MEETING WITH THE I & W WORKING GROUP, 24 MAY 78, 2-4 P.M.

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP83B01027R000200100004-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 20, 2006
• Sequence Number: 4
• Publication Date: May 25, 1978
• Content Type: MIN

Approved For Release 2006/0 RDP83B01027R? 000200100004-1
_QJA
25 May 1978
Meeting of the I & W Working Group, 24 May 78, 2-4 P.M.
I NITC does not yet have a coordinated
position. Pre iminary view that this is not yet a neat
enough package for the DCI. The proposal may be just a
Band-aid for the SWS.
Presented the main criticism of the pro-
posal. Basically he does not favor setting up this new
mechanism. He feels that the DCI already has an estab-
lished line of command which will effectively function,
fh-rniirrh s two deputies -- Mr. Bowie for analysis and
Vor collection. He does not like the idea of
the top Steering Group because it is too high level and
would not be able to function effectively. Mainly, how-
ever, he is critical of the role of the Senior Assistant
whom he sees as being superfluous and inserted between
the major NFAC and NITC roles. Principal flaw in his
view: the Senior Assistant is just an adviser with no
managerial clout or apparatus with which to activate the
necessary assets in a developing crisis. One needs to
organize support in crises "at the point where the NFAC
and NITC lines intersect." One does not need a separate
DCI apparatus, as is proposed with the Senior Assistant.
Whatever authori give the Senior Assistant, you are
taking away from and Bowie. (The crux of the argu-
ment.) I & W needs a coordinator who has the ability to
co-opt all assets, including the collection and analysis
assets of DoD; he must demonstrate that the DCI is in
charge, or the DoD will take over. "Below the elephants,"
the community comes together at the NIO level; the Pro-
duction and the Collection elements must serve him.
Another point: although it would be good to make changes
in SWS, it is better not to do this now. The DIA is ex-
tremely sensitive to change, and the sort of proposal we
MORUCIDIF
1. Purpose of the meeting, to review the draft by Dick
Lehman of the paper, The Role of the DCI in Warning and
and Crisis Management. To solicit the views of the mem-
bers of the panel on the paper: do we have problems
with this approach, and is the proposed organization
going in the right direction?
2. Polled informally,.the various members expressed the
following general views, by and large favoring the general
25X1 approach -- with exceptions as noted specifically below.
 Approved For Release 2006/
9
are making will just create "hate and discontent" there,
as well as with the NIOs. In short, the DCI wants a
clear managerial line--"two buttons to push:" this pro-
posal does not give him that.
Generally favorable, and has few problems.
Principally, he favors dropping the Committee (Steering
Group). Sees useful role for the Senior Assistant;
especially can help as referee between NITC and NFAC.
He also still has difficulty with the whole concept that
strategic warning is all that different that it needs
the separate approach, or that we need stroke DIA that
much.
Had not been able to review the paper.
Relays the comments of I Iwho
had chance to review the paper: 1. Liked the general
discussion of warning at the beginning of the paper, and
felt that it should have been carried over more into the
sections (PP 13 ff) on managerial arrangements. 2. Does
not feel that the proposed arrangements sufficiently meet
the Scowcroft criticism calling for a single crisis ap-
proach.
see the Steering Group as meeting quite infrequently and
not in a substantive role but one of helping manage assets
efficiently. Likes the stress on the NIOs playing this
sort of enlarged role, which means that there would be no
need for a more complex "Staff B" handling part of the
warning role.
Feels that this is a very good approach par-
icu ar y t e stress on the Senior Assistant. Also would
Senior Assistant would need a staff. There should be more
community stress in the paper. The idea of a "national
sitrep" put out by NFAC will be fought.
Also likes the proposal. Believes that the
The proposal is good. He does have a
problem with the idea of the "NIO for Warning" being the
head of SWS; it should rather be the Senior Assistant.
He feels this is very good and very workable --
especially as seen from the working level looking up.
Questions the idea of NIO for Warning. Wonders about the
role of the committee.
SECRET
 Approved For Release 2006/0. 4
I-R DP83B01027R000
3. Dick Lehman reviewed some of the questions raised
about the chain of command. Placing the authority with
the DDCI has the advantage of putting the authority at
the top and at the same time at a place where there is
clout with the community as well as CIA assets. The
DDCI should exert control through some body, and this is
the Steering Group's role. The committee is an over-
seer, not substantive. It might have small working roups
for different issues. It needs an Executive Secretary
(the Senior Assistant), who also advises the DDCI, and
listens to problems and advises on issues of managing
(not substantive). We need a good, bright, CIA man to
handle this, and he could function with relatively little
staff.
4. 4returned to the argument that this is just
a ummy in he window," only an adviser and not the needed
coordinator with managerial clout. The NIO (and NFAC) must
do the analysis. One needs a coordinator (unspecified ex-
actly where) to see that all flows to the NIO in the proper
manner.
5. I I who missed the earlier part of the
meeting, then made some comments on the proposa and an
the criticism of it. He first of all questions
point that these matters can be handled by the regular
mechanisms. One needs a separate line for warning, and a
single focal point for this special topic. There must be
some organism to which an NIO must report on warning mat-
ters. He could see the NIO's monthly (periodic) meeting
on warning as a good, workable, systematic review. But
the NIO's report should not go through Director, NFAC; it
makes more sense to send it to a person specially designated
to worry about these matters (the Senior Assistant). He
would welcome this person as a "jabber" who harassed him
and kept him thinking and questioning.
6. dbar_: the two basic concepts -- the new
changes centered around the role of the Senior Assistant
reporting to the DDCI, and the approach to have
the matter handled directly in existing NFAC and NITC com-
Inand channels.
7. Dick Lehman concluded the meeting by saying that he
would plan to do the next draft of the paper offering the
general proposals of the 23 May draft, but offering alter-
nate proposals if this is desired by the NITC members of
the group.
CONEY
200100004-1
 Approved For Rel e 2006`~~IA-RDP83B01027R000200100004-1
eas 0
8. There will be another meeting on 25 May, concentrating
on:
a. the distinction between the two kinds of warning, and
b. the role of the SWS. 25X1
3 E1 VIII