Office of the Historian

236. Letter From the Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for Intelligence and Research (Armstrong) to Director of Central Intelligence Dulles1

Washington, October 5, 1955.

Dear Allen:

The Task Force on Intelligence Activities (“Clark Committee”) of the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government, (Hoover Commission), in its public Report to the Congress on Intelligence dated May 1955, but released in June,2 makes a number of disparaging statements concerning the attitude of the Department of State toward intelligence collection activities. In the Conclusions and Recommendations (Part VII, pages 37–38) it is stated:

“… Also among some of those responsible for implementation of our foreign policy by diplomacy and negotiation, there seems to exist an abhorrence to anything that might lead to diplomatic or even protocol complications.

“This negative attitude, usually at the desk level, at times stifled initiative and action in the collection of intelligence. Some of these efforts, if permitted to proceed properly, might have brought direct and immediate results and made positive contributions to the national welfare that would have justified the attendant political risks and possible inconsequential diplomatic embarrassment.”

Further on, referring to the inadequacy of data on the Soviet Bloc, the Report says that:

“… Success in this field depends on greater boldness at the policy level, a willingness to accept certain calculated political and diplomatic risks, and full use of technological capabilities.”

The Department is naturally concerned at such allegations and desires to learn what the basis for them might be. In the Top Secret Task Force Report dated May 1955,3 I can find no substantiating data or argumentation for the implied charges against the Department made in the public report. However, according to the Top Secret Report, Appendix II, which has not been available to the Department, fully discusses [less than 1 line not declassified]. Would it be possible for you to make this Appendix available to me on a highly restricted basis? Alternatively, could you send to us a statement, generally summarizing [Page 725] the Report’s position on this matter, as was, I believe, suggested by the President’s Military Secretary.

Directly related to the question of what was said by the public Task Force Report would be the views of your Agency on the question of the Department’s attitude toward intelligence and intelligence operations. Naturally the Department would wish to know it if this analysis is correct in your view, and would wish promptly to take remedial action if legitimate intelligence activities are inhibited by the actions of Foreign Service or Departmental officers.

Sincerely,

W. Park Armstrong, Jr.
4
  1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1955–60, 711.5200/11–2555. Secret. Drafted by Fisher Howe on October 5, concurred in by W. Tapley Bennett, Jr. (G), Robert G. Barnes (S/S), and Loy Henderson (O). All ellipses in the original.↩
  2. Document 220.↩
  3. Document 221.↩
  4. Printed from a copy that indicates Armstrong signed the original.↩