Harlan<\/p>\n
Last week\u2019s \u201cCommanders-in-Chief\u201d forum hosted by NBC TV in prime time sought to probe presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump on national security issues. Sadly, the moderator Matt Lauer was ill-prepared and unsuited for the task. Instead, he wasted too much time grilling Mrs Clinton on her e-mails and not enough time challenging the elusive and often false statements of Mr Trump. And sadly, Mrs Clinton still has not found her footing in responding to the e-mail scandal.
\nMr Trump made headlines in how he accounted for exual misbehaviour in the military because women and men both serve together, in disrespecting generals and dismissing many as \u201crubble;\u201d and perhaps most notably for praising Russian President Vladimir Putin as a stronger leader than America\u2019s Barack Obama. The reality is that almost regardless of what Mr Trump says, his message is discounted. It seems only the messenger counts.
\nOn the subject of e-mails, the implication was that since someone had hacked into the Democratic National Committee\u2019s emails, so too were Mrs Clinton\u2019s files violated. When asked if Russia were the source of the hacking, and despite the substantial evidence laying blame, Mr Trump was uncertain and suggested the allegation might be false.
\nMeanwhile, US intelligence and law enforcement agencies are investigating the evidence to determine if Russian \u201cactive measures\u201d to hack or otherwise influence American politics is valid. This electronic intrusion raises a number of questions. The first is \u201cso what?\u201d A corollary is \u201cwhat is new?\u201d
\nBy most measures, far more damaging hacking arises from organised or disorganised crime, gifted amateurs testing their skills, and competitors who break the law to ferret out information on rivals. And it is no surprise that countries have always meddled in the internal affairs of other countries beyond current day Internet hacking. The United States has a far from perfect track record in this instance.
\nSecondly, what is meant by the word \u201cRussian?\u201d Is Vladimir Putin\u2019s government overtly or covertly sponsoring this intrusion and Russian applies to the state? Does it mean individual Russians are hacking into the Democratic Party and other websites to collect or steal intellectual property? Or, are different parties involved who may be placing blame on Russia and\/or Russians?
\nThe third question is what if anything can be done about hacking and hackers regardless of source and intent? More will be said about the greater menace of hacks.
\nAmerica has often intruded into the affairs of other nations, electronically or otherwise. And the converse was true. Examples of political interference are plentiful and not limited to the cyber age. Stealing secrets along with disinformation, misinformation and propaganda to influence internal politics are also as old as society.
\nSecretary of State Henry Stimson may have believed that \u201cgentlemen do not read other gentlemen\u2019s mail.\u201d But American Army and Navy code breakers certainly did that during the interwar years. Breaking German and Japanese codes contributed to winning World War II. And engineering regime change was not unique to the George W Bush administration in invading Iraq in 2003.
\nPresidents Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy were quite happy to replace foreign leaders not favourably disposed to American interests, whether in Central and South America, Cuba unsuccessfully, Iran in 1953 or a number of African countries. South Vietnam was also host to American active measures to affect political outcomes legitimising a string of Vietnamese presidential generals and air marshals.
\nThe CIA and NSA are chartered to use covert means of espionage including substantial hacking endeavours not limited to Russia, China and other tempting targets to influence events and outcomes. Before we accuse Moscow of similar activities, did not Benjamin Netanyahu attempt to subvert the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to end Iran\u2019s nuclear weapons programmes in addressing both Houses of Congress? No one seemed to object to the Israeli prime minister defying an American president in his nation\u2019s capital. Nor when Barack Obama came out strongly against Britain leaving the EU, did this appear to Americans as undue interference in UK politics. Neither was hacking. But both surely tried to influence political outcomes.
\nRegarding whether Russia or Russians were hacking into political party networks, what would be Putin\u2019s purpose? Mr Putin surely is not a fan of Hillary Clinton. But she at least is a safer pair of hands, and someone Putin might be able to find easier to manipulate than her opponent.
\nWhile Donald Trump may have expressed a sympathetic view of Mr Putin, still, the candidate\u2019s erratic behaviour and chameleon-like shifts in what passes for policy would not necessarily have the Kremlin in his corner. Mr Trump might be capable of anything. From Putin\u2019s perspective, neither candidate seems to be his choice.
\nWhat can be done? Affecting elections by any and every means is not news. Arguably, the Kennedy clan stole the 1960 election in West Virginia and Illinois. Richard Nixon accepted defeat then but covered up the botched Watergate break-in a dozen years later to burgle Democratic secrets. Al Gore might have won the presidency Florida had the Supreme Court not interceded.
\nThe best response today to Internet intrusions into our politics is to identify the source of hacking. If it is the Russian government, the US has many ways to respond. One is to present the evidence in public respecting the sensitivities of sources and methods of collection. And covert activities to delegitimise Putin\u2019s rule would be fair game. If someone else is the culprit, appropriate action can include lawsuits and criminal prosecutions.
\nThe larger concern extends far beyond Internet hacking. It is political hacks who distort and damage the process of government far more than hackers. And here corrective solutions certainly need strengthening.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Harlan Last week\u2019s \u201cCommanders-in-Chief\u201d forum hosted by NBC TV in prime time sought to probe presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump on national security issues. Sadly, the moderator Matt Lauer was ill-prepared and unsuited for the task. Instead, he wasted too much time grilling Mrs Clinton on her e-mails and not enough time challenging […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3523","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-article"],"yoast_head":"\n