Retaliation or Deterrence?

The U.S President does not seem to see any difference between deterrence and retaliation in cyber events.  It would be nice if he had a deterrence strategy that would prevent things like the hacking of the Democratic National Committee during an election.  Deterrence puts markers out on the ground to indicate what will happen given certain types of events - you want to try a certain category of event, then you can expect a response of some type.  It does not mean that it is a response of the same kind, but a response with a similar affect on the country doing whatever was done to us.  Credible deterrence prevents others from taking the step to begin with because others know what will happen to them .  It does not have to be public knowledge, but it does have to be communicated to those who are most likely to be involved.

When deterrence fails (here I do not mean when we have no deterrence strategy) there is retaliation where it is clear why we are responding to the event, and to what country.  In personal terms, retaliation is like revenge.  It has a way of escalating from one revenge event to another on both sides, and can become something like the Hatfields and the McCoys shooting each other every week or so.  Israel and the Palestinians come to mind.  

Deterrence always comes first, except with this President.  Perhaps the next one will do better.