The US Response to Russian Cyberwarfare
It is astounding that the White House and Intelligence Community would not count on Russia interfering in the primaries and election.
Snowden revealed that the United States has the best SIGINT and cyberwarfare capabilities in the world, and this was kept secret from the public, who believed for many years that China and Russia were superior in these areas. There is a great deal of discussion on how the DOD and various service branches are creating cyberwarfare units to “catch up” to their opposite numbers in Russia and China, but this discussion misses the point that it was the NSA developing the capabilities. The creation of Cyber Command at the NSA’s headquarters had more to do with legal and political issues than ones of capability.
As for Russian disinformation, it is actually difficult to counter. Putin did not create the machine in order to convince Westerners of anything, which he knew would fail. Instead of taking on the role of a prosecutor, who has to prove a case to the audience, Putin took on the role of defense counsel, where his only task was to create doubt. Russia issues a swarm of positive claims that independently are unbelievable, but in aggregate, and in concert with its negative claims, succeed in creating doubt. Putin isn’t seeking to influence elites in the West. He is seeking to influence the man at a bar or dinner table, having a casual conversation with friends.
Example 1: “Don’t you believe that Russia invaded Ukraine?” “Yeah, but there are Russians there and…it’s complicated…I just don’t know…we should just stay out of it…”
Example 2: “Not all Syrian rebels are terrorists, you know that right?” “I know, but it seems that way sometimes…it’s complicated…I just don’t know…we should just stay out of it…”
Putin places the burden of proof on Obama, who would rather “just stay out” of foreign crises if possible. In today’s world of Tweets, how can Obama possible explain the nuances of the Syrian Civil War to the American public? He can either take a pro-Assad or anti-Assad position, and Trump has chosen the former. For the latter, Obama would have to declare that Iran has invaded Syria, is attempting to conquer it and that Iranian aggression, including by their client Assad, must be defeated.
But then this narrative if followed would nullify the JCPOA and lead to a US war with Syria, Iran, Iraq and possibly Russia, with additional insurgencies in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. So Obama has no counter.
The Intelligence Community on Russian Theft and Disclosure of DNC Materials
Again, I believe that the Russians were responsible for the WikiLeaks releases of DNC materials. I have always believed that Snowden, Assange and Manning are Russian agents, because the Russians are probably the best at developing assets whereas the West has to typically wait for defectors to approach.
I agree with the conclusions of
Mark Galeotti and
Paul Gregory on Russia’s interference during the election.
I also believe that the CIA’s conclusion about Russian intentions, leaked to the press by an anonymous official, was intended to insinuate that Trump was an illegitimate president. CIA Director Brennan
has stated that he wants to serve under Hillary Clinton, and both Deputy Directors are Democratic operatives with no intelligence or defense experience prior to appointment by Obama.
Also note the list of former intelligence officials who have publicly endorsed Hillary Clinton, and this list does not even include former NSC or DHS officials:
- David Shedd (DIA)
- John Negroponte (ODNI)
- Michael Leiter (ODNI)
- Matt Olsen (ODNI)
- Michael Hayden (NSA)
CIA alone:
- David Petraeus (ex-Director)
- Michael Morell (ex-Director)
- Michael Hayden (ex-Director)
- Robert Gates (ex-Director)
- Mike Baker (officer)
- Evan McMullin (officer)
Quite an unbiased group of professionals, wouldn't you say? Arguably, the WikiLeaks release of the DNC e-mails was intended to influence the primary and give Sanders a chance.
As with Brexit, the losing side is executing “Project Fear” and attempting to overturn Trump’s election. First, there were accusations that the Russians manipulated the polling machines, which were baseless. Second, there were accusations that Russia swung the election for Trump by manipulating public opinion. Third, Comey was accused of acting for Trump by issuing his letters to Congress. Fourth, there are attempts to change the Electors’ votes so as to trigger a constitutional crisis. Notice that everyone is blamed but Hillary.
Trump’s Response to the CIA’s “Conclusion”
Trump’s response was correct. He knew that the CIA was playing politics. He also knew that Americans would not understand the nuance of: “Yes, the Russians interfered. No, they didn’t necessarily want me elected. No, they weren’t responsible for my win”. Clinton’s insinuation that Trump is a Russian agent, began months ago, is too toxic for Trump to even approach.
We know that intelligence on Operation Inherent Resolve was manipulated to show a higher level of success against Daesh than in actuality. In addition, the CIA and DOD estimates of Daesh's fighting strength in 2014 and 2015 were ridiculously low (~10X lower than Peshmerga estimates). Of course, it wouldn't do for Obama's hasty exit from Iraq to have helped create a larger and worse version of Al Qaeda, now would it? To date, the Coalition has killed more Daesh fighters than originally estimated...
As with Brexit, you are propagating "Project Fear". Do you remember our tête-à-tête over Brexit? If you do, then you should know that I'm not going to roll over for this one either.
You thought that Hillary would give you the more muscular foreign policy you wanted: arms to Ukraine, increased information/intelligence operations against Russia, increased sanctions on Russia, a no-fly and perhaps no-drive zone in Syria, etc. I know you didn't get what you wanted, but it's not worth a constitutional crisis over.
When Obama doesn't do as you like, well, he's throwing the poor Ukrainians and Syrians under the bus, he's in league with Putin and Khamenei to massacre Sunni Arabs, etc.
You can continue to swarm with posts and links, but it doesn't change the fact that Trump won, and Russia's interference didn't change the outcome of the election. It didn't. Not by any measure of electoral chances. If you want to blame someone, blame Comey, or better yet, Hillary herself.
We'll see what Trump does. He might surprise you yet and let the Russians and Iranians have it. If he does, and he earns your absentee ballot, you'll have a lot of deleting to do.
Originally Posted by Azor
Bookmarks