Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 12, 2016
Document Release Date: 
July 30, 1998
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
March 7, 1967
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0.pdf857.53 KB
Approved For Release 2002/06/1.8.: CIA-RDP85G00105R0001001.,0tY 84 (29 25X1A Chief, CGS Comments on thel lR view of the 1G Recommendations Regarding Foreign Intelligence Collection Roquiroments 25X1A9A 25X1A R [RNDATI0N 1 and 2 - The PNIO' a Chief, CGS Comments : Concur. The combination of the new DCID 1/3--PNIO' a--and DCID 1/2--CNIO's--should incorporate those subjects and geographical areas which do not warrant the development and allocation of intelli- gence resources. This would go a long way toward setting a base for a more consistent process of validating requirements and, within broad limits, of setting priorities. The success of this will depend on the clarity and brevity of the "national survival" DCID 1/3. I urge strongly that, whatever the composition of the ad hoc group and of the "suitable mechanism ... to recommend to USIB specific ... actions", CGS be included from the outset. The "suitable mechanism" might very well be the production-conscious membership of the Collection Guidance Advisory Group recommended in No. 8, together with representatives of collection elements for this specific purpose. Such a body might begin upon the task of bringing about better synchronization than seems now possible between the programming of intelligence production and that of related collection. A cautionary note, however: My experience with the PN10 Review Group under in 1963 and the abortive Collection Guidance Committee whit tried to set up indicates that the problems of communication w n such a group as is recommended here, the disparity of interests among the members, and the ephemeral nature of its tasks makes its successful operation quite problematical. The Collection Guidance Committee met only twice. I would suggest that CGS, aware of both substantive needs and collection capabilities might be of considerable assistance to the chairman in structuring agendas, marshalling contributions and clarifying varying views. CGS' service in the past to D/DCI/NIPE recommends our participation as suggested under Comment (d) on a community-wide basis. We concur in the proposal to rescind the need for annual and quarterly revisions. If the initial group can be kept concerned and involved, with CGS functioning as its day-by-day continuity, it should be able to revise these documents as real-vnorld events dictate, at least for the first round or so. After that, who knows; it might revert to the BNE. Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0 Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0 RXOONMNMTION 4 Tice IPC Chief, CGS llrwasent. : Agree with Bruce's cents an Recommendation 4. We can prepare and coordinate the proposed notice, but the function and responsibilities of the CIA Member of the IPE will need considerable expansion and detailed description which in turn will need sub- stantial working out with DWP. We can take the initiative In this after DCID 5/6 has been revised. Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0 Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0 RI CQMMIW RTiON 5 - rx staff Chief, CGS Comments: Though this is not among those considered by 25X1 A group, it seems to me necessary for CGS to play some role with respect to FI Staff's rejection of "ad hoc requirements which do not clearly satisfy the criteria for clandestine collection. I recommend that FI Staff be specifically directed to discuss questionable requirements with CGS before finally rejecting them; it may merely be a matter of rewording or highlighting that part of the problem susceptible for clandestine collection. This raises the question of the CGS role in screening requirements from the 1O/I and M/S&T and from DIA and other agencies bound for clandestine collection. We feel we should be able to Indicate where same of these requirements might be covered by other 25X1 Aavllectora--DCS, system, or even C or NSA, and thus serve as shield for DTYP and Pt Staff. We should do this at least for all requirements on D!IVP originating within CIA. Approved For Release 2002/06M V 'CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0 Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0 R TION 6 - Form 986 Chief, CGS Comments: (bucur with the revised recommendation, except to change "encourage" to "ensure". I strongly agree that the implementation of other recommendations will have more to do with general improve- ment than the mechanical revision of Form 986. Nevertheless, I differ with Bruce's implication that "few persona feel it necessary or useful to meet the validation criteria conscientiously." This is a comment of major importance buried with a minor recommendation. A large number of the deficiencies noted in the IG Report would be alleviated, if not cured, by more consistent application of validation criteria all along the line, but this depends upon acme authority somewhere to say "no" to an "invalid" requirement. Neither the IG' a Report nor the revision of recommendations by 25X1 A has fixed this responsibility to say no. Under proposals here, it is diffused among "supervisors", the Collection Guidance Advisory Group, COS and the line authority of office chiefs and others. Until this responsibility is fixed and has been made operational, the need for applying validation criteria will not be taken seriously among those who originate and endorse requirements. More on this below. Approved For Release 2002/06/18 CIA-RDP85GO0105R000100130028-0 Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0 RS tDATION 7 Analyst-Collector Communication Chief, COS O ents: Concur in the reworded re endation with the additional stipulation that the appropriate element of CGS be kept informed of the general trend of analyst-collector interchange and of any commitments arising therefrom. Paragraph 66 on Page 111-38, which precedes this rest ndetion, notes that the effort to persuade the collector to mount a collection operation should be between the director of an office and his counterpart in Clandestine Services 25X1 A?x the 0 I submit that it is Impossible for COS to do its work in monitoring the flow of requirements and responses thereto if CGS is not made party to the dialogue between a production office and a collector. We have never interposed any barrier to analyst- collector communication and in fact have encouraged it wherever it seemed helpful to either side. One of the difficulties referred to in the IG Report is the fact that numerous requirements are served upon collectors directly, bypassing CS, preempting collection resources which could be better used for satisfaction of other, perhaps of higher priority, needs. In short, it is damn difficult to know what can be done to meet a requirement if we are unable to know how much a collector's capacities have already been taxed in private bilateral deals. Analyst-collector contacts are good and useful; we ask only that contacts be on established programs and that we be kept in the loop. Approved For Release 2002tQ61t t ,,CFA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0 Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0 RKQOMKZWMTlON 8 - WS and the Collection Guidance Advisory Group Chief, COS Comments I agree that collection requirements problems are the common problems of intelligence producers attempting to make collection machinery work effectively for their needs, and in this sense C should bear the same functional relationship to the producing offices of W(S T as we do to those of DD/I. In a way the proposed Collection Guidance Advisory Group is a device to offset the fact that the production offices are not in a single directorate and therefore require some bridge for common action across directorate lines. The effectiveness of this recommendation as revised depends heavily upon two factors: the effectiveness of the proposed Collection Guidance Advisory Group and the ultimate agreement of all involved as to what is and is not included in the term "technical assistance". We would prefer the term "specialized assistance" to avoid confusion with technical matters of resolution, frequencies, etc. Further, inasmuch as Bruce's comments recognize CGS responsibi- lities for handling the requirements process, and in keeping with the intent of the report, we suggest that the recommendation be phrased as follows: ... hold the Collection Guidance Staff responsible for managing the collection requirements process and providing specialized assistance in the field of collection guidance to their producing offices so as to: a. Mitigate the deleterious effects of the Information Explosion that are already being felt. b. Apply strict selective criteria to all foreign intelli- gence requirements in order to prevent the Information Explosion from getting completely out of hand. c. Introduce progressively more order and system into human-source requirements. There is in the charter of CGS (PDI Notice 1-130-20 of 6 May 1964) a list of our functions which would form one definition of what is subsumed under "technical assistance". In practice over the intervening years these bare-bone descriptions of functions have been fleshed out to establish for CGS a major role in intelligence manage- ment. This role includes, in addition to the mechanical steps of our original Charter, the tasks of formulating and recommending collection programs, costing alternative collection proposals, developing specifications for technical collection systems, recommending collection policy positions within the Agency and before USIB, evaluating collection system performance and bringing together analysts, Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0 Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0 R&D people and collectors in imaginative programs to develop new ways of answering old and tough problems. Through all these roles, COS has evolved well beyond the routine tasks of its predecessor units in transmitting "blue ditto" requirements from the analysts to the collectors. As the complexity of both pro- duction and collection problems has increased during our years, these management functions have emerged in response. Thdoy'$ collection world requires that these functions be performed somewhere; CGS is the logical place. I have some concerns about the Collection Guidance Advisory Group (CMG). By its membership this group will be composed of busy men among whose duties the requirements problem and collection management occupy a relatively minor place. Requirements will be the least sexy of their concerns for the most part, and the tendency to delegate representation downward in their organizations will be very greet indeed. Whatever the initial enthusiasm and resolve of the members, it seems likely that the job will pass from the deputy directors' offices down to special assistants and from them probably even further down. This means the membership of this group will not be able to take actions or make decisions without reference to authorities in their own offices, and so, progressively, the group will be reduced to a discussion body and actions will have to be worked out between CGS and the office concerned. The variety of roles proposed for the CGAG in Bruce's recommendations means that there will be a large number of topics to be discussed at a CGAG meeting, relayed back to the deputy director by his stand-in, further discussion without benefit of the group's views, further reference to the office director, and then a subsequent meeting in order to take action. While it is true that all the production offices listed in the revised recommendation have collection problems, there is very little commonality in substance among those problems. While both 1%1SAC and OCI, or 081 and ORR will have requirements to take up with CGS, those requirements will be for quite different answers and will involve quite dfferent resources. While the CG,AG would probably be of great use in adopting common procedures, in recognizing common mechanical problems, and in working out uniform criteria in general terms, it is more than likely that substantive requirements and their management will require bilateral discussions between COS and the substantive office concerned. I am willing to give the proposal a try and I'm hopeful that useful results will be obtained, but this will depend on the continuity of senior representation from the offices and in the durability of their interest in the problems and intricacies of collection management. Approved For Release 20O~106118' : CIA-RDP85GO0105R000100130028-0 Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0 If any progress is to be made in confining the information explosion and in screening the chaff out of the requirements system, then this CGAG must be given explicit powers to say no to require- ments it considers invalid. If it can do this and this alone, It might very well be a major answer to the deficiencies the IG group scolds so about. Incidentally, if the intent of this revised recommendation is to be served, it would be useful to propose rescinding the 0 25X1 A era "Special Relationship" paper which puts CGS' role in relation to WSW offices on an "as requested" basis. The CGAG will not work if there is a conspicuous difference among Its members In their relationship to CGS. Approved For Release 204/46118 : CIA-RDP85GO0105R000100130028-0 Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0 SS 2U TION 9 - Personnel Exchange Chief, cos QQmmsnts: 25X1A I share with his reservations as to the efficacy of exchanging personnel with FI Staff in improving our communications with them. I concur in his substitute recommendation that we attempt a series of regular meetings with Fl Staff first, and on the basis of our experience with that process then decide whether personnel exchanges would be further beneficial. If the IPC list and Committee revive, contacts with FI Staff under that aegis could serve this exploratory purpose also. CGS is anxious for more productive contact with Ft Staff but has increasingly come to realize that direct contact with the t/P divisions is often necessary to get the job done. As analyst--collector contacts should be encouraged, so too should be contacts between CGS and collectors. Approved For Release 2002/06k8 `'CIA-RDP85GO0105R000100130028-0 Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0 RE0Oi91[ENDATION 10 - C2aL Notice Chief, CGS Comments: Agree that this is minor, but would also note that this would be a first and useful step on the way to giving the CIRL official.. status required to solve some of the problems we have In obtaining analyst participation in reviewing and updating the contents. This would be no minor improvement. R TION 11 - CTRL "Preface" Chief, CGH Comments: A Concur with II revised recommendation and also the idea of handling this on a trial basis at first. The CGAG should be brought into this process to maintain balance among the "sore important needs". I would substitute the COAG for the "informal meeting of representatives from each office". RDATION 12 .. CIRL Background Statements Chief, OGR Comments : As with No. 10 above, any measure which brings about partici- pation in the production of the CTRL by senior and responsible members of the production offices is a step forward. I would recommend that CGS be charged to initiate and perhaps do first drafts of background statements (their scope and nature to be defined by experience). With the collaboration of office analysts, who should take final responsibility for the statements, these should then be reviewed by the CGAO as suggested in my change to Recommendation 11. Approved For Release 2002/06/18 CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0 Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0 RECOi WTION 13 - Collection Guides Chief, CGS Cements: I have always had strong reservations about the virtues of standard comprehensive collection guidance documents. If they relate to any real and active substantive problems they are subject to rapid obsolescence. A few examples, carefully matched to collectors' capabilities, have been useful -viz. the Cuban Handbook. The reworded recommendation is acceptable as stated, provided careful controls are exercised over "as needed" and selected intelligence problems". Perhaps the whole approach 11 could be tried out Initially on an aspect of one of the "national survival" PNI?'a generated under Recommendations I and 2. For uniformity in approach, criteria and format it might be well to put the responsibility for production on OGS in collaboration with the producing offices, rather than the other way around. Decisions about need and topic might be made a responsibility of CGAG, so that all issuances of this kind come under a central control. Approved For Release 2002/06/1$ CIA-RDP85GO0105R000100130028-0 Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0 RSCast3rNAATION 14 - DCS Chief , COS Co,auents : I concur in truce's observations, particularly the point that changes resulting from other recommendations should benefit DCS, at least on an interim basis. I should observe also that we have already had some experience with collection guidance programs with the DCS, 25X6natably an 0 atomic energy developments. the question comes to mind however: DGS has indeed been successful in responding to sub- stantive requirements, but there is some question in our minds as to whether those requirements were valid; the symbiotic relationship between the General and Life Sciences Divisions of 081 and D$ may mean that ECS has b : chasing a numbar of requirements which probably could not stand much examination for validity. This, incidentally, is a good example of the dangers involved in unfettered analyst- collector communication. Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0 Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0 COldts CATION 16 and 17 - SIGIM Problems Chis Cob Conyients The substance and focus of 10 rsao endetions regarding techni- eel collection systems show a marked change from those bearing on human source collection, In the main, the former are superficial and dead with relatively minor aspects of the deep and oomptex problems we have with collection guidance for $IUI ' and reeconxsiseancs satellites. The problem adverted to in Recco maendation lT is being progressively dealt with by the Intelligence Guidance 8ubvc eeeitteee of the USIB 814131? Committee on which COS represents CIA. The over- haul of COMM requirements for Latin America and Bub-Baboran Africa took into account at every step the capacities of human source collection, and the 8101)1? requirements were revised accordingly. This process will continue as other free world Subeleements are addressed. The solution to the problem in Recommendation 16--Technical Training and Access---meets only a part of what the real problems is. This is one of relations between NSA and CIA and, indeed, between NSA and the rest of the intelligence caamanity. The problems descend from NSA's defensiveness about its status in the community and the declining productivity of CCZUNT. It is auspicious and resentful of any efforts on our part to got closer to it or to deal in detail with the problems of information, collection and exploitation which NSA is encountering. The kind of trust and sharing of problems which is needed here cannot be legislated. Recommendation 16 as reworded by Bruce is pwfectly acceptable, although I have scant hope of its producing any useful results. Approved For Release 2002/06/18: CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0 Approved For Release 2002/06/18 :33 CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0 RECOMMENDATION 20 - SIQINT Satellites Chief, CGS Comments: I expect that the language of this requirement will be over- taken shortly by the transfer to the 810114' Committee of responsi- bility for BIGINT satellites in conjunction with the conversion of COMM Into COUIREX. The original intent of Recommendation 20 was to deal with requirements for SIGINT satellite collection. I 25X1 Asuggeat that rewording be amended "to direct CGS, with the assistance of producing offices, to establish ... " and to include in the last line "CIA Members of CUM and SIGINT Committee Working Groups". I should like to see established the point that CGS has the responsibility for processing all CIA 8IGII1IT satellite requirements and that COS provide the i Member of the 810114? Satellite Working Group, whether it be in C or the 8XGINT Committee. This would conform to the principles in Recommendation 8 that GS is the locus for the requirements handling process. Because it may be useful to draw upon the COAG to assist in the formulation of long-term satellite collection requirements and because BIGXNZ satellites are of material concern to OEL, it might be helpful to include OXL In the membership of the COAG, if only on an ad boo basis when FLINT matters are to be taken up. Approved For Release 2002/0-6/18 : `CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0 Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0 RECOMMENDATION 23 00MOR Chief, CGS comments: I believe a careful distinction needs to be made between the functions of the informal group sponsored by Chairman, CQQR, and the A/1)CVI on the one hand and the regular in-Agency machinery for formulating and coordinating Agency positions on CID UM on the other. The former was created to deal with temporary problems and technical matters often quite outside subjects on COlNOR agendas; the latter existed before this group was formed, has operated during the former group's existence and will undoubtedly continue to exist after the informal arrangoents have been dispensed with. There need be no bar to discussing Agency positions in the informal group but those positions should be arrived at outside it. Responsibility for the development of these positions should continue to rest in COS, with the advice and counsel of other interested Agency elements in the DWI and DWS&T. This is the way the CIA position is worked out for other USIB collection committees, and I see no reason why CONOR or COMIREX should be an exception. I would suggest that Recommendation 23 be reworded to state "the DQ/I and DWS&T direct COS to formulate and coordinate CIA positions on requirements for overhead reconnaissance with the assistance of their producing offices: I do not believe that this recommendation should or needs to deal with the status of the informal COMM-A/DLVI discussion group. Approved For Release 2fl02/06/1,8 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0 Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0 RRC OMU2MTION 24 and 26 - Practical Measures Chief, CGS Comments: I concur with Bruce's comments and with the rewording of the recommendation, except that I would have the DT/I and DA/S&T charge CGS, with the assistance of the CUAG, with devising, etc. This is consistent with the recommended change for 26 and places the responsibility where it belongs, on us. In all cases in these recommendations, I strongly believe that 00$ should be charged with these tasks, turning to the membership of the CEO, individually or collectively, for advice and assistance in getting the job done. The many steps suggested by the 10 Survey for division heads end, in 26, for office heads to improve the require- ments situation may very well be the right ones, but to expect this to be accomplished in the some way by each division head its unrealistic. I believe that with the assistance of the 00AG we can work out practical measures, which may not be the same for all offices, whereby the process of review and validation of require- ments can be actively carried on. What is necessary is the methodical attack Bruce refers to on the problems of collection management, and for this 0G8 would carry the main responsibility. Division heads and office heads have other more pressing concerns; we do not. Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0 Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0 RNCQlATION 26 - Necessary Suppert Chief, Cos Commments : Concur in the revision and hope for continuing support from the ED/I and ID/ in our efforts to contain the "information explosion". Suggest that the recommendation be revised to state: "the E/I and the ED/SW designate the Chief, Collection Guidance Staff, in collaboration with the Collection Guidance Advisory Group, to be responsible for managing the collection guidance process and for continuing review and such other efforts necessary to: These efforts shall be for the purpose of identifying efficiencies and making recommendations for appropriate action to the PD/I and WSW. " I believe that the revision establishes the responsibility right where it needs to be for the long term---on us. If the CWiG carries out Its" part actively, imaginatively and consistently, problems of "authority within the line structure" need not arise; we would look to members of the COAL to exercise their line authority to help solve problems at the analyst level, Meanwhile this recommendation, reworded, gives us room to evolve and develop new and better procedures and techniques and to bring them before the W/I and the E/S' for approval and adoption. I feel this recommendation gives us the necessary flexibility to improve without the rigorous "legislation" that some might recommend. Approved For Release 2002/06/18 CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0 Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0 A f 27 - Training Chlerf, CGS Cements: Concur in restatement. Approved For Release 2002/06/18 CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0