A FRESH LOOK AT COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS

Created: 9/1/1960

OCR scan of the original document, errors are possible

CM HISTORICAL REVIEW PROGRAM RELEASE AS SANITIZED

jfszN^fr

esh Look At Collection Recnjirancnte) AUTHOR: Clyde R. Heffter

VOLUKH:

STUDIES IN

INTELLIGENCE

A collection ol articles on tho historical, operational, doctrinal, and theoretical aspects ol mtelligence.

>

All statements of fact, opinion or analysis expressed in Studies in Intelligence are those of

the authors They do not necessarily reflect official positions or views of the Central Intelligence Agency or any other US Government entity, past or present. Nothing in the contents should be construed as asserting or implying US Government endorsement of an article's factual statements and interpretations.

An unsolved problem analyzed in depth and scmte^approaxhes^i. recommended to solution.

A FRESH LOOK AT COLLECTIONClyde R. Heater

the Immediate post-war period, the word "requirement" was seldom heard In intelligence circles, and what wenow as collection requirements were managedery off-hand way. Today this subject is well to the fore. Itsacknowledged by everyone. Looking back, it is possible to see certain steps by which this reversal of things came about.

First thereime when many people, both collectors and consumers, saw no need for requirements atinformation was believed to be there for the plucking, and the field intelligence officer was considered to need no help inwhat to pluck. This period overlapped and merged quicklyecond one in which requirements were recog-rused as desirable but were not thought to present anyproblem. Perhaps the man in the field did, after all, need some guidance; If so. tbe expert In Washington had only lo Jotist of questions and all would be welL

A third phase began when it was recognised thatwere an integral and necessary part of the mtelligence process and that they needed to be fostered and systematized. Committees were set up, priorities authorized, channelsforms devised, control numbers assigned. Thus by thes the formal requirements machinery of today *as mostly in place.

The fourth and most interesting phase, which is still with might be called the phase of specialized methodologies ^ne harsh difficulties of intelligence collection against the Smo-Sortet Bloc have driven home the realization that theequirement is conceived and drawn, the way it gets at its ultimate objective, the details itives it provides, the discretion It permits,ozen other features may largely predetermine Its chances of fulfilment.

* ft..

tamer

CcJ/ocfion Require merit.

Specialists In many fields^Jntent on solTnwjUnmeo^te.ifoa cxete problems, nave created new types of requh^ements pe cullarly adapted to their own alms and circumstances. Our take Its shape from an analytical techniquemay be cast In the moldonectionELXNT, exploitation legal travel Subjects, areas, sources, access, communlcahave put their mark on the writing of requirements.!

II we turn from the past and speculate on the future, we can hardly doubt that it will be one of intensified effort For It is more and more evident that the answers we get are tatlmately conditioned by the questions we ask. and that asking the rightbusiness ofno spare-time Job. But what direction should this intensified effort take?

Undoubtedly the healthy specialization and expcrimentaH ism of the present should and will continue. But by itself this| is not an adequate program. The problems of requirements are not all special problems. Some of them are central to the very nature of the requirements process. One cannot help feeling that too little of the best thinking of the community has gone into these centraltbe development,ord, of an adequate theory of requirements.

It would be untrue to Imply that nobody has beenhimself with the broad questions. Much expert thought has gone into the revisions of guidance papers for theat large or for major segments of it Butonspicuous hiatus between these high-leveland the requirements produced on the working level Pealing with general matters has itselfpecialty. Weigorous exchange of views between generalists and specialists, requirements officers and admhilstrators, members of all agencies, analysts In all intelligence fields, practitioners of all collection methods, which might lead at least to aof ideas and at bestolution of some common prob-

It Is the aim of this paper to incite, if possible, such anof views. It offers as candidate for the title of Nam berirements .ftohlem the pn*to^prlofitta More exactly. It is the problem of now to forratdale*needs and priorities inay as to facilitate the satisfaction of

CoJIeclfon Requirements

egree'-pri&ities, j-

through the most effective use of the collection meansble.

This problem Is one which deserves and will probablyard the most searching study that can be given itresent paper cannot claim to betudy. Among Its -lunitaUons is the fact that the writer's personal experienceIs confined to the clandestine collection field. It seeks,ver, to demonstrate that there iaeneral problem; that It Is amenable to general analysis; that it must berained not merelyroblem in administration but as onein analytical method; and finally that it is one with whichndividual mteUigence officer can effectively concernbe few specific proposals to the following pages areo these general aims.

We may beginrovisional definitionequirement as simplytatement of information to beur next step is to examine the most Important va-rietles of such statements.

Kinds of

In the management of collection requirements there are certain persistent tendencies that reflect the divergenterests of the participants. There Is the tendency ofnalyst toist of all his needs ta the hope thatody wiU satisfy them. There is the tendency of the theorist and the administrator tolosely knit systemll requirements can be fedingle machine,nged by priorities, and allocated as directives to aU partshe collection apparatus. And there is the tendency ofollector to demand specific, weU-deflned requests forton. keyed to his special capabilities.

These tendencies are capable of complementing each other usefuUy If brought into reasonable balance, but theirhas more often been marked with friction.

It wiU be useful at this point toook at the word "requirement" in ordinary English usage. For the^dlvergenj^endencies Just mentionedemarkable parallel ta

tain divergent but thoroughly ingrained connotations of the

SMMV*

Requirements

bled together loosely In tbe backs ot our' minds, help to create our notions otequirementought tohough not mutually exclusive, they are sufficiently different that as one or the other predominates, the character of the resultant concept varies appreciably.

The first connotation Is that ofequirement is something needed,tatement of that need. Thisdoes not necessarily Involve the idea of authority. The need Is objective; It is determined by the facts of the case Thus food, water, and oxygen are requirements of the human organism. And thus Information on various subjects Is aof tbe analyst, the intelligence organization, and the Government itself. When we think of the intelligenceof the Government, we are thinking not merely of what has been authoritatively determined to be needed, but of what actually is needed. This way of regardingwhich is basic and which we all share to some extent, adds dignity to our conception of our work. To the analyst, who thinks in terms of what he needs in order to do his job, it is the dominant connotation, and In fact the only one he cares about until experience forces him to look farther.

The second connotation for most people Is that ofor command, stemming from authority. As children we are "required" to go to school. In college we must take"required" courses. In intelligence, many of usequirement asirectiveigher echelonower one. In this view, the key question is not whether the ^formation is objectively needed but whether itshas been directed by competent authority. Itiew which commends itself to the administrator, who would, of course, contend that certification by competent authoritythe best assurancealid need exists. Thislike the first, exists In varying degrees for everyone. Where it dominates, it leads to an emphasis on machinery, systems, channels, committees.

Finally, there is the connotation of request. Thoughis no longer an active meaning ofboth come from the same root, along withndn mtelligence this meaning has again come into its

equest oruestion to another (theho fulfills or answers it as best he can. Thereort of

honor system on botha dash of mutual suspicion. Tbe requester vouches for the validity of the requirement, though the collector Is free to reject it. If he accepts It, the collector gives an implied assurance that he will do his best on It, and this the requester Is free to doubt. In any event the relationshiputual one, and in its pure form Is free from compulsion. The use of direct requests appealsto the collector, who finds that it provides him with more viable, collectible requirements than any other method. It sometimes appeals also to the requester-analyst, who if heeceptive collector is able by this means to get more requirements accepted than would be possible otherwise. Again, It Is sometimes disillusioning to both, if the collector comes to feel overburdened or the analyst to feel neglected.

These three connotations of need, compulsion, and request are embodied in three kinds of collection requirement, to which we shall arbitrarily giveinventory of needs, addressed to the community at large and to nobody Intbe directive, addressedigheroweron; and the request, addressedustomerollector.

I

The Requirement as Inventory o/

An example of the inventory of needs is the series of Periodic Requirements (recently relabeled Reporting) Lasts issued by the CIA Office of Current Intelligence. No collector Iso collect against these lists; the lists are not addressed to any single collector. Some responsible individuals ta clandestine collection (branch chiefs and station chiefs) have refused to handle the PRL's on the grounds that they are "not reallyhey are not requests to the clandestine collector for information which only he canIn most cases, however, the PRL's are selectively utilized for guidance despite their character as inventories. There are several reasons for this. Revised threeear, they are the most up-to-date of requirements. Their main subject,affairs of chiefly political slgrnflcahce, is one which engages the interest and competence of nearly all collectors and which presents opportunities to nearry^all. Many such opportuni-(

Rtquiiement

ties*eretSte; they divert "ho other requirements, hence raise no Issue ol priorities

Generally speaking, however, the Inventory of needs does not appeal to the busy collector. When he accepts it, itign that adequate requirements addressed to his particular capabilities are lacking. But the collector's viewpoint is not the only pertinent one. Tbe Inventory of needs can have great value as an instrument of analysis within the intelligenceoffice that originates It The one thing it can not do is to contribute significantly to the resolution of theproblem.

The Requirement cs Dtreesttve

The most broadly controlling document in the field ofis the List of Priority National Intelligenceissued annuallyirector of Central mtelligenceto which attention is given In the NSC itself.not requirements, and certainly not collectiontbe PNIO's establish general guidelines for bothand research. They are ranged In three priorities_and contained in four pages. They are comprehensive,and community-wide in their application. But because of their extreme generality, the PNIO's provide no practical guid ance in settling issues of specific collection priorities. Theyonstitution which requires both laws and courts to interpret It Toimited extent do present collectionprovide such "laws" or the USB3 committee structure sucht Is still common practice for tadividualrequirements (chiefly of the "request" variety) toriority derived directly from the roaster document If conscientiously applied, this practice is soundiscipline to the requester. But It has no more value in judging the relative urgency of two specific collection requests than cits tlon of the US. Constitution would have inubur ban zoning dispute.

On the level of collection requirements proper, the daectivi occurs In several situations. The clearest example la where thanommand channel, asollection cation's headquarters and Its fieldulxernent sent throughhannelirective if the higher echelon chooses to make ItParadoskafi^by_

Collection Requirements

thaTcomrnand authority'ITrrfingwill often be Indicated by the word

For purposes of this discussion, the most significant type of directive is that which emanates directly or indirectly from the authority of the Da, or is issued in consequence ofbetween two or more agencies. Typically, suchoriginate outside the collectionthrough the mechanism of an inter-agencyrepresent the coordinated interests of major customers. Where requirements of this kind are traditionally andquestion accepted by the collection organization andwith command force to its components, it is reasonable to classify them as directives without looking into the precise authority of the committee concerned.

Directives are most practicable in the following(a)ommand relationship exists; (b) where there is only one customer, or where one customer ismore important than the others; <c)ingle method of collection is Involved, and where this method has very precise, limited, and knowable capabilities. The last of these circumstances is most likely to occur in collection by technical methods. In such collection, especially on the Sino-Soviet Bloc, directives have been relatively successful. For when it is perfectly clear, as it often Is in technical subjects, that it Is possible to have this or that but not both, it becomes both feasible and necessary toinding decision. In these circumstances, priorities have real meaning.

The situation is very different in some other fields where the need for priorities and hence for directives is felt equally keenly. One such field Is the broad area of clandestine Clandestine collection, though distinguished by Its methodology, isingle methodongeries of diverse methods. Its capabilities are limited, but for the most part are neither precise nor knowable. The demands on it areIt serves as many customers as there are members ofthe intelligence community, but Is under the command ofustomer office. In short, itaximum need foractioninimum of theon practicable. In these circumstances thelandestine Collection Priorities Committee, whkh.is^arged

Collection Requirements

withClandestine Services of CIA, has an unenviable mission. The] lists of requirements and targets (IPC Lists) issued by thli body of USIB representatives1ascinating record of attacks on the requirements problem, from the highlytarget USSR list2 to the encycloarget listhe subsequent selective excerpts from that list, and the worldwide list now in preparation.

The IPC Lists have served various important purposes: they have established goals,asis for planning, andin small compass many of the most critical informs tlon needs of the USIB agencies. The IPC has also addressee itself continuously to the problem of priorities. Its primarj method has been to relate its requirements for clandesUw collection to the objectives set forth in the PhTO's, and to as sign each requirement the priority carried by the correspond ing objective. This method, and the variations on it, will be discussedater point In this paper. It cannot be said to have helped much in solving the concrete problem of deciding what items, among all items that are probably collectible, are most worth collecting at the expense of something else.

The Requirement as Request

Examples of the requirement as request can be foundhere. Most requirements fall in this category,arge majority of those bearing RD numbers In thenumbering system administered by the CIA Office of Central Reference, The fact that RD stands for Require merit Directive Is historically Interesting but not currently significant.

A request may rangewenty-word question to si fifty-page questionnaire. It may askingle facthousand related facts. Its essence Is not in its form orbut in the relationship between requester and collector.

An important variant on the request is the solicited require^ ment. Here the request is Itself requested, by the collector The collector,apability on an existing General requirement (of any'of thessed^'mfornw'the^ap-propriate customer of the capability and asks for specific'"tailored" to it. The_re*ulting. requhjmienj^

CoJIecfiofl Requirementt

draau up with an eye to the"nature of the particular sources to be used, rather than merely to the presumed over-allof the collecting organization- Through this interacUon of consumer and collector, requirements of great precision and Immediate practical value are developed.

in clandestine collection the solicited requirement isused for legal travelers, for defectors and returnees, and for other sources whose capability or knowledgeabillty can be exploited only through detailed guidance or questioning. It Is tbe cornerstone of the requirements system managed by the Interagency Defector Committee.

The solicited requirement blends into the'jointly developed remtirement. Here collector and consumer work out thejointly, usuallyubject of broad scope and usually on the initiative of the collector. This too is adevice of often considerable merit

The possible variations on the request are Innumerable. The unsolicited or "spontaneous" request is the basictool ot the community, the means by which all can seek help from those they think able to help them. The.requestrecision tool for relating needs andIf capabilities were ample enough to fulfill all needs, no other form of collection requirement would be necessary. But needs are infinite, capabilities limited, priorities therefore essential, and some form of directive mdispensable.

Study oj Priority

If this description of the kinds of requirement Is valid. It is evident that each of the three kindseep-felt need,ife of its own, andole of Its own in the total complex of intelligence guidance. Since the focus of this paper is on the problem of priorities. It must concernchiefly with the directive. But while the directive is the only practical vehicle for priorities, requests are also very touch In the picture since priorities must govern their

In approaching the priorities question. It is natural toin terms of administration and system. Adequatearrangements are in fact essential, and will. -.

V' -t/

'Vi**"

Collect ion Requirement

In gome fulhiess. ,Jn .tberiiselvcs. hcwtyer.rfiww powerless to do more than make the wheels go roandTif the wheels are also to mesh, the question must be studied furtherroblem In intellectual discipline, involving analytical method and an appropriate language. Finally, It must be viewed In relation to the training and responsibilities of the individual intelligence officer. Each of these approaches will be examined In turn.

Syttem and Administration

There exists no single, general requirements system. What might be called the requirements situation has previously been well described In thisrief recapitulation will be useful here.

A department or agency which engages in collectionto satisfy Its own requirements generally maintains an Independent requirements system for internal use, with Its own terminology, categories, and priorities, andingle requirements office to direct Its collection elements on behalf of its consumer elements. This pattern isof the military departments. The same requirementsthat performs these internal functions (oreparate branch of it) represents both the collector and the consumer elements in dealing with other agencies.

Where, as in CIA, the consumer components are dependent on many collectors and the collection components are in the service of consumers throughout the community, no such one-to-one system Is possible. Each major componentor consumer) has its own requirements office. There may also be requirements officers at division and branch levels, as In the Clandestine Services.

Requirements offices differ In many respects, but in all cases they are the official channels for the movement ofbetween agencies. Their personnel are middlemen, and must have some understanding of tbe problems not only of

tn

Bandy hiinter 1sss brae

eoUectton, try Lowell M Danlelcb In tbe Bprtnj 1BS9 lam

In "Spy at Yoar

* rW/

aW..

rr-t

k^aueeewtET*

Collection

. those whom theyliepresent but of thosej&hcen they.deal withsW*^

on the outside. The consumer requirements officer must find

the best collection bargain he can for bis analyst client;

collector requirements officer must find the best possible use lor the resources he represents, while protecting them from unreasonable demands; each must restrain his own side from Ul-cdvised Intransigence.

Between agencies (or between major components of CIA) the typical requirement moves officially from analyst to con-lamer requirements office to the CIA Office of Centralto collector reonirements office to collector. (Even thisimplified statement) OCR's community-wide system whereby such requirements are numbered and recorded makes for convenient reference. In some cases OCR also performs other functions normally performed by requirements offices, such as cheesing to make sure that readily available sources have been canvassed beforeequirement on ancollection system.

Although the vast majority of requirements move

dally through the channel just described, many of theseents are merely ta confirmation of advance' copiesave previously passed directly between the twoffices concerned. Matters of substance are regularlyussed by one requirements officer with another. And beyond this there arc many instances where one or both of theulrements offices are unawareequirement hasgreed upon between analyst and individual collectoronfirmation copy comes through channels.

From the standpoint of the "freef bringing

analyst and collector together, this way of doing things works

weU. Where the collection situation is such that effort on a

lew-priority target does not actually detract from the effort |

that can be madeigh-priority target, little harm can

be done Or where analyst and collector are both highly

knowledgeable and responsible, tbe results can be excellent

The former condition still prevails in some areas outside the

iron curtain; the latter has been attained In certain compo^

ncnts. But neither analyst nor collector nor yet require-

toents officer is competent to set priorities.

aw-v

CcJ'ecfion Require

Hithertovexooken of .requests and.directives as cut categories. Butecessarj to take accounta] variety, the reqvexf-ciom-perrtuirion. and Its -run vigorous relative, the request-cum-prem^c The Intense forts which are often made informally to Induce In the collection offices to give special emphasis to partlci requirementsear sign that thereelt need priorities. But priorities are slippery. Let us seeal collection priority is handled on the working level.

The OCR form used for RD'slace for the requester check "degree of need" asr "urgent' If the analyst checks thisay that Is'grossly out of line] his own requirements office will probably catch him up; If does not, the collector's requirements office will balk. But though It may be assumed that the requesting requlreme office would not approve an "urgent" rating unless the quirement deserved It hi relation to other requirements' placed by that office on the same collection organisation, no] such assumption can be made as to its priority relative touirernents from other consumers. And it woulderyl self-confident collector who would try to settle the question] unaided.

If the collector should show no Interestarkedhe requester may try proof, persuasion, or pressure. Re may Indeed, in anticipation of resistance, have| originallyelationship between his requirement: and one of the Priority National Intelligence Objectives. Be Is almost certainly rightelationship exists, but there may be question of Its cogency. It Is possible toery small requirementery big objective. Early warning Is Important, but not everything described as early warning is equally Important The collector may still be unimpressed. There is no impartial arbiter, short of the USIB itself, for the requester to appeal to.

Oddly enough, in requests addressed to the Clandestine Services it Is unusualequester to die an IPC List yet In theory there should be many such dtations. The Lists are designed to eootain^nli ,the highest priority nqulmnents for. clandestinehey carry priorities derivedtaUveiy from the PRICs. Moreover, taken together they

Coflecfion Requirements

are moreundred Umea^caiger than the PNIO's andcrammed with specifics. It would be much easier toa request is significantly related to an IPC Item thanit Is significantly related to ait

The chief reason for the paucity of citations seems to be thatmall proportion of requirements received asare actually on subjects specifically covered in the IPC lists. The lists are not cited for the simple reason that they contain nothing suitable to cite. On non-Bloc areas this Is not surprising, since the IPC Lists have scarcely begun to touch them. But on Bloc areas it is astonishing, all the more since tbe Lists are composed of requirements and targetssubmitted by the very analysts who now moke thesefor Information. Is it possible that the preparation of IPC Lists is regarded by some analystsormal, academic exercise unrelated to tbe real expression of their keenestOr do the Lists contain only Items of such rarity and difficulty that on ordinary workdays nobody really hopes to get them? Or is it that the day-today requirements deal with matters so current that the IPC lists have not caught up with them? Or with matters too unimportant to merit inclusion ta the Lists?

Be tbe answer what it may, the fact is that the analyst ta our hypothetical situation would probably appealifferent source of authority in bis effort to show the collector theof his requirement The chances are good that, if hease capable of being pressed at all, be would draw support from positions taken by one of the substantive USIB committees that concern themselves with requirements. Among these committees are the Economic Intelligencethe Scientific Intelligence Committee, the Joint Atomic Energy tateUigence Committee, and the Guided Missile and Astronautics Intelligence Committee. Each of them isamong Its other duties, "toobjectives within the over-all national intelligence objec-tttee, establish relative priorities on substantive needs,.review the scope and effccUveness of coUection and production efforts to meet these objectives, and make the necessary substantive

ffequireme/ih

"'recommendations to the departments and agencies ccaicerned.*'. Each la also authorized "to determine the deficiencies" In Its own category of Intelligence, "to take appropriate remedialand to recommend to the Intelligence Board remedial actions" beyond Its own cognisance. Such recommendation* hare from time to time been made and approved, with the result that priorities on very specific matters have beenby the USIB. Priorities so established have, of course, the force of directives. And such priorities have frequently been cited effectively tn the levying of requirements, although the exact applicability of the priority In the contextreen collector's responsibilities has not always been clear beyond doubt.

It Is the intent ot this paper to Illustrate rather than to exhaust the questions it raises. The requirements situation has many other significant systems and phenomena: theclosed requirements systems governing technicalof collection; the Watch Committee with Its GeneralList; and, to name but one more, the Critical Collection Problems Committee, whose recommendations on specified critical collection questions carry great weight with thgBoard. But enough has been said toense of the administrative question.

It would seem to Involve at least the following aspects:ast number of requests with no consistently effective way of relating them to established directives and hence to<b) directives all of which emanate directly orfrom the USIB. but through different channels and without sufficient coordination, so that their impact is often disconcerting

One sometimes encounters the view that all requirements should be fedingle mechanism, where the marginal ones would be eliminated and the others properly related,formulated, and allocated. The appeal of this dream is thatrocedure would, at least theoretically deal bead-on with the problems of priorities and capabilities, and would ensure that all relevant considerations andwere taken into account simultaneouslyingleauthority.

Cofecfion fteqwiramanfs

Thereozen reasons whychenje^unpraeticaL. The group charged with this function would have to bean unprecedented amount of the authority of the USIB. It would be unwieldy In size. Its stall would have to corudxt mainly of substantive experts and experts on capabilities, yet ndther of these could be extensively spared from regular ana-iyUcai or collection duties, and If away from such duties long would lose their expertise.roup could nothree it of current developments, and much of Itsould be stillborn. It is Inconceivable that it should take over direction of the self-contained collection systems, or that It could do so successfully. If charged with processing allIts machinery would whir meaninglesaly over the saany that present no problem and find It difficult to pause for those that do. The priority system would probably be too standardized to help with tbe really hard and painful deci-dexut. There wouldtrong tendency to ratify theand sidestep the prickly.

To encounter these faults and dangers, to be sure, it Is not necessary to create this gigantic requirements mechanism. We face most of them already; they are the hazards "of all centralised systems, whether large-scale or small-scale. But since we have still so much to learn about how to makework. It would seem sensible to do our experimentationcale where the strains are tolerable.

One such experiment might confine Itself to requirements forollection by CIA. These might be divided into directives and requests. The directives wouldtrengthenednew procedures to beby the USIB. The issuing body would takeof tbe specialized competence of the substantivecommittees, and the latter would coordinate with the

Issuing body any recommendations to the US LB affectingcollection priorities. All directives and prioritiesto the Clandestine Services (except those receivedfrom the DCI) would reach themingleand wouldingle, Interrelated body ofFrequency of revision would be essentlal^Boecialency priorities established through command channels would be possible as they are today. As for requirements of the

Collodion Requirement

request type, they would be served lh much the present mah-ner except thst on challenge they would here to beemonstrable relationshipirective.

Discipline: Method and language

The more one reflects on it. the more one sees that theing of prioritiesingularly subtle and elusive task.priorities simply cannot be caught in the coarse nets ofj authority, information, channels, and the division of labor These things are needed, but so alsoisciplined InteUec tual approach to the subject,elicate analytical method and, perhaps most Important, an adequate language

To illustrate problems In method, we may draw once mart on the experience of the IPC. That committee, as was note* earlier, derives its priority system from the PNIO's. The sys tern consists of three priorities, based on the degree to which the United States could be benefited by the achievement of an objective or harmed by the failure to achieve it. All IPC requirements and targets (the latter being institutions oron which Information is needed) bear the sameas the PNIO to which they are related. Since the PHTO's on the Sino-Sonel Bloc are all of Pint or Second Priority, the IPC requirements on those areas are too. The result Isistloc targets mayf First Priorityf Second Priority.

There are several difficulties here. One. which the IPC has for some time recognized and tried to overcome, is that two priorities simply do not provide enough span. By various decertain related targets in an internal order of importance; describing certain targets as substitutes for others; treating targets as subordinate to "basicwhich are sometimes expanded into severalIPC manages toomewhat moresense of priority.

A second difficulty isequirement relatedirst Priority objective is really not necessarily more Important to itselfanother requirement related onlyecondobjective. Everything depends on how significantly each requirement Is related to itsfar Its fulfilment would go towards achieving thet is illogical to

Collection Requirement!

.mrpose that every Item"oiWorxoXtion (or^very^rget) haS'an importance strictly proportionate to the importance ot the objective on which it bears, however minutely. Here again the IPC has recognised the difficulty and has tried to compensate for it to the extent compatible with its system. Where aor target bears onirstecondobjective, It is ranged under the objective to which it would contribute more significantly. This still leaves aunevenness In the Importance ol targets assigned the same priority.

hird difficulty isequirementiven priority In the context ot total TJ.S. security interests does not necessarily merit the same priority in the contextarticular collection method. The economic stability of afriendly country may be of great importance (Secondin theet may not require clandestineat all. This difficulty also has been recognixed, and where ft is agreedequirement can be satisfied by otherds it is omitted from the List.

Unquestionably the difficulties of therocess could be Illustrated equally well from the experience of other bodies, though perhaps none faces soask. And tbe difficulties cited areew among many. These are the kinds of matters which appear much simpler before studying them than afterwards. The fact that they arenear solution Is one reason for keeping ourriority adrninistratiooedium scale, rather than magnify the problem by creating more grandiose structures.

In order to clarify and refine our method weetter language. Here the most pressing need isommonIn which such ^dispensable words ase-qvttement, target, and request can be relied on to mean at least approximately the same thing to everybody. This happy state can not be attained by promulgating official glossaries, but only through continued, careful discussion of common problems by persons from all parts of the community.

as we probe the moreects^TecnUrements theory, we may find that language itself Is pultiruYbllnders on us to oor search for method. For Instance, tn the parlance ofdirection specific requirements are said to be "derived"

Collection Reooiremenfjl

from general ones which In turn*are "derived" from theimilar authority. Is it possible that thisof "derivation'* is really no moreonvenient but misleading fiction; that the specifics are actually thought up Independently and. at best, are then matched with theThe same process is often described asrequirements or as "breaking themt is notthat we discard such expressions but that we analyze their Implications and limitations. Nobody literally believesNIO of fifty words somehow contains within itself the hundreds off specific questions that will be asked somewhere, sometime. In the effort to fulfill it- We know that many of those specific questions are not inevitable. Others could be substituted for them, perhaps advantageously. There Iselationship between the fifty-word PNIO and the Innumerable small questions, one which admittedly can never be fully charted; but has It been adequatelyIn looking Into this particularhere we are momentarily returning from tho question of language to the question ofwould be useful to consider, the history of the recently suspended specialized annexes tdlhe PNIO's as well astillborn experiment several years ago by the Office of Current Intelligence in the articulationody of InteUigence requirementsiddle level ofbetween the PNIO's and coUectlon requirements.

The final aspect of the language question, and perhaps the moat Important, is the skill with which requirementsare expressed. What Is needed here is not different words from those now used, but surer ways ofthe essenceatter from one mind (or set of minds) to another. There Is no formula for thisrainedto the perils of misunderstanding.

Trammg and Personal Responsibility

In the last analysis every action is performed by anand In intelligence it Is clear that the Individualto be helped rnore than half way by systems andThis Is true in the field of requirementsoary birt snu vendfar

too Important to be left to the requirements officers. In types of coUectlon requiring Individual Initiative and judgment.

Collodion Requirement*

to ends do less than flPmeana '

II is pertinent, therefore, toord about the role ofntelligence officer through whom requirements are finallyork-in the training of new casesecond lieutenants of clandestineattention musto be given to the taterpreting, tailoring, questioning,ag, and developing of requirements suited to theirs well as to the training, briefing, debriefing, directing andredirecting of sources in response to requirements. The case officer must learn to study carefully the requirementomes from far-away Washington, to grasp its purpose aswell as its letter, to flesh it out with all the knowledge he has or can get, to cable for clarification when necessary, to adapt it to the understanding and the access of his sources. He must also learn to study the reporting as It comes tn from the source, and from it to develop his own immediateack of further questions without waiting for theeaction.

To illustrate the case officer's strategic position at theoads of outflowing direction and inflowing product, themage of the intelligence cycle might be twistedigurebe upper part representing all the paraphernalia of higher echelons, the lower the collection situation for which the case officer is responsible. He himself appears, not on the outer peripheryast, impersonal, revolving wheel, but where he feels himself tothe center, receiving and givingon downward, receiving and submitting reports upward, himself deriving and feeding back direction from thee receives.

The symbolic crossroads of thes equally applicable to the analystonsumer office. He too is at thee too must communicate upwards and downwards; he too is no cogachine,ind at work. When the systems and doctrines have been perfected, the job will still have to be done by these two.

Original document.

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA