CONVERSATION BETWEEN SECRETARY OF STATE, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, CHAIRMAN/JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL ADVISOR, AND DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE 20 JUNE 1977
Document Type:
Collection:
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST):
CIA-RDP80M00165A002300110032-3
Release Decision:
RIPPUB
Original Classification:
S
Document Page Count:
3
Document Creation Date:
December 20, 2016
Document Release Date:
August 7, 2006
Sequence Number:
32
Case Number:
Publication Date:
June 22, 1977
Content Type:
MFR
File:
Attachment | Size |
---|---|
CIA-RDP80M00165A002300110032-3.pdf | 108.06 KB |
Body:
Approved For Release 2006I08103-: C14-R DP80M00165A002300110032-3
2 u JUij i977
MEMORANDUM FOR: Dr. Bowie
Dr. Stevens
FROM EA/DCI
Notes from the meeting on priorities attached. This should clarify
the Director's remarks on the subject at yesterday's staff meeting.
/CDF aces 2
Approved F release 20 10 :', J DP80M0 6 A002300110032-3
2 2 JUN 1977
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
SUBJECT: Conversation between Secretary of State, Secretary of
Defense, Chairman/Joint Chiefs of Staff, National Security
Council Advisor, and Director of Central Intelligence
20 June 1977
1. Dr. Brzezinski's views are that we need to set up some
mechanism for establishing and reviewing intelligence priorities.
He further believes that we do not today have a credible clandestine
collection or covert action capability in this country. We need
that in order to better judge how other governments are making
their decisions, how they look upon us and our policies, etc. We
are not nearly as good at this kind of thing and overall political
appraisals as we are at technical and hardware intelligence.
2. Cy Vance believes we need an advisory group or an executive
committee that would meet at least quarterly. He, too, believes
that our weakest area in both collection and analysis is in political
motivation and intent.
3. Harold Brown pointed out that one reason for this deficiency-
is that intent is very difficul-t to discern. He emphasized that
while we want input from the top on intelligence priorities, it
should not all be-a top-down problem, but an upward influence also.
It would be too easy for the high-level decision-makers to forget
the necessary bread and butter items. There is also danger that
they would not recognize areas of longer term concern or emerging
importance.
4. We need to decide wjlether the SCC will be the mechanism
advisory groups or executive committee - or whether in the reorgani-
zation something new will evolve.
5. Vance also pointed out our economic deficiencies and how much
more important they are becoming. He also was concerned with the
problem of overcollection and how we pare that down.
6. Harold Brown suggested we charge $100 for every report we
provide in order to prevent undue demands on the system.
.-Annr-navarf RnrRaI cP MnAlf}RIflG ?-f(IA-RfPR(~11Flf~{3'FCi_5A(~Fl2-?1lf3-41fC+19--::~
------
Approved For_~elease 2006/08109: CIA-RDP80M0
A002300110032-3
4;
7. I believe we need a system such that any priority put
in at the top automatically displaces others below it, rather than
superimposing KIQs on a numerical and structured priority system
without any guidance to the collectors and analyzers as to where
the KIQ fits in. Brzezinski was moving into constructing a new
system which would, in fact, be very similar to the KIQ/NSCID 1-2.
This raises the issue of whether the NSCID 1-2 system is flexible
enough to adapt the numerical priorities of lower priorities when
a higher one is put in at the top in midstream?
STANSFIELD TURNER