SENIOR REVIEW PANEL COMMENTS ON DRAFT IIM: THE MILITARY BALANCE BETWEEN GREECE AND TURKEY: HOW IT STANDS--WHERE IT'S HEADED--WHAT IT MEANS, INTERNALLY DATED 25 MARCH 1988
Document Type:
Collection:
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST):
CIA-RDP93T00837R000400110002-6
Release Decision:
RIPPUB
Original Classification:
S
Document Page Count:
2
Document Creation Date:
December 23, 2016
Document Release Date:
July 8, 2013
Sequence Number:
2
Case Number:
Publication Date:
April 7, 1988
Content Type:
MEMO
File:
Attachment | Size |
---|---|
![]() | 84.38 KB |
Body:
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/08: CIA-RDP93T00837R000400110002-6
The Director of Central Intelligence
Washington, D.C. 20505
NIC-00606-88
Senior Review Panel 7 April 1988
MEMORANDUM FOR: Director of Central Intelligence
Deputy Director of Central Intelligence
SUBJECT:.
Senior Review Panel Comments on Draft
IIM: The Military Balance Between
Greece and Turkey: How It Stands--
Where It's Headed--What It Means,
internally dated 25 March 1988
1. The Panel finds the current draft IIM a considerable
improvement over the earlier version. The Key Judgments are
generally crisp and well reasoned. The paper's limited focus
obviously prevents analysis of much more than tactical
considerations--limited generally to the Aegean, Thrace, and
Cyprus?though the broader strategic implications for NATO's
southeast flank, basing rig-FET7--dhd US interests are tieetingly
alluded to toward the end. The presentation leads to a
conclusion that Greece and Turkey can hardly become our common
allies in a NATO engagement in southeast Europe. We assume this
is intended.
2. This version can still benefit from extensive cutting
and editing out of repetition, especially the long story of
weapons acquisitions and types. Much of this could be
accomplished by a few graphics and a map--listing the forces of
the two countries, their deployments, and their probable
development for whatever is the time frame of the draft--all of
which would make more intelligible the text's treatment of
present and future force disparities.
3. We note the draft's conclusion that Turkey generally
outspends Greece in the military area (page 26). The most recent
statistics in the paper do not appear to support the point.
Greece spends annually an average of 6.6% of its GDP ($38.8
billion in 1986) while Turkey averages 4.6% of its GDP ($53
'.!Signers
?..
?? OAD2s,"
4.5Peruzi--
datit-
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/08: CIA-RDP93T00837R000400110002-6
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/08: CIA-RDP93T00837R000400110002-6
SECRET
billion in 1986) or $2.560 billion for Greece and $2.438 billion
for Turkey (pages 24-26). Do NATO infrastructure expenditures
account for this difference? Are they included for both Greece
and Turkey?
4. Finally, we believe that the broader range of Turkey's
defense interests on its eastern (USSR) and southern borders
(Syria) and its minority concerns (Kurds) should be brought out
more clearly. There is an asymmetry in respective force missions
which does not emerge in a concentration on the Aegean and
Thrace.
William Leonhart J---5-5flincPherson
cc: AC/NIC (Mr. Hutchinson)
VC/NIC (Mr. Gries)
NIO for GPF
ODCl/SRP:thelma
Distribution:
Orig - DCI
1 - AC/NIC (Mr. Hutchinson)
1 - VC/NIC (Mr. Cries)
1 - NIO for GPF
1 - NIO for Economics
1 - PO/NIC
1 -
1 -
1 -
1 -
1 -
Executive
SRP File
SRP Chrono
SRP (Amb. Leonhart)
SRP (Gen. McPherson)
Registry
Richard L. Walker
1749
25X1
2
SECRET
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/08: CIA-RDP93T00837R000400110002-6 (-"A