If only your comments were skeptical.
How would you characterize them?
Most of the people who believe that Russia was involved in the hacking or election meddling seem happy to believe it without evidence.
As McCain spouted, cyber attack could reasonably be viewed as an act of war. This is generally the view of the most passionate anti-Russia fearmongers involved in this debate.
I'm simply demanding actual evidence, the way I should have when I stupidly believed George W. Bush and Colin Powell that there was a direct trail leading to Iraq having WMDs.
Consider that during the buildup to the Iraq war, the UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, was tarred and feathered by those who wanted to go to war in Iraq. This was a career bureaucrat who saw that the inspection regime was being twisted to make the case for a war that he felt was unwarranted based on the years he'd spent on the ground in Iraq, actually inspecting Iraq's facilities.
Not only was he harassed and mocked, his career was ruined because he dared state what turned out to be very obvious once Saddam was unseated -- that Iraq had absolutely no WMD capability.
We are seeing the same thing with Russia. Simply by expressing skepticism people are being called names like "useful idiot" and all sorts of other politically motivated slurs.
War is just politics that turns violent. What we're seeing in the US is a pretty significant propaganda campaign to foment hatred toward Russia. It's quite obvious that if there were any evidence AT ALL this would be a big deal, but after months of repetition and hand waving by those wishing to foment hatred, after leaks by the intel community, etc., there is still zero evidence.
This doesn't mean that those who claim all that stuff are wrong, it just means that they are making a faith-based decision, which is a kind of decision that I do not think the American people should make when wars and lives are on the line.
The comment I linked before presents what I believe to be the strategic background between US and Russia that is relevant to this conflict.
It's possible to believe that US policy on Russia (Esp regarding NATO expansion) is unnecessarily aggressive, that US Intel agencies aren't especially competent, that the CIA was completely wrong on Iraq and yet still believe in Russian interference in the US election.
The thing that convinced me was seeing the campaign on social media. Its pretty easy to find clear pro-Russian bot nets on Twitter that used to be super interested in Turkey and then suddenly became pro-Trump.
The same thing is happening for the French and German elections. Have a look yourself.
- Why must all of the actions attributed to Russia be part of a larger "campaign"
- Which of the actions could have also been conducted by smaller than nation-state entities? For each, what would you estimate the budget of the operation to be?
- For each of the actions, how easy would it be for some actor to do it and intentionally leave a trail that points to Russia? What level of sophistication would be needed to do this? What auditing mechanisms exist that US intelligence might have already used to rule out any such activity?
Based on the above, how much confidence do you have about each of the actions in the campaign being attributable to a Putin-initiated directive vs other possible explanations?
Also, what strategic considerations do you think Putin made before ordering the action concerning the possibility of being caught (as you'd seemingly argue he has been)? What tit-for-tat response would HRC have done if she'd won the US election, and what tit-for-tat response do you see Trump likely to do?
In addition, supposing the campaign was ordered by Putin, what does it reveal about Russia's ability to meddle in US civil society in a consequential way? He's seemingly been very successful in nearly doing away with years of work to marginalize Russia and punish it for its aggressive behavior, which must be an outcome he is quite pleased by.
Since it is unlikely he thought this outcome would occur, why was it worth doing the campaign in the first place, when it clearly incited HRC and McCain (the expected thought leaders on Russia before election day) to react so strongly?
It would be one thing if the expected outcome were Trump winning, but I think it's very, very hard to argue that Putin could have expected this and would have planned a risky strategy with it in mind. On the contrary he must have expected the opposite outcome when he initiated the campaign, and was likely expecting to be dealing with no Trump victory, merely a heated backlash and sanctions from a US regime he wantonly provoked.
If you manage to notice this comment I'm curious about your thoughts.
It's like a person at a meeting, where people are trying to accomplish something substantive, who just raises endless speculative objections.
I'm not entirely sure what this means. My intention was to better understand your mental model, which appears a bit sloppy, or at least more concerned with its conclusion than with its integrity as a rational process.
I guess what I'd say (constructively) is that if it is too much work to articulate your argument as a tree of probabilistic scenarios to each player and strategic moves which themselves have probabilistic outcomes, then I think that might be a clue that your might not actually believe your own argument.
One example I'd offer about how I think we can understand ourselves better by using probabilistic reasoning is this:
We routinely make important decisions based on imperfect understanding of our own motives or preferences. This is why the technique of flipping a coin to make difficult A vs B decisions is so powerful. The decision was difficult precisely because we expect to be equally happy with either outcome. Thus letting the coin toss result make the decision preserves our utility maximization (to the best of our knowledge). At times, if it lands on heads, we may feel regret, which can indicate that we actually preferred the other outcome. The practice is very illustrative of how opaque our own uncertainty can be to us.
So we should assume when considering the decision-making of those who we can't ask directly for details, that there was nearly always a fair bit of uncertainty behind every decision. The more external evidence there is that the person is deeply rational (as world leaders nearly always are) the more confident we can be that the decision was not guided by a deluded sense of outcome probability.
Thus, for actions that involve many steps taking place blind (without an eye on the outcome) we must assume either that the actor is indifferent to the outcome, or that there is some benefit to outcomes other than the most desired one, and that the potential costs are well understood.
We don't need to know everything about the actor's decisions or expected probabilities to reason about his actions, since we can learn a great deal by outlining the things we feel confident about and determining whether the other pieces of our theory seem to fit. This was the intention behind the questions I posed, to help us both scrutinize your view more thoroughly, since if you are right I'd very much like to agree with you.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/06/how-russia-... takes a much deeper look. Sadly(?) most of the accounts I found when I followed that story have gone, but you can still find some. Here's a search to start with: https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Incirlik%20since%3A2016-07-2...
Sorry, that just didn't happen.
Blix accused Iraq of stalling the inspections, which was decided as a sign of noncompliance by some US officials.
Blix's career wasn't ruined and he wasn't "harrased or mocked".
Get your facts straight. Please.
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2003/03/31/weapons-hans-bl...
IMHO: Either an active proponent of or otherwise credulous about Russia's and Trump's propaganda. It takes very little skepticism to see through them.
Nowhere in the criticism of the idea that the US might improve relations with Russia is there any assertion of what US national interest actually is, merely a smear campaign against Putin (much like the one against Saddam, etc.)
To me that is what defines propaganda -- ad hominem smears, moralizing, indignation that someone would have a view different than your own. These are actually a characteristic of some of the arguments you've put forth.