Proportional is the adjective that the Obama administration is using to describe the response it is hatching to what it says is the Kremlins attempt to interfere with the American election by releasing emails embarrassing to the Democrats. It sent Vice President Biden onto Meet the Press to underline the point. He refused to get specific about what we might do, but insisted wed act at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will have the greatest impact.

Click Image to Enlarge Via Wikipedia / Creative Commons ANCHORS AWEIGH: A Peruvian warship in the waters of Ecuador during an outbreak of fighting in the long war between the two nations that was finally ended with the signing in 1998 of the Brasilia Presidential Act. Why should America serve as a guarantor of that agreement if Ecuador is going to park Julian Assange in its embassy at London, whence he is seeking to roil the American election with leaked cable traffic purloined from the files of one of our presidential contenders?

Our recommendation is that we attack Ecuador. We offer it in the spirit in which the late editor of the Wall Street Journal, Robert Bartley, responded to Libyas bombing of the La Belle Nightclub at Berlin. That attack, in which two of our GIs perished, took place at 1986. When it was reported that the deed was done by Libya, The Great Bartley was asked how we ought to respond. Bomb Nicaragua, he replied. He was too shrewd to draw much of a distinction among our enemies.

The logic of launching an attack against Ecuador is even more plain. We carry no brief for Russia; were prepared to stipulate that its the culprit. Its responsibility for the leaking of the email, though, is circumstantial. Who uploaded the stuff to Wikileaks remains in doubt. All kinds of theories abound. Ecuadors responsibility, in contrast, is unambiguous. The editor of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, is operating from the sanctuary of the Ecuadoran embassy at London.

So if proportionality is the defining feature of the counterattack the Obama administration is mulling, Ecuador would be a choice target. We could launch a cyberattack on the tiny South American republic, though its not so clear who would have any interest in its internal emails. We could always launch a more traditional military attack, seizing one of its cities  Quito, perhaps, or Guayaquil. But why not simply withdraw our guarantee of the Brasilia Presidential Act?

That 1998 treaty supposedly put an end to Ecuadors historic war with Peru. Why, though, should we be guaranteeing the accord if Ecuador is going to park Julian Assange at its embassy so that he can work with Russia in leaking into our presidential election pilfered papers calculated to embarrass one of our candidates? If thats how Ecuador is going to behave, why not let the war between Ecuador and Peru resume? The beauty is that the Devil could take the hindmost.

It has been, after all, a mystery as to why the Obama administration has sat on its hands while Ecuador has let Mr. Assange operate against America from what amounts to, in the diplomatic sense, Ecuadorian soil. So the crisis over the meddling in our presidential campaign could be a chance to end this charade without starting a war with the Russian remnant of the Soviet Union. No lasting damage to our own election has been done so far. So everything would be proportional after all.