To: jlallen who wrote (29102 ) 1/22/1999 10:11:00 AM From: Daniel Schuh Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 67261
Right, JLA. You are certainly doing your country a big service, by reinforcing the stereotype of "military intelligence" as an oxymoron. You'll notice that there was a followup post, with information on the post-war evaluation of the effectiveness of the Patriot. You can't be bothered with stuff like that, though, right? The "integrity" of the initial line about "100% effectiveness" of the Patriots is all you need.A March 1991 Army report to Congress stated that Patriot missiles had intercepted forty-five of the forty-seven Scuds at which they were fired. . . . John Conyers, the Michigan Democrat who chairs the House Government Operations Committee and its legislation and national security subcommittee, challenged the Army's findings this spring after a five-month investigation. At an April 7 hearing, investigators from the General Accounting Office testified that the Army's Patriot performance data were incomplete, inconsistent, and did not substantiate even a revised Army claim -- released at the hearing -- of a 40 percent success rate over Israel and 70 percent over Saudi Arabia. Questioned by Conyers, Army witnesses said they had high confidence in only about ten Scud kills during Desert Storm. A Congressional Research Service analyst testified that, based on the Army's own criteria and data, he could only confirm that one Scud warhead had been destroyed. The Army has refused to declassify the full analysis of the Patriot's performance, despite Conyer's repeated requests. ( cjr.org All the "integrity" you need right there, eh, JLA? Who cares about information, when you got your precious unit to exercise.