The New York Times headline over the weekend was reassuring: "U.S. Decides to Retaliate Against China’s Hacking." But check out the fine print:
But in a series of classified meetings, officials have struggled to choose among options that range from largely symbolic responses — for example, diplomatic protests or the ouster of known Chinese agents in the United States — to more significant actions that some officials fear could lead to an escalation of the hacking conflict between the two countries.
That does not mean a response will happen anytime soon — or be obvious when it does. The White House could determine that the downsides of any meaningful, yet proportionate, retaliation outweigh the benefits, or will lead to retaliation on American firms or individuals doing work in China. President Obama, clearly seeking leverage, has asked his staff to come up with a more creative set of responses.
The story then continues in what would be a comical vein, if the issue weren't so serious: "'One of the conclusions we’ve reached is that we need to be a bit more public about our responses, and one reason is deterrence,' said one senior administration official involved in the debate, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal White House plans." To review, the response so far—months after two major cyber attacks (that we know of!) almost certainly perpetrated by the Chinese—is to have some meetings, and to tell the New York Times about these meetings. In these meetings, despite the Times' somewhat misleading headline, apparently no decision has yet been made about what to do. There is a great deal of worry about whether "proportionate retaliation" could have "downsides," and the President is asking his staff to be "creative."
Deterrence depends on credibility. The other side has to believe that the cost of harming you outweighs the benefits. So why are these deliberations being aired in the pages of the New York Times? Do these "senior administration officials" have any idea how naïve they sound?
Perhaps this is all some sort of elaborate ruse, and there is really some sort of serious response to the hacks being prepared somewhere, a response for which numerous, serious national security professionals in the government have all but begged. Or maybe this is it: a leak to the Times to placate public opinion, and then months more of deliberation, concluding with some sort of symbolic action. I bet I know which possibility the Chinese are banking on.