Foreign Relations of the United States, 1945–1950, Emergence of the Intelligence Establishment

366. Memorandum by the Office of Reports and Estimates, Central Intelligence Agency⁰

Washington, February 14, 1949.

COMMENTS ON THE DULLES COMMITTEE REPORT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL ON THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY AND NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR INTELLIGENCE

I. General Statement

1. The Objectives of ORE in Reviewing the Dulles Report.

In reviewing the Dulles Report, the Office of Reports and Estimates has as its basic objective, not self-justification or the denial of admitted shortcomings, but a genuinely constructive effort to shed the light of practical working experience upon the problem of improving the production of the intelligence upon which United States policy should be based.

ORE has, therefore, proceeded to examine the recommendations contained in the Dulles Report, has pointed out certain impractical aspects, and has indicated how the recommendations might be most effectively implemented. ORE considers that its intimate acquaintance with the actual problems involved in the production of national intelligence enable it, with the help of the detached perspective of the Dulles Report, to suggest concrete means for carrying out the principles underlying the Report.

2. ORE Reaction to the Report as a Whole.

The Dulles Report is an admirable effort to re-direct CIA to fundamentals and first principles in the production of national intelligence; it proposes in effect a return to the concepts developed at the close of the war during two years of earnest and intense discussion among the most experienced intelligence personnel in Washington. The observations of the Committee appear accurate, and its objectives are sound; but its conclusions are in many respects faulty, and the recommendations for their attainment are in many cases impracticable. Although the proposals bearing on this Office lack, perhaps by intent, both precision and detail, ORE believes that sound administration of the suggested organization, combined with strong NSC direction to the IAC agencies to make their facilities available to CIA, could bring about improved intelligence production.

The Report’s greatest weakness stems from the Committee’s restricted concepts of the extent to which the departmental intelligence activities needed to be investigated in order to appraise their relationship to the operations of CIA. Although the Committee claimed to appreciate the danger of considering CIA activities alone and frankly stated that some correctives were needed outside CIA, specific recommendations were addressed only to CIA and an indefensible share of responsibility for CIA’s admitted shortcomings was attributed to the Director. The resulting Report contains many acute observations but it also embodies recommendations which could not by themselves bring about the desired results.

3. Summary of ORE Recommendations.

On the basis of the detailed comments (to be found in Section II) on the conclusions and recommendations of the Dulles Report, ORE makes the following summary recommendations.

(1) NSCID #1 and NSCID #3¹ should be revised to:

(a) redefine CIA’s intelligence production responsibilities as set forth in Section II, paragraph 1 b;

(b) define those intelligence categories, in fields of common interest, which should be produced centrally by CIA;

(c) clarify and define departmental intelligence responsibilities to CIA;

(d) require departmental intelligence agencies to grant priority to the production of intelligence required by CIA; and

(e) clarify IAC coordination procedures on CIA estimates as recommended in Section II, paragraph 4.

(2) Reorganization of ORE may be required to provide for the production of national intelligence estimates, as distinguished from central research in intelligence fields of common concern. Such reorganization should not be attempted, however, until the action in paragraph (1) above has been completed. ORE should not be divided into two separate CIA Offices for the purpose of separating the two types of intelligence production unless the need for such action is proved and demonstrated.

(3) ORE agrees that ICAPS should be responsible solely to CIA and not to the departmental agencies its members are supposed to represent. It strongly recommends, however, that ICAPS should not be reconstituted along the lines suggested in the Report, but should be replaced by a working staff acting for a Council, composed of the DCI and his Assistant Directors, and established to deal with intelligence problems of concern to two or more offices of CIA. The Assistant Directors concerned should attend all meetings of the IAC standing committee.

(4) ORE has not desire to operate the CIA library nor to assume the functions of the Foreign Documents Branch, as long as such services continue to be conducted in support of ORE. It is recommended, therefore, that these two functions remain where they are or be merged as a library service within OCD.

(5) ORE regards as one of its major responsibilities the furnishing of specific and long-range guidance to OO and OSO collection facilities, through the development of coordinated interdepartmental requirements for information. It recommends that this function should not be decentralized to OO and OSO.

(6) ORE direct working-level relations with NSC, JCS, and the State Department Policy Planning Staff should be authorized in order (a) to enable ORE to receive the guidance necessary for its production effort, and (b) to give more direct and effective intelligence support to policy and operational levels.

0. Source: Central Intelligence Agency Records, Job 86–B00269R, Box 15. Top Secret. Transmitted to the Director of Central Intelligence by the Assistant Director for Reports and Estimates, Theodore Babbitt, under a memorandum of February 14. The February 14 memorandum and the full text of the comments are in the Supplement. (Central Intelligence Agency Records, Job 86–B00269R, Box 5)
1. Documents 432 and 426.