LETTER TO LT. GENERAL VERNON WALTERS FROM BILL SULLIVAN
Document Type:
Collection:
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST):
CIA-RDP80R01731R002000050003-6
Release Decision:
RIFPUB
Original Classification:
K
Document Page Count:
3
Document Creation Date:
December 20, 2016
Document Release Date:
May 16, 2007
Sequence Number:
3
Case Number:
Publication Date:
February 6, 1973
Content Type:
LETTER
File:
Attachment | Size |
---|---|
CIA-RDP80R01731R002000050003-6.pdf | 213.92 KB |
Body:
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP80R01731 R002000050"-&- 6+8Aj
February 6, 1973
PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL
Lt. General Vernon Walters, USA
Deputy Director
Central Intelligence Agency Headquarters
Washington, D. C. 20505
My last letter to you related, among other things, to national
security and intelligence operations. For what little they are worth
I am going to set forth a few more ideas in this field of endeavor.
As I indicated previously, this country has never actually had
a thoroughly professional, high quality, specialized intelligence*
organization. I think there is a great need for one. Additionally,
I think there is an equally great need to reorganize, streamline, and
make vastly more efficient, the operations of the entire intelligence
community. President Nixon has a better understanding and more
knowledge in this field than any President has had since I have been
in the government service. This covers a 34 year span. The President
recognizes the necessity for valuable intelligence operations, therefore,
if we are going to make any real progress here it will have to be done
during the next four years while he is at the White House.
First may I suggest to you why I believe it may be well to
separate criminal investigations and general law enforcement
responsibilities from intelligence work. Take, for example, two young
men with the same intelligence quotient, ability, judgment, industry
and other similar qualities. Let us assume that they graduated from
the same university in the same department and with an equally good
academic record. Despite this they have different personalities.
One likes to think in clear cut almost black and white terms. A bank
is robbed. This is clear, it cannot be disputed. The task is to find
out who robbed it, locate and arrest him and turn him over to the
proper officials for prosecution and sentencing. This is satisfying
to one type of personality, the type that wants to get immediate results
and ones which are unmistakably clear. This type of personality makes
a good man to investigate criminal violations. Let us take this other
personality who is at his best when he is thinking in terms that are
very complex with various gray areas. He is the type of personality
who is very perceptive, analytical, has quiet patience and is fond of
weighing cogently multiple issues and conditions. His personality is
better suited, therefore, to conducting work in the intelligence field
and related security matters. One could elaborate on this same theme in
some detail.**
* I refer here to domestic intelligence organization, not foreign.
** For example, there are differences in programs, techniques,
training and objectives.
Doi F"e iev L:orri d to
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP80RO1731 R002000050003-6
In light of the above, I think this country could best be served
by the separation of the one from the other so that we would not have
square pegs in round holes. It has been my experience in the FBI that
when we reassigned agents from criminal to intelligence work and
conversely we would often come up with square pegs in round holes. A
man who is excellent in criminal investigations turns out to be
inefficient in intelligence work and the man who is excellent in
criminal work fails to maintain this fine performance in the intelligence
field (there are, of course, some few exceptions).
If there was a separation, it could be done in one or two ways.
First, there could be a separate organization called,for example, the
United States Security Service or Intelligence Service. I do believe
that at some point in the future this will be absolutely necessary. As
I have previously mentioned, all major countries of the world except
this country have such a service. It may be that the time is not quite
right for such an organization or there may be a reluctance to tackle
it in the immediate future. A second course would be to keep both
sections in the FBI but keep them separate from one another and under
the same roof, building specialized operations in each area, but "never
the twain shall meet." A man by his distinctive accomplishments would
remain either in the criminal or intelligence field during the course
of his entire career. All his training would be specialized to make
him more efficient and productive.
If this is done the next step would be to set up an. arrangement
that would enable CIA and the Domestic Intelligence operations to
strengthen each other in all possible ways. Liaison between them would
not be at all sufficient. The cooperation between the two would have
to be complete and in detail. There should be a continuing dialogue between the
two as well as joint action so that the changes of the times would be met
by changes in the two operations so as not to cause inflexibility and
fossilization to develop with the mainstream going on around the two.
To me it is quite evident that the pooling of the assets, resources,
and brains which can be found in your international organization and
in domestic intelligence operations, could not help but produce results
far superior to anything known in the past.
Consideration could be given to setting up an Operational Board
in the intelligence community. This could be one which had representation
from all members of the community or it could be a limited representation
board consisting of CIA and the FBI domestic intelligence operations. It
may be that the former would be the better of the two. The essential
purpose of this Operational Board would be to study, analyze and recommend
on a continuing basis, ways and means for conducting joint: operations in
some cases or the pooling of assets to carry out the operations of a
particular member of the intelligence community.
Annrnvarl Fnr RGIG'a' CC 7ll7/flr;/17 ? ('.IA-RflPRflRft17"A1 RM7f)r1fV1GM(1Q_r,
Approved For Release 2007/05/17: CIA-RDP80RO1731 R002000050003-6
There is no nation thundering at our door now to form a serious
security threat. We do not have any faction located in this country
which has the capacity to seriously damage our security at this time.*
As we know from history, we cannot naively think we have reached a
millennium or that peace will be permanent. As a matter of fact, some
evidence could be amassed to support the observation that down through
the centuries the world has been a place where "peace breaks out every
once in awhile." Apropos of this I am reminded of a conversation which
American military men had with the philosopher George Santayana when
they entered Rome during World War II. The American military men said,
"Mr. Santayana, you are a philosopher of world-wide reknown, so will you
tell us, can we look forward to a long, almost indefinite period of
peace and tranquility in the world following the end of this war?" It
is reported that Santayana smiled and replied, "Gentlemen, for a man
like myself who lives in solitude and philosophizes it is possible to
dream of a permanent peace and tranquility, but for men like you who
live in the world and know it for what it actually is, there can be
nothing but open or secret conflict."
We hope that George Santayana is wrong, but from the national
security standpoint it would be wise to assume that he could be correct.
From the last conversation I gathered that you recognize fully that there
is indeed a body of thought developing in this country which is not in
support of our constitutional procedures or a republican form of govern-
ment. This body of thought is to be found too often where public
opinion is molded. This body of thought originates in the minds. of
some intellectuals, scholars, educators who while not members of any
subversive organization are convinced that the principles of our free
society with its democratic processes are not best suited to the nature
of men and should ultimately be supplanted by some. social structure
based on Marxist's values, principles and objectives. In fact, one much
publicized scholar in his writings as you know, in the recent past has
taken the position that a controlled society is much more to be desired
than a free one. Hence, there are storm clouds ahead and I think it
would be most unfortunate that when conditions seriously worsen in the
future, (be it 10 or 20 or 40 years) we had no thoroughly efficient,
professional intelligence organization to help our government maintain
our historic values and goals. It would seem that in this relative
period of quiet, the conditions are as good as they could be to start
to build constructively, the kind of intelligence service that this
country needs and should have as soon as possible.
Perhaps someday we may be able to sit down and discuss other
aspects and ramifications of this national security problem.
With all good wishes,
Cordially,
* The exception here is Soviet-bloc espionage.