CHIEF, CGS COMMENTS ON THE (Sanitized) REVIEW OF THE IG RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 18
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 30, 1998
• Sequence Number: 28
• Publication Date: March 7, 1967
• Content Type: MISC

Approved For Release 2002/06/1.8.: CIA-RDP85G00105R0001001.,0tY 84 (29
25X1A
Chief, CGS Comments on thel lR view of the 1G Recommendations
Regarding Foreign Intelligence Collection Roquiroments
25X1A9A
25X1A
R [RNDATI0N 1 and 2 - The PNIO' a
Chief, CGS Comments :
Concur. The combination of the new DCID 1/3--PNIO' a--and
DCID 1/2--CNIO's--should incorporate those subjects and geographical
areas which do not warrant the development and allocation of intelli-
gence resources. This would go a long way toward setting a base for
a more consistent process of validating requirements and, within
broad limits, of setting priorities. The success of this will depend
on the clarity and brevity of the "national survival" DCID 1/3.
I urge strongly that, whatever the composition of the ad hoc
group and of the "suitable mechanism ... to recommend to USIB
specific ... actions", CGS be included from the outset. The "suitable
mechanism" might very well be the production-conscious membership of
the Collection Guidance Advisory Group recommended in No. 8, together
with representatives of collection elements for this specific purpose.
Such a body might begin upon the task of bringing about better
synchronization than seems now possible between the programming of
intelligence production and that of related collection.
A cautionary note, however: My experience with the PN10 Review
Group under in 1963 and the abortive Collection Guidance
Committee whit tried to set up indicates that the problems of
communication w n such a group as is recommended here, the
disparity of interests among the members, and the ephemeral nature
of its tasks makes its successful operation quite problematical. The
Collection Guidance Committee met only twice. I would suggest that
CGS, aware of both substantive needs and collection capabilities might
be of considerable assistance to the chairman in structuring agendas,
marshalling contributions and clarifying varying views. CGS' service
in the past to D/DCI/NIPE recommends our participation as suggested
under Comment (d) on a community-wide basis.
We concur in the proposal to rescind the need for annual and
quarterly revisions. If the initial group can be kept concerned
and involved, with CGS functioning as its day-by-day continuity, it
should be able to revise these documents as real-vnorld events
dictate, at least for the first round or so. After that, who knows;
it might revert to the BNE.
Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0
RXOONMNMTION 4 Tice IPC
Chief, CGS llrwasent. :
Agree with Bruce's cents an Recommendation 4. We can
prepare and coordinate the proposed notice, but the function and
responsibilities of the CIA Member of the IPE will need considerable
expansion and detailed description which in turn will need sub-
stantial working out with DWP. We can take the initiative In this
after DCID 5/6 has been revised.
Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0
RI CQMMIW RTiON 5 - rx staff
Chief, CGS Comments:
Though this is not among those considered by 25X1 A
group, it seems to me necessary for CGS to play some role with
respect to FI Staff's rejection of "ad hoc requirements which do
not clearly satisfy the criteria for clandestine collection. I
recommend that FI Staff be specifically directed to discuss
questionable requirements with CGS before finally rejecting them;
it may merely be a matter of rewording or highlighting that part
of the problem susceptible for clandestine collection. This
raises the question of the CGS role in screening requirements from
the 1O/I and M/S&T and from DIA and other agencies bound for
clandestine collection. We feel we should be able to Indicate
where same of these requirements might be covered by other
25X1 Aavllectora--DCS, system, or even C or NSA,
and thus serve as shield for DTYP and Pt Staff. We should do
this at least for all requirements on D!IVP originating within CIA.
Approved For Release 2002/06M V 'CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0
R TION 6 - Form 986
Chief, CGS Comments:
(bucur with the revised recommendation, except to change
"encourage" to "ensure". I strongly agree that the implementation
of other recommendations will have more to do with general improve-
ment than the mechanical revision of Form 986. Nevertheless, I
differ with Bruce's implication that "few persona feel it necessary
or useful to meet the validation criteria conscientiously." This
is a comment of major importance buried with a minor recommendation.
A large number of the deficiencies noted in the IG Report would be
alleviated, if not cured, by more consistent application of
validation criteria all along the line, but this depends upon acme
authority somewhere to say "no" to an "invalid" requirement. Neither
the IG' a Report nor the revision of recommendations by 25X1 A
has fixed this responsibility to say no. Under proposals here, it
is diffused among "supervisors", the Collection Guidance Advisory
Group, COS and the line authority of office chiefs and others.
Until this responsibility is fixed and has been made operational,
the need for applying validation criteria will not be taken seriously
among those who originate and endorse requirements. More on this
below.
Approved For Release 2002/06/18 CIA-RDP85GO0105R000100130028-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0
RS tDATION 7 Analyst-Collector Communication
Chief, COS O ents:
Concur in the reworded re endation with the additional
stipulation that the appropriate element of CGS be kept informed
of the general trend of analyst-collector interchange and of any
commitments arising therefrom. Paragraph 66 on Page 111-38, which
precedes this rest ndetion, notes that the effort to persuade
the collector to mount a collection operation should be between
the director of an office and his counterpart in Clandestine Services
25X1 A?x the 0 I submit that it is Impossible for COS to do its work
in monitoring the flow of requirements and responses thereto if CGS
is not made party to the dialogue between a production office and
a collector. We have never interposed any barrier to analyst-
collector communication and in fact have encouraged it wherever it
seemed helpful to either side. One of the difficulties referred
to in the IG Report is the fact that numerous requirements are
served upon collectors directly, bypassing CS, preempting collection
resources which could be better used for satisfaction of other,
perhaps of higher priority, needs. In short, it is damn difficult
to know what can be done to meet a requirement if we are unable to
know how much a collector's capacities have already been taxed in
private bilateral deals. Analyst-collector contacts are good and
useful; we ask only that contacts be on established programs and
that we be kept in the loop.
Approved For Release 2002tQ61t t ,,CFA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0
RKQOMKZWMTlON 8 - WS and the Collection Guidance Advisory Group
Chief, COS Comments
I agree that collection requirements problems are the common
problems of intelligence producers attempting to make collection
machinery work effectively for their needs, and in this sense C
should bear the same functional relationship to the producing
offices of W(S T as we do to those of DD/I. In a way the proposed
Collection Guidance Advisory Group is a device to offset the fact
that the production offices are not in a single directorate and
therefore require some bridge for common action across directorate
lines. The effectiveness of this recommendation as revised depends
heavily upon two factors: the effectiveness of the proposed
Collection Guidance Advisory Group and the ultimate agreement of
all involved as to what is and is not included in the term "technical
assistance". We would prefer the term "specialized assistance" to
avoid confusion with technical matters of resolution, frequencies,
etc. Further, inasmuch as Bruce's comments recognize CGS responsibi-
lities for handling the requirements process, and in keeping with
the intent of the report, we suggest that the recommendation be
phrased as follows:
... hold the Collection Guidance Staff responsible for
managing the collection requirements process and providing
specialized assistance in the field of collection guidance to
their producing offices so as to:
a. Mitigate the deleterious effects of the Information
Explosion that are already being felt.
b. Apply strict selective criteria to all foreign intelli-
gence requirements in order to prevent the Information Explosion
from getting completely out of hand.
c. Introduce progressively more order and system into
human-source requirements.
There is in the charter of CGS (PDI Notice 1-130-20 of 6 May
1964) a list of our functions which would form one definition of
what is subsumed under "technical assistance". In practice over the
intervening years these bare-bone descriptions of functions have been
fleshed out to establish for CGS a major role in intelligence manage-
ment. This role includes, in addition to the mechanical steps of our
original Charter, the tasks of formulating and recommending collection
programs, costing alternative collection proposals, developing
specifications for technical collection systems, recommending
collection policy positions within the Agency and before USIB,
evaluating collection system performance and bringing together analysts,
Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0
R&D people and collectors in imaginative programs to develop new
ways of answering old and tough problems. Through all these
roles, COS has evolved well beyond the routine tasks of its
predecessor units in transmitting "blue ditto" requirements from
the analysts to the collectors. As the complexity of both pro-
duction and collection problems has increased during our years,
these management functions have emerged in response. Thdoy'$
collection world requires that these functions be performed somewhere;
CGS is the logical place.
I have some concerns about the Collection Guidance Advisory
Group (CMG). By its membership this group will be composed of
busy men among whose duties the requirements problem and collection
management occupy a relatively minor place. Requirements will be
the least sexy of their concerns for the most part, and the tendency
to delegate representation downward in their organizations will be
very greet indeed. Whatever the initial enthusiasm and resolve of
the members, it seems likely that the job will pass from the deputy
directors' offices down to special assistants and from them probably
even further down. This means the membership of this group will not
be able to take actions or make decisions without reference to
authorities in their own offices, and so, progressively, the group
will be reduced to a discussion body and actions will have to be
worked out between CGS and the office concerned. The variety of
roles proposed for the CGAG in Bruce's recommendations means that
there will be a large number of topics to be discussed at a CGAG
meeting, relayed back to the deputy director by his stand-in, further
discussion without benefit of the group's views, further reference
to the office director, and then a subsequent meeting in order to
take action. While it is true that all the production offices listed
in the revised recommendation have collection problems, there is very
little commonality in substance among those problems. While both
1%1SAC and OCI, or 081 and ORR will have requirements to take up with
CGS, those requirements will be for quite different answers and will
involve quite dfferent resources. While the CG,AG would probably be
of great use in adopting common procedures, in recognizing common
mechanical problems, and in working out uniform criteria in general
terms, it is more than likely that substantive requirements and their
management will require bilateral discussions between COS and the
substantive office concerned. I am willing to give the proposal a
try and I'm hopeful that useful results will be obtained, but this
will depend on the continuity of senior representation from the
offices and in the durability of their interest in the problems and
intricacies of collection management.
Approved For Release 20O~106118' : CIA-RDP85GO0105R000100130028-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0
If any progress is to be made in confining the information
explosion and in screening the chaff out of the requirements system,
then this CGAG must be given explicit powers to say no to require-
ments it considers invalid. If it can do this and this alone, It
might very well be a major answer to the deficiencies the IG group
scolds so about.
Incidentally, if the intent of this revised recommendation is
to be served, it would be useful to propose rescinding the 0 25X1 A
era "Special Relationship" paper which puts CGS' role in relation
to WSW offices on an "as requested" basis. The CGAG will not
work if there is a conspicuous difference among Its members In their
relationship to CGS.
Approved For Release 204/46118 : CIA-RDP85GO0105R000100130028-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0
SS 2U TION 9 - Personnel Exchange
Chief, cos QQmmsnts:
25X1A
I share with his reservations as to the efficacy
of exchanging personnel with FI Staff in improving our communications
with them. I concur in his substitute recommendation that we attempt
a series of regular meetings with Fl Staff first, and on the basis of
our experience with that process then decide whether personnel
exchanges would be further beneficial. If the IPC list and Committee
revive, contacts with FI Staff under that aegis could serve this
exploratory purpose also. CGS is anxious for more productive
contact with Ft Staff but has increasingly come to realize that
direct contact with the t/P divisions is often necessary to get
the job done. As analyst--collector contacts should be encouraged,
so too should be contacts between CGS and collectors.
Approved For Release 2002/06k8 `'CIA-RDP85GO0105R000100130028-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0
RE0Oi91[ENDATION 10 - C2aL Notice
Chief, CGS Comments:
Agree that this is minor, but would also note that this would
be a first and useful step on the way to giving the CIRL official..
status required to solve some of the problems we have In obtaining
analyst participation in reviewing and updating the contents. This
would be no minor improvement.
R TION 11 - CTRL "Preface"
Chief, CGH Comments:
A
Concur with II revised recommendation and also the idea
of handling this on a trial basis at first. The CGAG should be
brought into this process to maintain balance among the "sore
important needs". I would substitute the COAG for the "informal
meeting of representatives from each office".
RDATION 12 .. CIRL Background Statements
Chief, OGR Comments :
As with No. 10 above, any measure which brings about partici-
pation in the production of the CTRL by senior and responsible
members of the production offices is a step forward. I would
recommend that CGS be charged to initiate and perhaps do first
drafts of background statements (their scope and nature to be
defined by experience). With the collaboration of office analysts,
who should take final responsibility for the statements, these
should then be reviewed by the CGAO as suggested in my change to
Recommendation 11.
Approved For Release 2002/06/18 CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0
RECOi WTION 13 - Collection Guides
Chief, CGS Cements:
I have always had strong reservations about the virtues of
standard comprehensive collection guidance documents. If they
relate to any real and active substantive problems they are
subject to rapid obsolescence. A few examples, carefully matched
to collectors' capabilities, have been useful -viz. the Cuban
Handbook. The reworded recommendation is acceptable as stated,
provided careful controls are exercised over "as needed" and
selected intelligence problems". Perhaps the whole approach
11 could be tried out Initially on an aspect of one of the "national
survival" PNI?'a generated under Recommendations I and 2. For
uniformity in approach, criteria and format it might be well to
put the responsibility for production on OGS in collaboration with
the producing offices, rather than the other way around. Decisions
about need and topic might be made a responsibility of CGAG, so that
all issuances of this kind come under a central control.
Approved For Release 2002/06/1$ CIA-RDP85GO0105R000100130028-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0
RSCast3rNAATION 14 - DCS
Chief , COS Co,auents :
I concur in truce's observations, particularly the point that
changes resulting from other recommendations should benefit DCS, at
least on an interim basis. I should observe also that we have already
had some experience with collection guidance programs with the DCS,
25X6natably an 0 atomic energy developments. the question comes to
mind however: DGS has indeed been successful in responding to sub-
stantive requirements, but there is some question in our minds as to
whether those requirements were valid; the symbiotic relationship
between the General and Life Sciences Divisions of 081 and D$ may
mean that ECS has b : chasing a numbar of requirements which probably
could not stand much examination for validity. This, incidentally,
is a good example of the dangers involved in unfettered analyst-
collector communication.
Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0
COldts CATION 16 and 17 - SIGIM Problems
Chis Cob Conyients
The substance and focus of 10 rsao endetions regarding techni-
eel collection systems show a marked change from those bearing on
human source collection, In the main, the former are superficial and
dead with relatively minor aspects of the deep and oomptex problems
we have with collection guidance for $IUI ' and reeconxsiseancs
satellites. The problem adverted to in Recco maendation lT is being
progressively dealt with by the Intelligence Guidance 8ubvc eeeitteee
of the USIB 814131? Committee on which COS represents CIA. The over-
haul of COMM requirements for Latin America and Bub-Baboran Africa
took into account at every step the capacities of human source
collection, and the 8101)1? requirements were revised accordingly.
This process will continue as other free world Subeleements are
addressed.
The solution to the problem in Recommendation 16--Technical
Training and Access---meets only a part of what the real problems is.
This is one of relations between NSA and CIA and, indeed, between NSA
and the rest of the intelligence caamanity. The problems descend from
NSA's defensiveness about its status in the community and the declining
productivity of CCZUNT. It is auspicious and resentful of any efforts
on our part to got closer to it or to deal in detail with the problems
of information, collection and exploitation which NSA is encountering.
The kind of trust and sharing of problems which is needed here cannot
be legislated. Recommendation 16 as reworded by Bruce is pwfectly
acceptable, although I have scant hope of its producing any useful
results.
Approved For Release 2002/06/18: CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06/18 :33 CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0
RECOMMENDATION 20 - SIQINT Satellites
Chief, CGS Comments:
I expect that the language of this requirement will be over-
taken shortly by the transfer to the 810114' Committee of responsi-
bility for BIGINT satellites in conjunction with the conversion of
COMM Into COUIREX. The original intent of Recommendation 20 was
to deal with requirements for SIGINT satellite collection. I
25X1 Asuggeat that rewording be amended "to direct CGS,
with the assistance of producing offices, to establish ... " and
to include in the last line "CIA Members of CUM and SIGINT
Committee Working Groups". I should like to see established the
point that CGS has the responsibility for processing all CIA 8IGII1IT
satellite requirements and that COS provide the i Member of the
810114? Satellite Working Group, whether it be in C or the 8XGINT
Committee. This would conform to the principles in Recommendation 8
that GS is the locus for the requirements handling process. Because
it may be useful to draw upon the COAG to assist in the formulation
of long-term satellite collection requirements and because BIGXNZ
satellites are of material concern to OEL, it might be helpful to
include OXL In the membership of the COAG, if only on an ad boo
basis when FLINT matters are to be taken up.
Approved For Release 2002/0-6/18 : `CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0
RECOMMENDATION 23 00MOR
Chief, CGS comments:
I believe a careful distinction needs to be made between
the functions of the informal group sponsored by Chairman, CQQR,
and the A/1)CVI on the one hand and the regular in-Agency machinery
for formulating and coordinating Agency positions on CID UM
on the other. The former was created to deal with temporary
problems and technical matters often quite outside subjects on
COlNOR agendas; the latter existed before this group was formed, has
operated during the former group's existence and will undoubtedly
continue to exist after the informal arrangoents have been dispensed
with. There need be no bar to discussing Agency positions in the
informal group but those positions should be arrived at outside it.
Responsibility for the development of these positions should continue
to rest in COS, with the advice and counsel of other interested
Agency elements in the DWI and DWS&T. This is the way the CIA
position is worked out for other USIB collection committees, and I
see no reason why CONOR or COMIREX should be an exception. I would
suggest that Recommendation 23 be reworded to state "the DQ/I and
DWS&T direct COS to formulate and coordinate CIA positions on
requirements for overhead reconnaissance with the assistance of
their producing offices: I do not believe that this recommendation
should or needs to deal with the status of the informal COMM-A/DLVI
discussion group.
Approved For Release 2fl02/06/1,8 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0
RRC OMU2MTION 24 and 26 - Practical Measures
Chief, CGS Comments:
I concur with Bruce's comments and with the rewording of the
recommendation, except that I would have the DT/I and DA/S&T
charge CGS, with the assistance of the CUAG, with devising, etc.
This is consistent with the recommended change for 26 and places
the responsibility where it belongs, on us. In all cases in
these recommendations, I strongly believe that 00$ should be
charged with these tasks, turning to the membership of the CEO,
individually or collectively, for advice and assistance in getting
the job done. The many steps suggested by the 10 Survey for
division heads end, in 26, for office heads to improve the require-
ments situation may very well be the right ones, but to expect this
to be accomplished in the some way by each division head its
unrealistic. I believe that with the assistance of the 00AG we can
work out practical measures, which may not be the same for all
offices, whereby the process of review and validation of require-
ments can be actively carried on. What is necessary is the
methodical attack Bruce refers to on the problems of collection
management, and for this 0G8 would carry the main responsibility.
Division heads and office heads have other more pressing concerns;
we do not.
Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0
RNCQlATION 26 - Necessary Suppert
Chief, Cos Commments :
Concur in the revision and hope for continuing support from the
ED/I and ID/ in our efforts to contain the "information explosion".
Suggest that the recommendation be revised to state:
"the E/I and the ED/SW designate the Chief, Collection
Guidance Staff, in collaboration with the Collection Guidance
Advisory Group, to be responsible for managing the collection
guidance process and for continuing review and such other efforts
necessary to:
These efforts shall be for the purpose of identifying efficiencies and
making recommendations for appropriate action to the PD/I and WSW. "
I believe that the revision establishes the responsibility right where
it needs to be for the long term---on us. If the CWiG carries out Its"
part actively, imaginatively and consistently, problems of "authority
within the line structure" need not arise; we would look to members of
the COAL to exercise their line authority to help solve problems at
the analyst level, Meanwhile this recommendation, reworded, gives us
room to evolve and develop new and better procedures and techniques
and to bring them before the W/I and the E/S' for approval and
adoption. I feel this recommendation gives us the necessary flexibility
to improve without the rigorous "legislation" that some might recommend.
Approved For Release 2002/06/18 CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0
 Approved For Release 2002/06/18 : CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0
A f 27 - Training
Chlerf, CGS Cements:
Concur in restatement.
Approved For Release 2002/06/18 CIA-RDP85G00105R000100130028-0