USIB COMMITTEE REORGANIZATION

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80M01066A001400190002-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 7
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 3, 2005
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: July 6, 1973
• Content Type: MF

.Approved For Rd-se 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP80M01066A4W400190002-7-._._-___.__r
6 July 1973
MEMORANDUM FOR: Director of Central Intelligence
SUBJECT: USIB Committee Reorganization
1. We have briefed the concept of the new USIB committee structure
to the following:
a. Director, DIA and key staff members.
b. Director, NSA and key staff members.
c. Director, INR.
d. Andy Marshall.
Key CIA Deputy Directors.
2. We got a generally favorable reaction from the USIB members
and their staffs to the proposition of establishment of the geographic
committees as prime elements of the USIB structure. None of these
individuals, however, was requested to approve the concept in detail.
They were well aware that we were merely familiarizing them with a
concept and that they would have opportunity for formal comment later.
They were also informed that our briefings did not constitute an indi-
cation of DCI approval.
3. Admiral de Poix's reaction was generally favorable although
he was concerned about the disappearance of the SIGINT Committee as a
.prime committee of USIB. As of this date he appears unpersuaded by our
counter-argument that he would, in fact, have a more direct. and continuous
voice in establishing requirements, objectives and priorities for SIGINT
through his membership at the top of the geographic committees..
4. Ray Cline expressed no problem with the concept but recommended
that in addition to our proposed structure, a "USIB steering committee,"
consisting of a senior representative of CIA, DIA and INR, be established
to oversee the work of the geographic committees. This looked like a
good possibility to us at first glance since our proposal thus far did
not address the problem of conflicting objectives, priorities, etc.
between the geographic committees. In a later conversation with Admiral
de Poix, however, the latter commented that,-such a steering committee
would tend to usurp the prerogatives of the USIB itself.' This is a
sound argument. There are two other options for resolving inter-committee
disagreements prior to USIB consideration of issues:
25X1
Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP80M01066A001400190002-7
 .Approved For Re Cse 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP80M01066A@0400190002-7
a. Establish ad hoc committees of the key elements of the geographic
committees to resolve disputes;.or
b. Expand the role of the USIB Secretariat to cover such matters.
5. General Phillips of NSA expressed concern only that our charts
did not show NSA as a regular member of the geographic committees. Since
he is a member of USIB, it is very difficult to argue that he not be
represented in such committees and, in fact, membership will probably
have to be offered on each geographic committee to each USIB agency
desiring representation (this would exclude the Services-,,-however).
Other than that, General Phillips seefted?to--have no problems; not--
surprising, he voiced no objection to the disappearance of the SIGINT
Committee.
6. Mr. Marshall's initial reaction to the USIB reorganization was
mild approval. However, since that time, he has become more of an
enthusiastic supporter of the idea.
7. The only sharp opposition to the proposal came from the DDI
and DD/S&T, the primary point of contention revolving around the question
of the USIB committee chairmen being special representatives to the DCI.
Carl Duckett was especially strong in his objections to this concept,
maintaining that the idea of a chairman who would not control an operating
element in the Community meant that such chairman would lose contact with
reality and thus be unable to respond Well. He pointed out the value of
such committees as GMAIC where missile experts could get together and
thoroughly thrash out a problem concerning areas of expertise. Ed Proctor
contended that the geographic committees simply reorganized things without
making any real difference. He considered the reorganization "a facade."
8. There could be several aspects to their concern. One is the
valid need for direct contact between CIA Deputy Directors and the NSC
staff on certain highly sensitive matters; this link must always be
available to the DCI when needed and could be available in any committee
structure. Another aspect is that the area chairmen, or the area
specialists on the DCI's personal staff, may become the contact points
with some authorities and, in contrast to DDI or DD/S&T, will not have
an analytical organization supporting them. On the other hand, an
advantage is that the coordination function accomplished by the area
men should relieve the line deputies of time-consuming activities with-
out degrading their authority.
V
Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP80MO1066AO01400190002-7
 Approved For ReM a 2005/03/24: CIA-FRDP80M01066A 00190002-7
9. With regard to the "facade" argument, I believe that the current
USIB committee structure fits that description and our proposed structure
does not. As most knowledgeable observers of USIB activity would admit,
the USIB structure now forms an "umbrella" under which the appearances
of Community effort can be given vigorous unilateral efforts by various
agencies and offices. The new concept, by permitting evaluation of all
Community efforts against substantive intelligence problems, really puts
teeth in the USIB management. It puts the Community in the position of
having to respond collectively to the needs of NSC and actually provide
advice to the DCI on management problems. The members will still be able
to defend their institutional interests--their prime function now--but
in addition they will have to come more closely to grips with the problem
of responding to substantive needs of the NSC.
10. We have adjusted our concept of the USIB committee structure to
take account of comments from those we have briefed to include those cam- v
meats received from you concerning weapons technology and economic in-
telligence. The basic structure is as indicated on the attached chart.
As you can see,.we have maintained seven geographic committees and a
Security Committee as the prime committees. of USIB. However, we have
also retained supporting groups covering the key collection resource
disciplines, scientific and technical intelligence, and economic intelli-
gence. Per your suggestion, we now recommend that the IHC be incorporated
in the IC Staff. ILLEGIB
11. One other aspect of the committee structure which we have not
stressed in our briefings is the feasibility of charging those committees
with the production and coordination of NIEs and NIAMs. This could be
done by-_addi.ng-a few substantive experts to the immediate staff of the
committee chairmen. We would-visualize the NIE/NIAM (and NSSM) process
about as follows: F
-- Request for NI.E, NIAM or NSSM and scope from NSC, NSCIC or
other national consumer.
-- Assignment and collaboration responsibilities to appropriate
USIB agency by the geographic committee.
-- Editing, coordination and appropriate display of differing
views by the committee.
-- The infusion of outside expertise drawn from a panel of exper
when required by the committee chairman. ~
-- Submission to USIB for approval.
Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP80MO1066AO01400190002-7
 Approved For Rel a 2005/03/24: (5A-RDP80MO1066AOQ.W00190002-7
12. Our studies of the current NIE/NIAM/NSSM (see attached ICS
study) processes suggest that the foregoing is the most straightforward
answer to current criticisms of the national product. In addition, it
would quite likely solve the. persistent problems of competitive estimat-
ing within the Community.
13. The IC Staff is at this time preparing a written report and
set of recommendations for the consideration of the DCI and USIB. We
are not at this time including a proposal to prepare estimates within
the structure. However, if you consider this a matter you would care
to explore with USIB, we can easily include a description of the option.
Major General, USAF
Deputy to the DCI for the
Intelligence Community V
2 Attachments
1. Chart
2. NIE/NSSM Study
Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP80MO1066AO01400190002-7
 Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP80MO1066AO01400190002-7
SEVEN GEOGRAPHIC COMMITTEES
DC I
USIB
SECURITY COMMITTEE
IREX SUPPORT GROUP
SIGINT SUPPORT GROUP
HUMAN SOURCES SUPPORT GROUP
STRATEGIC WEAPONS GROUP
Approv d For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP80MO1066AO014001900 2-7
ECONOMIC INTELLIGENCE GROUP
 1X 1/DDCI
Approved For Release 20 6&109 X24 : A-RDP80M01066A001400190002-7
Ta,
ACTION INFO.
ACTION INFO.
11
IG
1
DC!
_
1
12
C~ ~~ X71 f'
2
, DDCI
IT-,
3
i DDS&T
14
ASST/ DCI
4
! DDI
--r
it 15
AO/DCI
b
DDM&S
16
1EX/SEC
7
D/DCI/iC ;
17
3
ID/ iviO
j18
II 19
9
GC
20
1-0
1 LC
Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP80MO1066AO01400190002-7
DCI/EiBEI
 STAT Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP80MO1066AO01400190002-7
Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP80MO1066AO01400190002-7