COMMENTS ON DRAFT MEMOS ON RELATIONSHIPS AMONG NFAC COMPONENTS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP93T01132R000100020027-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 3, 2012
• Sequence Number: 27
• Publication Date: June 30, 1980
• Content Type: MEMO

I
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/05/04: CIA-RDP93T01132R000100020027-3
MEMORANDUM FOR:
FROM Joe Zaring, NIO/WE
SUBJECT Comments on Draft Memos on Relationships Among
NFAC Components
1. Both drafts would profit from a clear, once-and-for-all state-
ment of what order of importance the Director and the D/NFAC attach to the
interagency and community product. Until it is categorically established
that such a product is wanted and that it is wanted for good reasons, we
are going to go on suffering from unconscionable drafting delays, poor and
inadequate inputs, superficial reviews, inattention, etc.
2. Far better than the NFAC draft, the NIC draft makes clearer the
responsibility of all components for all products. But even the latter
strikes me as watery -- and sometimes contradictory -- on this key point.
Meanwhile, from my observation, signs of the old problems of elitism, com-
petition, shirking of responsibility, doing-one's-own-thing, etc. are already
beginning to crop up.
3. On the same point, I am not sure that either draft deals very
effectively with the nitty-gritty of how you improve cooperation in the in-
terest of improving the quality of the product.
-- Communication and consultation between the offices and the
NIOs are not all that good (even among those of us who work
at it).
-- How much responsibility do office chiefs -- more particularly,
division and branch chiefs -- have for reviewing the quality
of inputs to NIC projects?
-- If NIOs are tasked to review office production (and in the
footnotes on assessments, are said to have done so), is it
helpful to say publication will proceed if no response is re-
ceived by the deadline (NFAC draft), or, to limit the NIO's
interventions to matters of accuracy or egregious judgmental
errors (NIC draft)? Time and time again we receive for coor-
dination intelligence assessments of real importance that we
cannot possibly review with any thoughtfulness before the
225X1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/05/04: CIA-RDP93T01132R000100020027-3
 i
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/05/04: CIA-RDP93T01132R000100020027-3
publication deadline. And more often than not, it is not
egregious errors that trouble us, but simply a general in-
adequacy of approach and analysis.
4. Though both drafts are apparently intended to deal primarily
with roles with respect to finished intelligence, they go beyond that on
at least a couple matters -- i.e., review of covert action proposals and
consumer relations. If we get into these, why not also cover other impor-
tant subjects, such as obligations with respect to warning, requirements,
collection review, briefings, pumping up ambassadors, etc.?
5. Given these difficulties, I wonder whether written instructions
of this sort can be made to serve the intended purposes as well as an oral
statement from our leaders (including the DCI) on how they want the place
to operate. Such instructions tend to err either on the side of "let us
all be reasonable about this", or, of being too specific in misleading
ways. (What does it really mean to say that "drafts will be coordinated
as appro riate", or "NIOs should work hard to avoid tying up key analysts
for lengthy periods of time unless the offices concerned are able to spare
them"? What conclusions will be drawn if it is said that the NIOs "have
only a minor role" in producing current intelligence assessments that are
"national" while they are charged at the same time with reviewing PDBs,
recommending them, and on occasion, even drafting them.) Or perhaps the
answer is two presentations (written or oral) -- the one dealing with
philosophy, concepts, and the future -- the other dealing more helpfully
with do's and dont's.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/05/04: CIA-RDP93T01132R000100020027-3