Dear Andy

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP84B00506R000100080005-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 25, 2001
• Sequence Number: 5
• Publication Date: August 13, 1973
• Content Type: LETTER

Approved For Release 2001/12/04: CIA-RDP84B00506R000100080005-2
13 August 1973
Dear Andy,
Let me try to recount the life and death of the
Soviet Forum.
Most of the story is told in the attached table.
The Forum started off at a healthy pace but faded quickly.
We had no articles for it in the sixth week. The seventh
issue had two articles and one rejoinder. The eighth had
?,wo articles, but one of these was a reprint from -
The ninth issue consisted solely of a book
ventilated the problem with Bill Hyland and performed
euthanasia.
review by a Soviet author. I found this trend so dis-
couraging, and the ninth issue so embarrassing, that I
The Forum had two main purposes. One was to provide
an outlet for longer, more thoughtful and complex articles
than were the norm in the daily Soviet Developments. The
other was to allow for rejoinders which would bring to
light useful differences of opinion. The difficulties with
the first objective were paramount, but there were also pro-
blems with the second.
Why did the contributions peter out? In particular,
why did this happen during what was actually a very stir-
ring time--US mining of Haiphong and Soviet acceptance of
the President in Moscow? I think the main reason is that
the Forum---and Developments--were laid on the analysts in
addition to all their other duties. They were not relieved
of anything else in order to make time for this effort. In
addition, the initial feedback from the NSC Staff was much
more positive about the Developments than about the Forum.
When the pre-summit pressures got really heavy, and all
concerned were tasked with a spate of unilateral papers,
the Developments survived but the Forum starved. (It should
be noted that Developments now carries longer and more thought-
ful pieces as Annexes from time to time.)
Approved For Release 2001/12/04: CIA-RDP84B00506R000100080005-2
 Approved For Release 2001/12/04: CIA-RDP84B00506R000100080005-2
CONFIDENTIAL
As for the question as to differences of opinion, re-
reading the nine issues reminds me vividly of my dissatis-
faction with this aspect. The differences were not very
interesting. They were not on terriby important subjects.
They sometimes had a querulous or at least ill-mannered tone.
They did not cumulate in a very interesting way; that is,
there was no progressive refinement and sharpening of dif-
ferences of opinion on a given topic over successive issues.
One rejoinder promised at the end of the first issue never
appeared. As the table shows, they petered out as fast or
faster as did the articles.
In thinking about why it happened this way, I recall
the considerable labor required in ONE to produce a useful
and meaningful dissent. It takes a lot of time and exchange
to set down differing views in a way that delineates clearly
both the area of agreement and the area of disagreement, as
well as some evidence and ration-'e for the latter. I be-
lieve that everybody who gets in 'ved in the process quickly
comes to feel these difficulties tither keenly, and is reluc-
tant to get into the process in a casual, continuous fashion.
At any rate, setting up a special publication and enjoining
all hands to "dissent!" did not work out in this case. Per-
haps another reason was that the process was in the hands of
current intelligence people who are constantly required to
move on from problem to problem as new material comes in and
consumer interest shifts.
I will try to put my mind to the question about how one
might better bring to light significant differences. My first
thought is that the starting point could well be with the
consumer, namely, with the designation by a consumer of a
topic on which interpretations, including significant differ-
ences, were important to him. I presume we will have a chance
to discuss this further.
Yours,,
Approved For Release 2001/12/04: CIA-RDP84B00506R000100080005-2
 Approved For Release 2001/12/04: CIA-RDP84B00506R000100080005-2
Date of
Issue Articles Rejoinders Articles Rejoinders Articles Rejoinders
4 Apr 3
11 Apr 2 1 1 1
18 Apr 2 2 -2 1
25 Apr 3
2 May 2
9 -May
16 May 1 1 1
23 May 1
30 May
Otr.e
Approved For Release 2001/12/04: CIA-RDP84B00506R000100080005-2
 Approved For P,&Iease 2001/12/04: CIA-RDP84B00506W00100080005-2
Approved For Release 2001/12/04: CIA-RDP84B00506R000100080005-2