ORGANIZATION OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL STRATEGY BOARD

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80R01731R003300180062-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: T
• Document Page Count: 18
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 17, 2005
• Sequence Number: 62
• Publication Date: May 1, 1952
• Content Type: MEMO

?
Approved For Releas
EXECU
TOP SECRE-T-
BUREAU OF THE BUDGET
WASHINGTON 25, D. C.
1R003300180062-3
SIDENT
May 1# 1952
MEMORANDUM TO3 The Secretary of State
The Secretary of Defense
'-Director, Central Intelligence AgenlY
Subjects Organization of the Psychological Strategy Board
In accordance with my conversation this morning
with Allan Dulles, I am attaching copies of draft
materiel relating to a proposed report by the Bureau
of the Budget to the President dealing with the
organization of the Psychological Strategy Board.
It is my understanding that the members of the Board
are meeting at lunch today and might have an
opportunity to go over the draft material. We
are particularly interested in having the views
of the members of the Board on the proposed
memorandum from the President and, of course,
would welcome any major suggestions with respect
to the draft report itself.
WO will be in touch with you to discuss agy
particular recommendations incorporated in the
report if that would be helpful.
Attachment
NSC review(s) completed. T9P SECRET
08?"1511
Approved For Release 200 IA-RDP8OR01731R003300180062-3
25X1
is atta
Approved For ReleasnE5Agg3ctIA-
IVESIDUT
Organisation and Operation of the Psychological .$
e
cent conversation and at your reque
report on the organisation and operation of the
Psychological Strategy Board since ite establishment by you approximately
one year ago.
While the preparation of this report was initiated prior to the recent
report to you on the same elibject by Mr. Gordon Orgy, it takes into account
specific recommendations made by him on the organization and procedures of
the Beard. The report itself has been discussed informally with members of
k. the Board and we have reflected their views in it where considered appropriate.
, We have also consulted with Mr. idney Souers in the preparation of the
report,
There is also attached a proposed memorandum which, if you approve,
would direct the Loard to make certain modifications in existing procedures
sad organization. These changes have the concurrence of the Board. The
Bedget Bureau's report insgeneral supports the directive which you issued
last year and the modifications are designed to strengthen it as an instrument
for achieving more effective planning through the organized utilization of
the resources of the three participating agencies, rather than as an
.
instrument of independent staff work and advice to the President.
Director
Approved For AgeSARDEc09 :SWURV$Y4
062-3
_
Approved For Release 2y66/ggdgirRISFrelltr
of Ftate
of Defense
Central Intelligence
At my direction te Director of the Dureiu of the Budget has i
udy to determine whether the directive of April 4, 1951 which established
Psychological Strategy Board and defines its concept, organisation and
tionihip should now he amended in the light of the initial experiences of
osX'd, In addition to having the results of that study, I have also had
benettt of other thoUghtful comment and suggestion.
A. -.A- J. 7 . ? ?, A.11.
particularly do not believe that steps toward a greater independent*
thsr of the Board or its Director should be taken at this time.
progress and are hereby authorized and directed.
1. i The Board's responsibilities for forward strategic planning
1 toward a.national psychological effort should he stressed.
The ::341pird
should not accept responsibilities for current
planning at the expense of that fundamental role. The Board
should encourage the strengthening of other mechanisms and
procedures for coordination at the departmental level which
will permit a progressive redaction of its own coordinating
activities.
A practice of rotation among the members of the Foard of the
_position of chairman would moot suitably Agility the intent
or the directive of April 4# 1951. An important objective of that
directive was to relieve the members of the Board by utilization
f the Director in organizing its business including the expediting
reaching decisions and tte Board may# if it so chooses, utilize
Apio Rade ta. Ilgexii 5/0 6gili gpiTRD P 8 0 RO lQAO :ss.
inn
:8-EcRET
if*Ogan
Approved For Release 200' l?
t
NIFYlifeRtifttl
I bdiove that it would be helpful to me if the Board could suggest
iesstos when relight become more directly informed of ita work through a
seating with the Beard, the Direetor and the ftecutive Secretary of the
Security Council.
alk tranamitting the report of the Bureau of the Thidget for further
study and appropriate action of the Board.
?
OE SECRET
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP8ORMIRMON
Trq
Approved For Release 2006/06/091: CIAA,IE.:4 A r-
0P 160/1
1TY3MitiMiTi3t#1
b. firitholorioal Strategy Board
Seleeted Aspects of its Concepts
anti=
TOP SECR
Approved For Release 2005/06/09
1
RaYRIIIFARM
s ?
Sit-lor the iget
Apri3. 21$ 1952
Approved For Re!easel
*
6SECNIERIP8OR
ogg
April 30, 1%2
This report results from a study of the PSB approximately one year
after the issuance by the President of a Directive establishing it. The
study was directed solely toward an appraisal of the concept underlying
the framework in which the Board was created and did not undertake a
direct appraisal of the efficiency with which the Board or its staff has
set about its tasks. This report, therefore, is not a full and fair pic-
ture and should be taken as reflecting on no ones performance. It dis-
cusses, in very condensed form, only those aspects of the Board's organ-
isation, procedures and relationships which have occasioned the more
significant differences of view or which appear to be most in need of
clarification, alteration, or other particular notice or attention at
this time. It reflects consideration of varying proposals for Change
which have been advanced including those of the Board's first Director.
CONCLUSIONS
Three principal conclusions resat:
1. A healthy start has been made.
basic framework rovided for in the Directive o
arran ame e i.e
Directive though a few minor amendments suggest themselves,
should it be determined advisable to amend the Directive at
a later time.
3. In a numberore ? ecsclarification alteration or
par n or no ce o Beare's, ro e, organ-
sric on, or ationshir is clesira=4-11Se7r,"="?wem., can
be tiken, with the approval and direction of the President,
within the framework of the existing directive.
'DISCUSSION
It should be remembered that while the Directive establishing the
Board was issued a year ago, it was several months before a Director was
on hand. The hesitations and difficulties of the subsequent few months
were no greater than those experienced by any new undertaking, especially
one so complex and BO intimately enmeshed with responsibilities already
assigned to other major depart/mats and agencies. Further the Board came
into being only after a long period of consideration which was character-
ised by wide difference of views respecting its role, mission, structure,
etc. While those differences persist, though less vigorously advocated
than before, the Board has been able to accomplish its principal organ-
isational tasks and to complete some needed planning towards specific
psychological objectives.
Approved For Release i0
antrastimio
TION
TOPfECRET
Approved For Release 2005/0640 :-CIA-RDP8
ROLi AND MISSION
Baring its consideration of proposals for a more vigorous psychological
effort, the NSC had been presented with an organisational issue which in
fact reflected wide. divergency of view in concept and policy. It is natural
that these disparate views would reappear as the PSB, with borrowed staff,
undertook to get underway.
An examination of the effectiveness of PSB as a mechanise to achieve
the President's stated objectives for a more effective national psychological
effort and a consideration of proposals for change must be viewed in terms
of those differing concepts. It is helpful to condense the presentation of
the differing views which have been and, to a degree, are still held by
very briefly summarising the extremes since it is in their extremes that they
have tended to influence most greatly the developments which have occurred.
The extreme of one view would picture the Board as the headquarters
for the cold war. In this view the Board's concern would embrace apy or
all of the major policies, programs or activities of the Oaverneent. With
thus broad concern the Board would have a matching broad responsibility
and authority. It woulo ensure that psychological considerations were
brought to bear in the shaping of all, except purely domestic, national
policies and program and when in its view, the psychological considerations
shoule be the determining ones, would exercise an independence in presenting
its view in the top councils of the Government. This concept would require
extensive organisation, a large group of independent personnel, an iedepen-
dance for its Director and a pattern of relationships with the President
and the National Security Council independent of those which its member
departments could provide.
At the other extreme was the view that what was intended was merely
an expansion or intensification of psychological operations then being
carried on. It saw the Board as being concerned only with programs speci-
fically identified as psychological operations, such as propaganda and the
like, and the Board's concern therefore as the support or implementation
through such psycholojcal operations of national objectives, policies
and programs developed through other mechanisms without the participation
or contribution of the Board. Organizationally, therefore, the Board
would provide primarily for an elevation of mechanisms already existing
to coordinate operations, its staff would be wholly borrowed from oper-
ators engaged in the conduct or planning of psychological programs. The
Board would provide a forum for the exchange of ideas and information, a
committee type structure for the coordination of psychological plans. Its
Director would serve as a secretary and staff officer of the Board itself
and neither he nor the Board would have any pattern of relationships ex-
cept that provided through its member departments.
Discussion of these differing views consumed a considerable part of
the time of the Board and its staff in its first few months. It was not
until the Board approached its initial job in terms of problem rather
than concept that it was able to come to sufficient agreement to begin
its task. Such agreement was easiest in terms of specific and immediate
problems which were already in a status of interdepartmental discussion
and negotiation.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP80R01731R003300180062-3
rap SECRET SECURITY INFRMATIN
r tot
Approved For Release 2005[1c#9!.:NIffrOlk
0062-3
The Director was conscious of the need to lift the Board's activi-
ties to a strategic plane in point of level and to the longer range pro-
blems in point of time. He caationed against the acceptance of problems
of a purely inter-departgental or current nature to a degree which would
adversely affect the Board's capacility to develop its more long-range,
strategic program. His initial list of problems included a plan for
strategic planning not previously initiated. In practice, however, a
sufficiently large agenda of currently unsolved problems to consume the
efforts of the PO planning staff and facilities was available from the
interdepartmental mechanisms then existing, from the NSC and, in a few
cases, from the suggestion of certain officials. The long-range projects
included in the Director's first list of problems have therefore not been
pursued with vigor nor supported by the best available PSB or departmental
staff.
The resultant tendency to restrict the Board's concern to current
problems has affected its program in two other areas as well (1) evaluation
and (2) coordination.
It has organized only a limited program in the field of evaluation.
While it has been able to complete some specific projects such as the
appraisal of the impact of the disarmament proposals it has not yet
developed plans, techniques, nor staff for full-scale evaluation of the
national effort. Yet it is precisely this activity which will fertilize
and support a program of forward strategic planning.
Many of the Board's activities in the field of coordination are
either of a purely administrative nature or in the area of operational
coordination which the Directive clearly leaves with the departments. The
responsibilities of the mother departments for the planning, conduct and
coordination of actual operations is not diminished by the President's
directive. The Board should resist the tendency which its existence
furthers of utilizing it for the coordination of matters the responsibility
for which should rest with the departments. k.ach of the departments in-
volved were directed to strengthen the existing arrangements within their
departments for those purposes and the Secretary of State was authorized
to effect such changes in the interdepartmental coordinating mechanisms
established under NBC 59/l.
If the Board is to fulfill the objectives of the President's Directive
it will be necessary to shift its emphasis to provide for a greater and
more adequate scheduling and support of longer-range planning and coor-
dination programs and a more selective approach to coordination. It is
in these directions, however, that the member agencies are most alert to
the possibility of the Board usurping responsibilities except in the
single case of planning for the extremely long-range and tenuous prospect
of general hostilities. The Board's role and responsibility for forward
strategic plaxining may thus need to be reaffirmed.
The Board thus will need the support of a clarification or, more
properly, an iteration, of its role in forward strategic planning.
Approved For Release ppit5196/A91A-.B1r8MittriN
ifir M.. ht.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09: Vi.k-RDP8OROWE301rit62-MI31"
To swim
It is further recommended that the Board give immediate
attention o theyroblem of devoloping_eitb440he neee!
available throagh its meiber
ad ustment ofrits full-time siarf and:its work priorities,
acIequ&e staffing and-Buppoik of its responsibilities for
5 ?anni ? and for the evaruation of the
ps o og c effort.
It is also recommended that the Board encouraze the
streNthening of sechanisms and procedures for the coor-
dination of psychological operations at the intercepaitmental
level and plan for a progressive reduction of its awn activit
RELATIONSHIPS
The differing views of the Board's role and mission have played an
equally substantial part in the shaping of the Board's external relationships.
Recommendations have been made fraa time to time which wonld, if adopted,
move in the direction of greater independence, either for the Board or
its Director, or both. Such a move woad run counter to the basic con-
cept of the President's directive, the need for which is not demonstrated
by study of the Board's experience. The Board was established as a means
of achieving more effective planning, through an organized utilization
of the resources of the principal agencies rather than providing for an
independent source of staff work and advice to the President.
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PRESIDENT
The Director of the Board as well as the Under Secretaries of State
and Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence who comprise its
membership, are Presidential appointees. Their relationship with the
President either as individuals or in their capacities related to the P3li
is essentially a matter peculiarly personal to the President. Nevertheless,
the desirability has been advanced of affording the President an oppor-
tunity to inform himself directly of the views and work of the Board through
the assignment to the Director of responsibility for a regnlarized periodic
personal reporting.
is sted that should the President desire to
be? o me - o Boar a V it ano eves meets
as the need arfies, wfli he Board as a whole) tfie Director
orPSA and the Dxecutive Secretary of the VC.
RLIATIONSHII' WITH MSC
The development of the actual relationship with NSC, as well as current
proposalA'AR 4101311611figefitiPSRArt*: tiikaikbP4d491UtfftgaCi00%801362b3i &baker
TOP SECRET SECURITY INFORMATION
1[()i) SECK3 SOE
Approved For Release 2005/0e/C9 ;.CIA-RDP8DR
UN I I Mil
agencies, has to be viewed in terms of the conflicting concepts of the
Beard's role. These views reemerged strongly on the occasion when the
Board formally defined its relationship with the NSC with the result that
a very rigid pattern was the only one capable of formal agreement. PSB
participation in matters potentially or actually before the NEC, for
example, was to be entirely through the member departments.
In actual practice and through informal means a more advantageous
relationship has developed. There have been occasioes both at the NSC
level, and more frequently at the Senior Staff level, in which participation
of the Director or staff of PB has been of advantage. The heads of the
departments comprising the PSB may desire the attendance of the Director
to interpret the relationship of matters before the NSC to approved ob-
jectives and policies of the PSB. This type of participation may be ex-
pected to broaden as the Board progresses with its forward and strategic
planning. Similarly the work of both the PSB and the Senior Staff will
be advantaged by free exchange of information and by the participation
of the PSB.
The NSC Also has been an important source of activity of the Board
through
1. requesting PSB stu4y and advice in connection with proposals
before the NEC.
2. the full participation of a PSB representative in the NSC
Senior Staff.
The development of the BSC relationship has therefore been somewhat
of a compromise of the two extreae views of the Board's role and, through
informal means, has served to temper the rigidity of relationship which
the Board formally adopted.
The formalization of the relationships of the Board, and especially
its Director, with the NSC, would involve a careful balancing of a number
of important relationships. It should be an unusual situation in Which
the Director would wish to make a presentation of the Board's views or to
speak for the Board prior to the formal approval by the Board itablf.
Such approval involves a consideration within the departments of the
special area of PSBIs concern in relation to the broader concerns of the
same departments in their NBC capacity. The obvious intent of having pro-
vided for a Board structure for PSB is to insure this correlation and,
if necessary, subordination, of psychological considerations with broader
considerations of high military or foreign policy and with operational
feasibility. Jach member is on the Board for some aspect of that purpose.
To provide formally therefore for an independent representation in the
NSC for the Pb would involve a departure from the concept of PSB ex-
pressed in the President's Directive, the necessity for which is not yet
demonstrated. The development of these relationships, therefor, should
continue as at present.
Approved For Release 2mp,REefitt8ouclaIL10
Or ?pRET SECURITY rilP3RMATION
Approved For Release a00 /06 : CIA-RDP8OR01731R00.3300180062-3
The President's Directive, however, prescribes one relationship of
PSB to the NSC which has not been fully developed. The Directive requires
the POB to make reports to the MSC on its evaluation of the national
elyehological effort and on the implementation by the departments and
agencies concerned of the approved policies and programs of the Board.
AA adecaate program has not yet been developed for carrying this out.
The importance of such a program to the role of the Board has already
been discussed. it is equally important to the relationship of NSC and
PSB. Adequate reports of this type would afford the best method for en-
suring the meshing of psychological consideration& with the broadest
consideratione at top pleening levels. It would do so, further, without
violence to the carefully balanced relationships of the member agencies
to the PSB and to the ASC.
it is recommeaded that the relationship& of the
Board or its Director with the IISC not be tormallsed
Imat remain as at -r t. The 1.5;oarkl owerer arkould
e s ps to eve o * a en 0 r epOr ,Z 0
en Lirective.
as revired b
the
Relationship with the JC.
The ?resident's eirective provides that a representetive of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff it with the Board in order that the Board may relate its
pluming to approved glans for military operations. In actual practice
the relationships of the Board and the JCS have developed so that the
Board obtains the Joint Chiefs of Staff's views on Board proposals rather
than their advice on approved military operations.
The collegiate nature of the JCS organisation rewires that their
views be obtained formally through the submission of specific proposals.
This procedure forestalls negotiation end advice and representatives of
the JCS have generally been able only to state, oot negotiate, the JCS
views. The Board has been able to relieve this difficulty somewhat by
informal contact through the Joint Staff and an occasion through the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
These difficulties may have been a factor in the proposal that the
President desianate the Chairman of the Joint tiliefa of Staff as the
representative referred to in the President's Directive. The more impor-
tant aspect of that proposal, however, concerns its reletionship to
the concept of the Board as an independent aroup.
An in the case of the NSC, the relationships of the PSB to the JCS
involve careful balancing of a nuaber of other important relationships
illiguding that of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense with the
JCS. Some of the aembers of PCB would view the formal designation of
the Chairmen of the JCS as a participant in Pah matters as movina father
than is necessary or desirable towards an independence for PSB. There it
the further view that the proposal would not necessarily solve the diffi-
culties of securing expeditiously the advice of the JCS.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDE80R01731R003300180062-3
TOP S EC R ETSECURITY P4FIRW 1111
TOP SEMI'
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP80R0
arofiroliNTION
It is recqmmended that ection not be taken toearde
directingethat the Chairman of -the J-0iiirtslarim-nurt
verve As the represenfitive of the JCS with the PO
d In 'Ole eirecttee of April lie 1951, but that the
continue to develop its releflonshifi'ilth the JOS.
as at reeent.
The Board Chairman and Director.
The Directive esteblishing the FSB places the responsibilities assigned:
in the Board, it, however, provides for a Presidentially appointed Director,
provides that he direct all activities under the Board, end gives him free-
dom to organire the eteff and its work, including staff detailed as well as
assigned. The obvious intent ix to create a Director cepable of proceeding
to cure out responsibilities assigned to the eoard as a whole while at
the seae time retaining ultimate control in the Board. The Soard as a
whole as well as in their individeal capacities represent the major
departments whose ectivities the PSP will most vitally affect and are thus
in a position to insure that pgychological considerations of proposed
policy and program are related to the brooder considerations of foreign
and military policy end program on the one hand and firm intelligence esti-
mates and operating feasibility on the other. Each member of the Board
may be viewed as present primarile for one of these purposes.
It is natural that during, the early stages of the Board's existence
it might wish to exercise e closer review and approval over details perti
rularle of structure proceduret and work priorities than would be either
consistent with the broader intent of the BoarePe own role or necessary
or desirable After the Director and his staff have shaped a more continuing
program. Sufficient progress 1-es been made to rIndicete the wisdom of
effectine several adjustments in the concepts and procedures of the Dowd,
which through a proceer of evolution would place reater freedon of action
and greater reeponsibility for the direction of the Boardts activities
while retaining ultinete control over the vital substantive decirions.
del
d to act and steak or the hoard on matters which
ZA
It if recommended that the Board begin a. progressive
ation to the Ifrector to direct the activities of the
on 0 Ae L rec r a0 inner ?roc
resident's rirectieet in organizing the busieers o
e nperd-fself inClulne eeTedlting the reaching o2' iocisions.
The Freeidentls Lirective provides that the hoard select a Chairman
but prescribes not duties. The practice of the Board initially to handle.
formally many matters for which it caa now begin to rely upon the Director
has given the position of Chairman a significance beyond that intended
W the Directive with a consequent diminution of the role of the Director.
Approved For Release 2001T/39 AltIffETRSEt1
fi1
ty3OMEATIA
lilit
Approved For Release 200409 :Set .
This has lead to the suggestion that the President now designate the
Director as Chairman. iTad this been recommended at the time the Directive
was issued and had the role of Chairman as essentially a Presiding Officer
been more directly defined, a perhaps clearer relationship as among the
Board, Chairman and Director might have evolved. The significance which
the role of Chairman has acquired, however, would lend a significance to
the designation of the Director as Chairman in relation to the concept
of the Board' e role. Further amendment of the Directive is not neceeeary.
Au alternative which would clarify the relationship and minimise any
future potential difficulty is that suggested above, namely e progressive
withdrawal from operating detail accompanied by a greater reliance on the
Director to organize the staff and activities under the Board and the work
of the Board itself. As evidence of the thus reduced significance of the.
position of Chertazrit the hoard should adopt s practice of rotating the
Chairman. ?
it is recommended that the Board adopt the practice of
rotating the assignment to this position and that it press
a program to implement the preceding recommendation-relatint
to a progreseively greater reliance on the Direaor ?or Ehe
smooth functioning of the board itself.
Board MeMberthip.
The Board has cnsidered on a number of occasions the question of
its meMbership with the conclusion that no additional members are needed
or desirable t On one Occasion the Beard expressed the view that the
Presidentle Directive did not intend any additional permanent members.
This point of view of the Board has not prevented it from including
in its formal meetings a wide selection of officials of other agencies:
Rather at staff levee, the Board has mode extensive use of assistance
from an even broader group.
The range of the Boardfs concern covers on occasion more agencies
than are now 'embers., Thelist of those which would have some interest
in or contribution to make to specific matters before the Board would in-
elude * large number of soditionel agencies. If the principal purpose of
the Board itself, however, is viewed as providing for the correlation
of psychological considerations with other considerations of the broadest
and most important character the list narrows.
The importance of the Mutual Security Program to the national pa-
?logical effort and the important resources that the Mutual Security
Agency can provide have lead to the proposal that this program be repro,-
wonted on the board either through the Director of Mutual Security or his
deputy in the Mutual Security Agency.
The placing of less emphasis by the Board upon the use of the PSB
as a coordinating body on day-to-day matters as recommended in this
Approved For Release 200i/06r SCA-5AV8GRVORtilittlii
t 4
TOP SEOLI
10( IMPATIN
Approved For Release 2005/06/999 @IA-RDP80- I 1R003300180062-3
report would eppear to reduce the need for enlarged permanent membership
rticipation as at present of a number of agencies from time
continue to be desirable and necessary.
The addition of the Director of Mutual Security to permanent meMber-
ship would tend to make it more difficult to prevent the addition of other
agencies. One of the strengths of the present arrangement reasonably co-
equal concern of each member of the Board and the fact that collectively
they provide the resources in staff neceeiary to the Board's work. They
are, in addition, the principal agencies responsible for extensive psy-
chological operations.
The present relationsbl,ps between the PSB and the MSC would become
more difficult in adding to PSB member4hip. The BMS as a member of the
NBC will continue to participate on the broad policy decisions in the
psychological field which are discussed at that level.
There should continue to be clove working relationships with the DMS
and the Director of Mutual Security should be kept fully informed of the
Beard's activities and participate informally at such times as, in the
Board's judgment, such participation is beneficial at the strategic plan-
ning level.
The facilities of the Mutual Security Agency are extensively used in
carrying out specific operations and close liaison and coordination with
the individual agencies with respect to specific operations and to opera-
tional planning generally is necessary. There will be frequent occasions
when the participation of MSA staff on the panels of the Beard will be
mutually advantageous. The fact that this agency has so complete de-
centralized its planning of psychological operations to the field
has in the past made participation in the Washington interdepartmental
operational planning difficult. This defect can be remedied by a more
substantial contribution to operational planning in the interdepartmental
operations planning mechanisms. The formal representation of MSA on the
P$B, however, would tend to project PSB into operational planning at the
evens, of the responsibilities which, by the President's Directive,
remain with the departments.
is rconmendsd that the ? (=anent meMbershi
e expan e * a me u a e ?oard
to utilise the erovisions of the Mirettite for
*A0mialta414Aberailip from Irmo to time to insure the
trosst contrilDuiron In its work.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CZARP8OgarreetilAtfei- 411
TOP SECKti
? C4I-i*AY
Approved For Release 2110LOSMSECIfit13II(Famin .
of State
immitary of Defence
Director of Central Intelligence
PIANAW -
.g7
It is the purpose of this directive to authorise and provide for the
more effective planning, coordination and conduct, within the framework of
approved national policies, of psychological operations.
There. is hereby established a Psychological Strategy Board responsible,
thin the purposes and terms of this directive, for the formulation and
promulgation, as guidance to the departments and agencies responsible for
psychological operations, of over-all national psychological objectives,
policies and programa, and for the coordination and evaluation of the
national psychological effort.
Tb. Beard will report to the National aecurity Cunctl on the Board's'
aotivities and on its evaluation of the national psychological operations,
including implementation of approved objectives, policies, and programs by
the departments and agencies concerned.
Far the purposes of this directive, psychological operations shall
iflolude all activities (other than :melt types of economic warfare) envisioned
dar WC 59/1 and USC 10/2, the operational planning and execution of which
shall remain, abject to this directive, as therein assigned.
The Board shall be composed oft
a. The Undaksecretary of State, the Deputy Secretary of
Defense and the Director of Central intelligence, or,
in their absence, their appropriate designees;
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : ClalaDP?tege09
Top SECRL I
TAW)-?pRET ?gm raj; 0,AMON
Approved For Release 06 : CIA-RDP8 3 0180002-3
The Board shall be composed of:
a, The Undersecretary of State, the Deputy Secretary of
Defense, and the Director of Central Intelligence, or,
in their absence, their appropriate designees;
b. An appropriate representative of the head of each such
other department or agency of the Government as may,
from time to time, be determined by the Board.
The Board shall designate one of its members as Chairman.
A representative of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall sit with
the Board as its principal military adviser in order that the Board
may ensure that its objectives, policies and programs shall be related
to approved plans for military operations.
There is established under the Board a Director who shall be
designated by the President and who shall receive compensation of
116,000 per year. The Director shall direct the activities under the
Board. In carrying out this responsibility, he shall
a. Be responsible for having prepared the programs, policies,
reports, and recommendations for the Board's consideration,
b. Sit with the Board end be responsible to it for organising
its business and for expediting the reaching of decisions,
c. Promulgate the decisions of the Board,
d. Ascertain the manner in which agreed upon objectives,
policies, and program* of the Foard are being implemented
and coordinated among the departments and agencies concerned,
e. Report thereon and on his evaluation of the national
ppychologicel operations to the Boerd together with his
Approved For Release 2005towoceREproRcsEcErrfrer
TOP .T131
TOP SECRET tom..
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP80 I rx 3
recommendations,
Perform such other duties necessary to carry out his
responsibilities as the Board may direct.
The Director, within the limits of funds and personnel made
available by the Board for this purpose, shall organise and direct
a staff to soviet in carrying out his responsibilities. The Director
shell determine the organization and qualifications of the staff, which
may include individuals employed for this purpose, including part-time
experts, and/or individuals detailed from the participating departments
and agencies for assignment to full-tins duty or on an ad hoc task
force basis. Personnel detailed for assignment to duty under the terms
of this directive shall be under the control of the Director, subject
only to necessary personnel procedures within their respective departments
and agencies.
The participating departments and agencies shall afford to the
Director and the staff such assistance and access to information as may
be specifically requested by the Director in carrying out his assigned
duties.
The heads of the departments and agencies concerned shall emsmine
into the present arrangements within their departments and agencies for
the conduct, direction and coordination of psychological operations
with a view toward readjustine or strengthening them if necessary to
carry out the purposes of this directive* The Secretary of State is
authorized to effect such readjustments in the organisation established
ender NSC 59/1 as he deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this
directive.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : cA_Ricroistaippi
TOP SLUi
A111(
r,ro,
Approved For ReleaseTOP
POOGLarRb , of
TN
.1114 db,ective does riot authorise the Board nor the Director
Go portent anzi- psychological operation".
In performing ite functions, the board shall utilize to the
maxinua extent the facilities and resources of the participating
departments and agencies.
Approved For Release 2005/010071teRE4748
TY8 ORMAT1GN