Reader e-mail!

I'm not exactly sure what your (or is it Cirincione's) point is. You excerpted this tidbit from Frontline, but is this in support of a thesis that missile defense isn't viable, and not worth pursuing?? My recollection is that after-action reports on the Patriot system from Gulf War I clearly illustrated its shortfalls. It was an imperfect system, and everybody knew it. This is certainly NOT any kind of grand revelation. Nevertheless, it is a truism throughout history that the capabilities of new weapon systems (especially those as cutting edge as Patriot) are largely unknown until actually used in battle, regardless of the amount of field testing that occurs before deployment. I refer you to the stunning failure rate of the M-16 rifle when it was introduced in Vietnam, and the scathing reviews the F-117 Stealth Fighter received when it was first deployed in the Panama conflict. Between Panama and Gulf War I, the F-117 evolved from the "wobblin' goblin" to one of the most potent and lethal weapons systems deployed in the Iraqi theater. We've seen an even greater improvements in the Patriot systems between Gulf War I and Gulf War II.

As for SDI as a whole, one cannot dismiss the greatest accomplishment of the program which was not military in nature, but political. Reagan was very much aware that, due to the technical complexity of SDI, the US was unlikely to achieve a deployable system for many decades. However, the program was enthusiastically pursued and funded because Reagan was also very much aware that the THREAT of SDI would force the Soviet Union to respond by diverting increasingly diminishing economic resources to military usage, pushing the entire Soviet system to the breaking point. This, of course, was proven true, and has been testified to by any number of former Soviet leaders.

As for O'Neill... he was a fish out of water from the day he entered the cabinet. That is why he was forced out. His revelations are hardly revelations, but are sure to be squeezed for all their worth (which ain't much) by Bush opponents. I just don't see any damage to Bush here.

Allow me to apologize for not making the point clear. First, the way the post Gulf War SDI initiatives were sold to the appropriations committee and to the public are not dissimilar from the way that the Iraq war was likewise sold; wrapped in a façade of grubby lies. Your assertion that the imperfections of the Patriot were something that "everybody knew" is false. Speaking of false, one point Cirincione is making (quite compellingly) is that great care was (successfully) taken to create a false impression (i.e. "Everybody thought that missile defense would work"). While I'm on the subject of false, comparing the failure rate of weapons systems like the M-16 and the F-117 to that of missile interceptors creates the false impression that SDI systems are anywhere near being viable (either technologically or financially). However, in fairness, I would welcome any evidence to support your claim that the improvements in the Patriot system between Gulf War I and Gulf War II were "even greater" than those that transformed the F-117 into "one of the most potent and lethal" systems in Iraq.

As for SDI as a whole, I do not dismiss the power of it's threat. Deterrence and other forms of manipulation always rely substantially less on the capability to follow through with threats than instilling the belief (often erroneous) that such capability exists. As the technology was never a real possibility, it was never necessary to fund it fully; merely to sell the lie to our enemies, rather than ourselves.

Finally, we are in complete agreement that O'Neill's revelations were hardly revelations. There is almost universal acknowledgment that Bush is more ideological than pragmatic, beholden to the wealthy, and perhaps the most incurious and unengaged President in modern history.

As always, I'll allow you to have the last word.

Anyway...

Thank you. We're out of time.