligence, so I can’t answer any of those questions. Their record over the years certainly indicates that they need to work at improving their product.
About three weeks ago , on this site, I suggested that Putin was conducting “ Strategic Raids” in order to negotiate a deal with Ukraine, not overrun the whole country.
I based that partly on the belief that Putin did not have enough boots on the ground to conquer a nation of 43 million if they were willing to fight.
Maybe Putin thought they would cave and he could get the whole shebang.
But the way things are working out, he is likely at most to get a negotiated deal for part of the Eastern portion of the country and some kind of no NATO membership.
Or the war could drag on.
A somewhat different point of view;
“The Architects of Our Present Disaster”
https://amgreatness.com/2022/03/14/the-architects-of-our-present-disaster/
Tuvea,
Don’t forget the fall of the Shah.
I saw that one coming just from reading the flyers around the University of Hawaii campus as a student there. And I had no interest in the issue, either.
Nothing the IC has done since has convinced me they have gotten any smarter.
But the way things are working out, he is likely at most to get a negotiated deal for part of the Eastern portion of the country
No chance. If the Ukrainians concede anything, then Putin has won. And he won’t fail to try Round Three (Crimea being Round One). The absolute most the Ukrainians will concede will be Crimea, with a statement (meaningless) of neutrality. They might as well lose as concede anything, and losing doesn’t seem likely at the moment.
There will be one winner for this, or a Korean never-ending war situation. The Ukrainians will not concede any portion. Ever.
Should the US have surrendered Hawaii to prevent the Japanese war in 1941? That’s equivalent to what you are asking.
“The Biden administration seemed an opportune time.”
(Especially when “Biden” told Putin something like, um:
‘OK, Vlad, take what you need but, you know, not too much. NOT TOO MUCH, Vlad, right? Got that? “We”‘ll turn a blind eye but for heaven’s sake try to control yourself. NOT TOO MUCH, Vlad, right? OK?…. Oh, and by the way, Vlad, you might think about threatening to use a few nukes—that way, it’s easier for “us” to stay out of it, you know, “we” can pull out the “GOTTA AVOID NUCLEAR WAR AT ALL COSTS” card. Always useful. Got that? Right? OK, then, let’s—Oh, and one other thing: you know that “we”‘re going to have to SOUND provocative, you know that, right? Aggressive, antagonistic rhetoric, even COLD-WAR-UGLY. Don’t pay any attention. We’ll also have to send ’em some weaponry. You understand that, right? Don’t have to explain it, right? We’re walking a fine line here. So for God’s sake DON’T TAKE IT PERSONALLY. You understand? Good. You’re sure?… OK, when this thing is over we can put the final touches on the Iran thing, right? Right Vlad? RIGHT?? OK, good. Regards to the family—Oh right, they’re in Switzerland. Well, whatever…’)
“I think what should have been the biggest surprise was the scope and furor of the attack on Ukraine.”
(‘You dirty rat! You fink! “I” told you, NOT TOO MUCH! And this is what you freakin’ DO? This is how you freakin’ treat “me”. Listen, Vlad, and listen good: “I”‘m doing what “I” can, but YOU gotta help “me” out here. What’s that? “I” HAVE TO HELP you out? Listen, Vlad, “I”‘m doing what “I” can…. Or else, WHAT?? Or else you’re gonna play “hard to get” with the Iran thing?…”I” can’t believe this! This is NUTS. After all the work you and “me” have put into this?? You’re playing with fire, Vlad. You can’t do this, Vlad. You can’t threaten “me” like this. You know “I”‘m doing “my” absolute best…. Listen, let’s calm down, talk about it tomorrow. This isn’t doing any of us any good. CALM DOWN, for cryin’ out loud!!…”I”‘m doing what “I” can… OK, we’ll talk… Don’t do anything rash, got that? OK, we’ll talk….)
And on and on, it goes….
Thus “Why was the intelligence community wrong about Putin?” should really be:
“Why was ‘Biden’ wrong about Putin?” (If he is)
(Well, for the same reason that “Biden” is wrong about everything…. Except that “he” ‘s “absolutely RIGHT” about everything…but that’s simply because “he”‘s deep, deep down the rabbit hole.)
File under: Deep State.
If nothing else we know now the ” Intelligence Community ” is a big part of the Deep State, so anything from them is what they want to portray not reality.
Sowell, to whom I have referred recently, makes the case that presuming the potential adversary will act in accordance with out view of his best interests can allow for a whole heck of a lot of trouble.
So I’d wonder if the IC were trying to figure out what would be best for Putin, if they were Putin. Or if Putin were a US intel big shot.
Has there every been an intel finding something on the order of “This guy is nuts and cutting off his nose to spite his face he’ll think is peanuts if he gets access to…a warm water port next to Murmansk. I know there’s no warm water port next to Murmansk. But we’re talking about this clown.”
A somewhat different point of view;
Verbose, large quantum of filler, nonsense statements which leap right out at you, half-assed development of the main thesis. American Greatness wants serious people to think less of them.
As I posted in the comments at the Insty link to this – the simpler question is, what has our intelligence community been RIGHT about ?
That’s an awfully short list. So short, I don’t know of a single thing that’s on it
See General Michael Flynn of the DIA who wasn’t singing with the community choir. Soloists aren’t welcome in the swamp.
I wonder what Donovan would have thought of ex-CIA Directors appearing on CNN or MSNBC as talking heads?
A somewhat different point of view;
“The Architects of Our Present Disaster”
https://amgreatness.com/2022/03/14/the-architects-of-our-present-disaster/
Quite worthwhile.
What would Donovan have thought about a President appointing a CIA head who voted communist?
From that Am Greatness note twice linked, once dunked on (but without quotes by often good @Art Deco)
On February 20, 2014, Maidan snipers opened fire. When the smoke finally cleared, 48 protestors and four policemen lay dead in the square. The narrative quickly took hold that it was government paramilitaries who carried out the massacre. When the massacre trial was finally held years later, the majority of wounded survivors testified that they were either shot from Maidan-held buildings along the square or saw snipers positioned in those buildings. The former head of Ukraine’s security service, Aleksandr Yakimenko, alleged that these were mercenaries brought in by those plotting to take down Yanukovych “These forces did what they were told by their bosses—the U.S. They basically lived in the embassy. They were there every day.”
The operation achieved its objective. On February 21 Yanukovych, in a last-ditch attempt to prevent more violence, signed a French-German-Polish brokered plan to accept reduced powers and called for early elections so he could be removed from power. On February 22, Right Sektor and neo-Nazi militias stormed government buildings and forced Yanukovych and many officials to flee Kyiv. Nuland arranged for an unconstitutional procedure in the parliament to strip the presidency from Yanukovych. Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Nuland’s “guy” was named prime minister and the U.S.-led Western powers immediately declared him legitimate. America’s 80th coup attempt since 1953 was a success.
Who were the snipers? What are the true facts? I don’t quite believe all of Am Greatness here, but I certainly don’t believe the Obama-Biden deep state IC.
Neo-nazis in Ukraine are certainly a real threat – they’re the strongest anti-Russian fighting bullies & thugs. But also not so popular.
An alternate medium read on Why Putin Invaded Now is on my substack:
https://tomgrey.substack.com/p/why-did-putin-invade-ukraine-at-this
It references Hanania, who still thinks Russia will “win” in the peace agreement. Contra Chester, even if Russia gets Crimea & Donbas, in many senses it has already “lost”, some. Zelenskyy has already indicated that he’s ready to give up NATO, my guess is that he’ll give up more for peace, sooner.
BTW,
Harry Reid-style sociopath and CIA veteran.
https://blazingcatfur.ca/2022/03/30/cia-officer-who-signed-hunter-biden-laptop-letter-claims-credit-for-trump-loss/#disqus_thread
Neo-nazis in Ukraine are certainly a real threat
Put that in the file with ‘Fred Phelps is certainly a real threat’.
I was a naval intel officer for 20 years so I can offer an informed opinion. When somebody like Brennan, Clapper, Morrell, etc., goes on TV and tells you about intel, they’re lying. But I can’t do anything about it because I’m still bound by the 99 year NDA that tells me I can’t talk or I’ll go to prison.
You can go to prison for talking about the actual intel. You can’t go to prison for making sh*t up. And making sh*t up is how you get promoted past Commander/LT Colonel. I’ve pointed out before that Clapper jumped the chain of command and went straight to the J2 at CENTCOM to get him to tell his analysts to stop telling Obama what he didn’t want to hear. It was beyond ideological with Obama and his crowd. It was theological. There is no connection between Islam and terrorism and don’t you dare say otherwise.
I can quote at least two Quran verses about how Allah has made the Muslims victorious through terror. I can quote Muhammad (I believe he’s a fictional character but Muslims believe he existed) saying he was made victorious through terror. But the so called decision makers don’t want to hear it.
Actually it isn’t hard to be an intel officer. Mostly you just have to let people tell you who they are. Who couldn’t know who Hitler was after reading Mein Kampf. I’ve briefed people about threats only to hear them say, “No, that can’t be it.”
Because if they believed what I was telling them was the truth that would force them to make hard choices. They’d much rather kick the can down the road and hope that nothing blows up on their watch.
If you’re up on your Sun Tzu you know that if you truly know yourself and know your enemy and are an expert strategist you can win without fighting. If you have to fight you’ll win every battle. If you don’t know your enemy but know yourself you’ll wing half the time. If you don’t know yourself or your enemy you’ll lose every time.
People wonder why we haven’t won a war in 70 years. It’s no mystery to us in intel. And it isn’t lost on our enemies.
https://occidentaldissent.com/2016/07/31/isis-why-we-hate-you-why-we-fight-you/
“Many Westerners, however, are already aware that claiming the attacks of the mujahidin to be senseless and questioning incessantly as to why we hate the West and why we fight them is nothing more than a political act and a propaganda tool. The politicians will say it regardless of how much it stands in opposition to facts and common sense just to garner as many votes as they can for the next election cycle. The analysts and journalists will say it in order to keep themselves from becoming a target for saying something that the masses deem to be “politically incorrect.” The apostate “imams” in the West will adhere to the same tired cliché in order to avoid a backlash from the disbelieving societies in which they’ve chosen to reside. The point is, people know that it’s foolish, but they keep repeating it regardless because they’re afraid of the consequences of deviating from the script.
There are exceptions among the disbelievers, no doubt, people who will unabashedly declare that jihad and the laws of the Shari’ah – as well as everything else deemed taboo by the Islam-is-a-peaceful-religion crowd – are in fact completely Islamic, but they tend to be people with far less credibility who are painted as a social fringe, so their voices are dismissed and a large segment of the ignorant masses continues believing the false narrative. As such, it becomes important for us to clarify to the West in unequivocal terms – yet again – why we hate you and why we fight you.
1. WE HATE YOU, FIRST AND FORMOST, BECAUSE YOU ARE DISBELIEVERS…”
It’s so much more comforting to imagine Muslims hate us because of our foreign policy or some crap like that. Rather than confront the fact that Muslims are commanded to make Allah’s enemies as their own and to hate us until the end of time as much as Allah hates us.
Surah 60 ayah 4:
” You already have an excellent example in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people, ‘We totally dissociate ourselves from you and ?shun? whatever ?idols? you worship besides Allah. We reject you. The enmity and hatred that has arisen between us and you will last until you believe in Allah alone.’ The only exception is when Abraham said to his father, ‘I will seek forgiveness for you,’ adding, ‘but? I cannot protect you from Allah at all.’ ?The believers prayed,? “Our Lord! In You we trust. And to You we ?always? turn. And to You is the final return.”
Got it? Abraham was an excellent example when he was telling his father he hated him because he wasn’t a Muslim. But Abraham is not to be emulated when he said he would pray for him. Muslims aren’t even allowed to pray for non Muslims.
Clearly the West had an easier time dealing with the Islamic world when it wasn’t the West but in fact Christendom. Christendom became the secular West and refused to believe that Muslims actually take their holy writ seriously.
I’ve briefed admirals and generals about things they didn’t want to believe and guess what? They refused to believe. To offer a different example, I deployed to Central America to do Counter Narcotics. I worked for a USAF general who wanted to believe the Colombian drug cartels consisted entirely of unsophisticad, illiterate peasants. I’d bring in catalogues of showing what sophisticated electronics were available on the market in Miami. I’d show them the undeniable money involved, which gave them the ability to hire all the former military/intel/cryppies they needed to operate that gear. I’d take them to the fence line and point out the spotters the cartels paid to monitor us and our activities. We could even be standing there when one of our aircraft took off, and a spotter would get on the cell phone and report in.
Didn’t make a dent. These guys wanted to believe we were dealing with Juan Valdez of coffee commercial fame, except now his donkey was loaded with coca leaves.
If these people in decision making positions were actually forced to confront reality they’d be forced to make decisions they just don’t want to take. Fortunately, the vast majority of Muslims don’t know much about Islam. And of those who do, most don’t take it seriously. Most Muslims aren’t Muslim by choice. If your father was a Muslim, you’re born a Muslim and like all gang codes trying to get out of the gang carries the death sentence. However there are Muslims who do know about what their religion commands and do take it seriously. They may not like it, but their texts are explicit; just because they don’t like something means they don’t have to do it.
So I got to brief people who might wonder why the Iranians hate us. First of all, most Iranians don’t hate us. Their Mullahs do (they fall into the category of Muslims who know what Allah commands them to do and take it seriously). And I can open up one of my Qurans and point to the exact verses that tell them to hate us or they’ll go to hell. And they’ll say, “No, that can’t be it.” They so much would rather believe that Iranians hate us because we overthrew Mossadeq in 1953 and then backed the Shah for the next 30 years. That can be fixed. It’s not the problem though. But they can’t deal with the problem so they conjure one that that they can deal with out of thin air.
It reminds me of an old joke. A man leaves his house one night and finds his neighbor studying the sidewalk underneath a street light. He asks what his neighbor is doing, and learns he dropped his car keys. He decides to help look for them, but after just a few minutes he realizes there are no car keys where they’re looking. “Where did you drop them?” he asks. “Over there in the ally between our houses,” is the response. “So why are you looking out here by the street?” “The light is better.”
Steve 57:
Fascinating. Depressing, but fascinating.
I’d say we haven’t won a war in seventy years because you don’t win wars when the other side has a sanctuary.
For falsification, see the Greek Civil War at the end of WW II. The commies were making progress with Yugoslavia as a sanctuary. Then Tito shut them out. They were done pretty darn quick after that.
@ Aubrey – the Left is in the process of burning down all their sanctuaries among the American people – where do they go then?
@ Mythx > “I think the “intelligence community” has fallen for the same lazy thinking that many Americans have.
That facts are simply ways to reinforce our preconceived notions.
And now most intelligence is simply cherry picked PR for previous choices.”
What Steve57 said, only shorter.