Rick's Café American: 19 Sept 2009

Saturday, 19 September 2009

Israel Matzav: Golda and the terrorists

Golda and the terrorists

Mrs. Carl sent me this article which is somewhat political.

You must go to the link and read the article to the end or you will miss the entire point of it. I'm going to start you off.

To my consternation Golda never enunciated a single one of these words. Instead, she scanned the assembly from end to end, jaw jutting, her expression defiant, and after combing back her hair with the fingers of both hands, brandished the written speech, and in a caustic tone said, "I have here my prepared address, a copy of which I believe you have before you. But I have decided at the last minute not to place between you and me the paper on which my speech is written. Instead, you will forgive me if I break with protocol and speak in an impromptu fashion. I say this in light of what has occurred in Austria during the last few days."

Clearly, the woman had decided it was idiotic to read her formal address after the devastating news which had reached her just before leaving Israel for Strasbourg:

A train carrying Jews from communist Russia en route to Israel via Vienna was hijacked by two Arab terrorists at a railway crossing on the Austrian frontier. Seven Jews were taken hostage, among them a 73 year-old man, an ailing woman, and a three-year old child. The terrorists issued an ultimatum that unless the Austrian government instantly closed down Schoenau, the Jewish Agency's layover near Vienna where the émigrés were processed before being flown on to Israel, not only would the hostages be killed, but Austria itself would become the target of violent retaliation.

The Austrian cabinet hastily met and, led by Chancellor Bruno Kreisky, capitulated. Kreisky announced that Schoenau would be closed forthwith, and the terrorists were hustled to the airport for safe passage to Libya.

The entire Arab world could hardly contain its glee, and a fuming Golda Meir instructed her aides to arrange for an early flight from Strasbourg to Vienna where she intended to confront her fellow prime minister, her fellow socialist, and her fellow Jew, Bruno Kreisky, herself.

To the European Council she said, "Since the Arab terrorists have failed in their ghastly efforts to wreak havoc in Israel they have, of late, taken their atrocities against Israeli and Jewish targets into Europe, aided and abetted by Arab governments."

This remark caused a fidgety buzz to drone around the packed chamber, and it seemed to deepen when she spoke bitterly about the eleven Israeli athletes kidnapped and murdered at the Munich Olympics the summer before, an outrage compounded by the German government's subsequent release of the surviving killers in return for the freeing of a hijacked Lufthansa plane and its passengers.

"Oh yes, I fully understand your feelings," said Golda cynically, arms folded as tight as a drawbridge. "I fully understand the feelings of a European prime minister saying, 'For God's sake, leave us out of this! Fight your own wars on your own turf. What do your enmities have to do with us? Leave us be!' And I can even understand" -- this in a voice that had gone grimmer than ever -- "why some governments might even decide that the only way to rid themselves of this insidious threat is to declare their countries out of bounds, if not to Jews generally then certainly to Israeli Jews, or Jews en-route to Israel. It seems to me this is the moral choice which every European government has to make these days."

And then, chopping the air with balled fists, her face as granite as her eyes, she thundered, "European governments have no alternative but to decide what they are going to do. To every one which upholds the rule of law I suggest there is but only one answer — no deals with terrorists; no truck with terrorism. Any government which strikes a deal with these killers does so at its own peril. What happened in Vienna is that a democratic government, a European government, came to an agreement with terrorists. In so doing it has brought shame upon itself. In so doing it has breached a basic principle of the rule of law, the basic principle of the freedom of the movement of peoples -- or should I just say the basic freedom of the movement of Jews fleeing Russia? Oh, what a victory for terrorism this is!"

The ensuing applause told Golda Meir that she had gotten her message across to a goodly portion of the European Council, so off she flew to Vienna.

Read the whole thing.

Israel Matzav: Golda and the terrorists

RubinReports: Canceling American Missiles in Europe: A Balanced Assessment

Canceling American Missiles in Europe: A Balanced Assessment

By Barry Rubin

The Obama Administration has now announced a policy shift expected ever since it took office: the cancellation of U.S. plans to put missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic. There are two good arguments that can be made for this step, but there’s a counter-argument that makes it most worrisome.

Nominally, the missile defenses were planned to counter a possible Iranian missile attack on Europe. As such, and as the administration points out, they were dealing with a rather low-likelihood scenario. When President Barack Obama said, "Our new missile defense architecture in Europe will provide stronger, smarter and swifter defenses of American forces and America's allies," that is probably true in the strict sense of the word.

(By the way, one of the systems being used is the U.S.-Israel Arrow, a good example of the value of the strategic partnership between the two countries).

The second argument for the policy shift is that it will make Russia happy. The Russians view Central Europe, and countries like Poland and the Czech Republic as well as all the other states which once made up the Soviet Union or its satellite states, as their sphere of influence. For the United States to put missiles in two of those countries, even with the eager agreement of their governments, was seen as trespassing.

Here, though, questions can be raised. The most immediate reason why the United States would want to make the Russians happy is to get their cooperation on increased sanctions against Iran. With some other administration, one might suspect there is a secret deal to do so: a missiles for sanctions trade.

With the Obama Administration, however, unilateral concessions (we give now, show we are nice guys, and so you may give us something in future) seem to prevail and I doubt if there is any such arrangement. Indeed, I’ll bet that after swallowing this gift, Moscow will continue to oppose higher sanctions against Iran and will sabotage any that are put into place.

Governments are ill advised to give something for nothing.

The third issue is the effect on Central Europe itself. The Poles and Czechs took a real risk in agreeing to host the missiles. (Secretary of Defense Robert Gates say they will get missiles some time after 2015 under the new plan but the Russians don’t seem worried this will ever happen.)

The suspicion in places like Poland and the Czech Republic, as well as those like Georgia, Lithuania, Latvia, and a dozen other countries, is that the United States (or at least this president) won’t protect them from the Russian bear. To some extent, at least, they saw this small American military presence as insurance against Russian threats and see losing it as making them more vulnerable.

Republican critics of the administration stressed this aspect. For example, former presidential candidate Senator John McCain responded that this step "has the potential to undermine perceived American leadership in Eastern Europe." Senator Jon Kyl added: "The message the administration sends today is clear: The United States will not stand behind its friends and views 're-setting' relations with Russia more important."

This, too, is correct. The problem is not so much this specific decision but the context of the administration’s overall philosophy and behavior.

In addition, the Russians are putting a lot of pressure on neighbors that is rarely reported in the Western media: using energy supply leverage as blackmail, buying up strategic industries, making threats, interpreting history to say these countries should be part of Russia or under its sway, backing subversive forces, acting as protector of ethnic Russians in other countries, and making territorial claims.

A number of top Central European former policymakers thus addressed an open letter to Obama asking for his help in July and expressing their fear of Russian expansionism. To my knowledge, there has been no private response or public reassurance by the White House.

The Russians are not impressed at all by Obama and view him as a weak leader who can be stepped on. What the Obama Administration doesn’t understand regarding this point is that if Moscow views him as someone ready to give in on European issues they will also disregard his wishes on the Iranian problem.

So here’s a question: If the Russians continue to reject higher sanctions against Iran, how will the administration respond?

The White House may be right on the missile defense in terms of its technical merits but the Republican critics may be right on the political and psychological effect for Russia’s neighbors of this decision to cancel the missile deployment.

Oh, by the way, Central Europeans will notice--even if Americans don't--that this step comes precisely on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland, the act of aggression which most truly symbollizes the Russian claim to their countries as slaves or satellites. The Russian government is justifying this deed today, an action integrally linked to its continuing view of Central Europe as its property. This was a major public relations' mistake by the Obama Adminitration which adds insult to injury for the Poles and Czechs.

RubinReports: Canceling American Missiles in Europe: A Balanced Assessment

RubinReports: Gratitude? Soft Power? Popularity? Apologizing? Hey, We’re Talking About International Relations Here!

Gratitude? Soft Power? Popularity? Apologizing? Hey, We’re Talking About International Relations Here!

By Barry Rubin

Today, U.S. foreign policy is full of the notions of “soft power,” confidence-building measures, popularity, apologizing and showing empathy in order to win the respect of other counties. The idea that there is gratitude in international relations is a very powerful one in Washington, perhaps in the West generally.

And so I thought of the fragility and fantasy involved in these worthy sentiments when I came across the following passage by another country’s most famous writer of the day, a close personal friend of his country’s leader, as a response to a massive American aid effort which saved the lives of millions of his fellow countrymen while asking for nothing in return except good will:

“In all the history of human suffering, I know of no accomplishment which can be compared in magnitude and generosity with the relief that you have accomplished….The generosity of the American people resuscitates the dream of fraternity….It will be inscribed in the pages of history as unique, gigantic, and glorious…and will long remain in the memory of millions you have saved from death….”

Who was the author and what the occasion for this outpouring of eternal gratitude?

The leading Soviet novelist Maxim Gorky, Vladimir Lenin’s favorite writer, wrote this in 1921 at Lenin’s request, thanking the U.S. campaign that not only saved so many lives but also probably prevented the USSR’s collapse. Of course, this debt was repaid by seventy years of Soviet Communism which did everything possible to destroy U.S. interests and credibility.

By the way, the Soviet government never let the letter be published in the country. When reference was later made to it in Soviet publications—with no hint of the letter’s contents--the title given turned the gratitude into hatred and suspicion: “The Greek Hoover and His Gifts. “ Herbert Hoover headed the program. The implication was taken from the Greek story of the Trojan Horse, that is the treachery implicit in phony generosity. The concept is best known today from the phrase, “Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.”

It is hard to think of a single instance, certainly in the Middle East (outside of Israel) at least, when U.S. humanitarian or economic aid, material support, military liberation (Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait), support for statehood plus massive funding (Palestinian Authority), or diplomatic support have ever brought cooperation or warm feelings toward America. Any hope of appealing by such methods to the regimes of countries like Bolivia, China, Cuba, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, or any others you care to add is not going to work.

RubinReports: Gratitude? Soft Power? Popularity? Apologizing? Hey, We’re Talking About International Relations Here!

RubinReports: Steve Rosen explains U.S. Middle East policy brilliantly

Steve Rosen explains U.S. Middle East policy brilliantly

This is so good I can only reprint it. I will just add a few details in brackets. Ignore the mass media and just listen to what this article says if you want to understand the issue.

Stuck in the Middle East: Obama's go get-'em diplomacy with Israel and Iran is on a collision course with failure.
BY STEVEN J. ROSEN, Foreign Policy, SEPTEMBER 17, 2009
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/09/17/stuck_in_the_middle_east

Eight months into his presidency, Barack Obama is fast approaching his first real moment of truth on the Middle East. At the opening of the U.N. General Assembly session next week, the U.S. president will host a ceremonial summit between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in hopes of launching talks to achieve a final resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Then, a week later on Oct. 1, Undersecretary of State William Burns will join representatives of Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China for the first talks with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator to see whether an agreement can be reached to curtail President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's nuclear weapons program.

This is the diplomatic offensive that Obama promised the U.S. public last year -- the investment in "soft power" that the president's supporters deemed lacking during the George W. Bush administration. But the White House is facing tough prospects on both fronts. All that fantastical thinking about the transformative power of diplomacy is now headed straight for the iceberg that is the Middle East.

One immovable object is Abbas, who has participated in hundreds of peace negotiations over 15 years with six previous Israeli governments -- all while Israeli settlement construction was proceeding at a brisk pace. Now, Abbas says that he won't accept the partial freeze that Netanyahu has declared; he'll wait to join peace talks until Israel bows to Washington's unprecedented demand for a total freeze on construction, including in Jerusalem. But that is a condition that no Israeli government is going to accept. Even if Abbas softens his stand and agrees to begin talks, negotiations will still be in their throat-clearing phase when the Palestinian president's term ends Jan. 10. [Barry's note: The election has already been postponed] With Hamas controlling Gaza there is no agreed electoral mechanism to empower a successor Palestinian president to make concessions on behalf of the Palestinians. Far from achieving transformative success, Obama will be lucky if he can just keep negotiations alive for more than a few weeks. [Barry note: He might keep them going for months. What is important is they won't be going anywhere.]

The Iranian talks look even more likely to end without resolution. On what seems like a daily basis, Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reaffirm their determination to accelerate Iran's nuclear program and add to the rapidly growing stockpiles of low-enriched uranium. The talks are not likely to throw them off this path.

When both of these diplomatic initiatives grind down, then, and hopes for change fade, the U.S.-Israel relationship will face new strains. Obama can tolerate an impasse on the Iranian front for some time, but Netanyahu cannot. Although Obama and his advisors certainly do not want to see a nuclear-armed Iran, some find the prospect of an attack against the Islamic Republic even more frightening. As the countdown to a nuclear Iran draws ever near, many top Netanyahu advisors have a different view.

[I think any Israeli move on Iran is a year or more off so that won't be a factor in the shorter run.]

On the Palestinian file, the opposite is true: It is Obama who cannot live with an impasse and the Israelis who can. Since 2005, when Israel withdrew every soldier and 8,000 settlers from Gaza, only to be rewarded by a Hamas coup and thousands of Qassam rockets, Israelis have been skeptical that further Oslo Accords-type agreements can enhance their security. The idea of negotiating with the Palestinians to pull the Israeli army out of the West Bank, for example, doesn't inspire much public enthusiasm. Trouble is, many Americans do still believe in the Oslo idea. And a breakdown of Israeli-Palestinian talks would put enormous strains on Washington's relations with Arab countries like Saudi Arabia that need diplomatic movement to quiet domestic tensions. Allowing the talks to fail would also be unacceptable to the European Union and profoundly unsettling to important parts of Obama's own political coalition. Without a peace process, there will be more pressure for anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations, leaving Obama with a bitter choice between using the U.S. veto to prevent them or allowing them to pass, imperiling an ally and inflaming demands for U.S. sanctions against Israel.

[Barry note: I think Obama will veto these resolutions or negotiate them into softer texts and will not press Israel more because what he most wants is the appearance of success so he will proclaim how great everyone is cooperating together, including Netanyahu. Also, this Administration is crisis-averse, especially in foreign policy. The Obama people will be aware that if they push too hard to achieve a peace agreement they will fail and look stupid. They would rather look successful with more moest achievements.]

There is yet one more wild card in all of this: Obama's door is open to advisors who want to break with Israel. Many on the left of the Democratic Party believe that Israel is the obstacle to peace and that a breakthrough could be achieved if Obama just twisted Israel's arm. Of course, this was always the view of some of the storied Arabists in the State Department, but today, it comes more influentially from Jewish American critics of Israeli policy who depict themselves as pro-Israel and pro-peace. Faced with the reality that only the 3 percent of Israelis who vote Meretz share such views, and that the dovish camp led by Yossi Beilin has no prospect of winning an election in the actual Jewish state, the Beilinist Israeli left has moved to Washington. Their goal is to lobby the U.S. president to "save Israel from herself" by imposing terms on Israel that the great majority of Israelis would reject.

[I don't think this will result in much. I believe the most "confrontational" period of U.S.-Israel relations is already behind us.]

Obama is poorly positioned to reach over Netanyahu's head to persuade the Israeli people to embrace this agenda. A Sept. 12 poll put Bibi's approval rating at 65 percent, while similar polls by Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post found that only 12 and 6 percent of Israelis, respectively, think that Obama is pro-Israel. If elections were held today, Likud would gain five additional seats, and Bibi's coalition would grow at the expense of the left, which has already been decimated by a public rebuff.

Some Netanyahu advisors think that Obama is himself a man of the left and that top aides like Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod are closet J-Streeters in the White House. Instead, however, Obama and his top advisors are instinctively drawn to the center-left, like Bill and Hillary Clinton. He is more likely to take advice from the National Security Council's Dennis Ross than from more-leftist deputy Mideast peace envoy Mara Rudman or the ubiquitous peace pundit Daniel Levy.

[Right, I agree.]

In short, all that is clear is that Obama's big Mideast moment is coming. Now the world waits to see what kind of U.S. president he wants to be.

Steven J. Rosen served for 23 years as foreign-policy director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and was a defendant in the recently dismissed AIPAC case. He is now director of the Washington Project at the Middle East Forum.

RubinReports: Steve Rosen explains U.S. Middle East policy brilliantly

RubinReports: The UN Goldstone's Report: A Victory for Terrorists and War Criminals

The UN Goldstone's Report: A Victory for Terrorists and War Criminals

By Barry Rubin

There will be many detailed critiques of the UN’s Goldstone report, created for the purpose of bashing Israel over the Gaza war with phony claims of “war crimes.” Some brief overview, however, is required.

Imagine there's a war going on in which one side has openly declared it will commit genocide on the other, wiping if off the face of the earth. Imagine that the regime ruling this place has openly, daily, and officially referred to its enemies as sub-humans who conspire to rule the world and are responsible for everything evil in history. Imagine that this regime is a dictatorship that wins over some as passionate adherents and intimidates others in a society where conformity already reigns.

Now imagine that an outside group composed of some who are naïve and some who are dedicated collaborators with that regime’s cause come into that place and ask: Tell us how evil and terrible your enemy (i.e., would-be victim) is and we will write it all down and use it to isolate, demonize, and put on sanctions against that enemy.

What do you expect the result will be?

This is precisely what happened in the Gaza Strip. The witnesses made propaganda against Israel; the UN collated, endorsed, and broadcast it. Yet amazingly little hard evidence was presented and generally the more the specific the allegations, the easier it is to refute.

I have deliberately chosen here the man who was almost certainly the most moderate, rational and even liberal Palestinian witness who appeared before the commission. I do not say this lightly. Dr. Iyyad El-Sarraji [I use the report's transliteration, which is terrible] has been celebrated in the New York Times, he was critical of Yasir Arafat, and he is from the left, not an Islamist or even an Arafat follower.

But what is not reported in the Western media about Sarraji is that he has publicly spoken out against the 1993 Oslo Accords and argued that the Palestinians should never have abandoned armed struggle which, to put it most charitably, has always included—and Sarraji knows this—a huge component of anti-civilian terrorism.

[I will bet that virtually not a single Palestinian interviewed in the investigation supports a two-state solution. Virtually every single one of them wants Israel destroyed and saw this commission as a wonderful opportunity to further that goal.]

Here’s a sample of Sarraji’s testimony and to give you the flavor I must quote at some length:

“The Palestinian in the eyes of the Israeli soldier is not an equal human being. Sometimes this Palestinian even becomes a demon in their eyes. Therefore it is a state of demonization. This is unfortunately, uh, what can be seen in the behavior of the Israeli soldier not only killing children or fathers before the eyes of children….This is the base of everything and then there is the fact that there is no restraint, no discipline within the army and, uh, uh, even there’s an encouragement. This is part of the Israeli military institution and previously we have seen many stories of how the Palestinians are being killed either at the hand of soldiers or settlers and then the accused or the, uh, responsible is, uh, found innocent, sometimes even a statute is put up for him as a hero.”
Each point of this testimony is demonstrably a lie. The reference to a statue has a grain of truth that demonstrated my point. Some settlers put up a statue of the Jewish terrorist Baruch Goldstein. It was torn down by the Israeli army within 24 hours.
Goldstone asked Sarraji don’t the Palestinians demonize Israelis?

After two sentences of agreement that the Palestinians also demonize Israelis, Sarraji continues:

“But we, the Palestinians have a greater capacity, in my view, to deal with the Israelis as equal human beings, as a whole human being…. Inside Israel there is an identification with the aggressor, the Nazi. Once a mayor of one of the settlements, he said, `I do not want the Palestinians in my farm and if they come we must put signs on their shoulders.’ This is what was done by the Nazis to the Jews. Chief of Staff Eitan in Israel, he also once said, `The Palestinians are cockroaches, grasshoppers. We must put them in a bottle close the bottle and throw them away.’ This was his view of the Palestinians. These were some Nazi expressions used against the Jews. Some of the Israeli generals had the same uniforms as the Nazis.”

So this is the statement of the most moderate person who testified on the Palestinian side. Any honest person who heard this would conclude:

Such individuals as this are incapable of representing the situation fairly. They make up things and are unreliable witnesses intent only on further their side’s interests without any limit. The quote from Eitan and the remarks on the statue, lack of punishment for Israeli soldiers who act wrongly, the claim Israeli soldiers are encouraged to murder Palestinians, and the uniforms is false, t the alleged statement of the mayor is undocumented (indeed, on many settlements Palestinians have been employed to do much of the construction and agricultural work).

Instead, the commission concluded that everything the witnesses said was true, and on that basis they have condemned an entire nation.

Aside from a campaign to put sanctions on Israel, what will be the effect of this report?

First, damage to the cause of peace.

--If Israelis are such monsters why should the Arabs or Palestinians make peace with them?

--If Israel is being portrayed as such monsters why shouldn’t the Arab and Palestinian side deliberately avoid peace since the tide is on their side? Just do nothing and wait for the world to force Israel to give up everything, even to assist in the destruction of the state of Israel?

--If attacks from Hamas, no matter how much material damage it inflicts on Palestinians, bring material advantages to it, isn't this the strategy to follow?

Second, it encourages of repression, aggression, and real war crimes.

--If the Hamas strategy of attacking Israel with rockets, mortars, and cross-border raids along with tearing up a ceasefire and then make gains by portraying itself as a victim works, why not attack Israel and others in similar conflicts?

--If antisemitic propaganda and genocidal goals bring no negative reaction from the world, why should one not use these themes and seek this outcome?

--If Hamas can use civilians as human shields, intimidate people into supporting its line, use hospitals or mosques or schools as military positions and then turn this into a political victory by having their enemy branded as a war criminal for attacking these places even a few times, this is a splendid strategy that others should use. We will be seeing more of it in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, and many other places in the world.

Completely aside from the individual lies and nonsense—for example, counting Hamas police and hundreds of men whose obituaries praised them for being brave militia fighters as civilians—this report is a disaster for human rights and peace.

It will legitimate one of the world’s most war-provoking, repressive regimes and validate a strategy that uses civilian suffering and war crimes as central features.

RubinReports: The UN Goldstone's Report: A Victory for Terrorists and War Criminals

RubinReports: Advice for the Advisors: A Roman General Chides Would-Be Pundits (Very Applicable to Contemporary Middle East and Other Issues)

Advice for the Advisors: A Roman General Chides Would-Be Pundits (Very Applicable to Contemporary Middle East and Other Issues)

By Barry Rubin

Though remembered today by only a few specialists, Aemilius Paullus was a brilliant general and seems like an impressive fellow all around. In 168 BCE he was appointed to run the Romans' failing campaign in Macedonia. Three previous generals, who owed more to political connections than to strategic genius, had failed miserably.

On his way to the front, he addressed the assembled citizens of Rome in front of the Senate, his words preserved by the historian Livy:

“In every circle and, truly, at every table [in Rome], there are people who lead armies into Macedonia, who know where the camp ought to be placed; what posts ought to be occupied by troops; when and through what [mountain] pass Macedonia should be entered…and when it is proper to engage the enemy, when to lie quiet. And they not only determine what is best to be done, but if anything is done in any other manner than what they have pointed out, they [criticize] the [commander] as if he were on trial….”

I am not, he continued, “one of those who think commanders ought never to receive advice” as long as it is given by those “skilled in the art of war, or [who] are present in the field.”

And so, he concluded:

“If, therefore, anyone thinks himself qualified to give advice respecting the war which I am to conduct, which may prove advantageous to the public…let him come with me to Macedonia. He shall be furnished by me with a ship, a horse, a tent; and even with his [travel expenses]. But if he thinks this is too much trouble, and prefers the repose of city life to the toils of war, let him not, on land, assume the office of a [harbor] pilot. The city furnished enough other topics for conversation; let [him] confine [his] passion for talking, and rest assured that we shall be content with such councils as shall be found within our camp.”

It is not recorded whether anyone took him up on the offer but he won a brilliant, total victory which produced the Roman conquest of Greece and of West Asia generally.

Every academic, researcher, journalist, and pundit of any description—especially those with a preformed ideological catechism--should always bear in mind this story, take it seriously, and preserve within himself a strong element of humility. And this is especially true for those who are all too numerous in this sorry era where we dwell at present yet are all too free with their uninformed opinions.

Needless to say, there is no subject more than the contemporary Middle East--here's a good example--about which this advice holds true.

RubinReports: Advice for the Advisors: A Roman General Chides Would-Be Pundits (Very Applicable to Contemporary Middle East and Other Issues)