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: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon CIA-RDP93T00837R000400110002-6.pdf84.38 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