Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950–1955, The Intelligence Community, 1950–1955

50. Memorandum for the Record by the Director of Central Intelligence’s Executive Assistant (Kirkpatrick)¹

Washington, February 14, 1951.

SUBJECT

• Meeting on Integration of O/SO and O/PC

PRESENT

• Mr. Dulles, [name not declassified], W.C. Wyman, Mr. Wisner
• Col. Johnston, [name not declassified], Mr. Angleton, Mr. Helms, and Mr. Kirkpatrick

1. It was proposed by Mr. Dulles that a basic step toward integration might be the adjustment of the geographical divisions in the two offices so that they correspond to each other. Mr. Wisner said that this might prove difficult in certain instances and cited Italy as an example. He said that O/PC in Italy falls naturally into the Western Hemisphere bloc, whereas in O/SO it is in the Mediterranean-Balkan area. It was pointed out that [less than 1 line not declassified]. It was concluded that this matter would be studied and that there probably would be adjustments necessary on both sides.

2. There was discussion of making the staffs in both offices correspond to each other. It was pointed out that Mr. O’Gara has plans for the administrative staffs of both offices which will make them identical. It was decided that a committee composed of Col. Johnston, Mr. Helms, and Mr. O’Gara should study this problem and come up with recommendations.

3. There was discussion of the level on which O/SO and O/PC operations should be coordinated. O/PC feels that there should be specialists at a certain level. It was suggested that this level might be the area region which would be the bottom of the merger. It was suggested that each area division be combined with the deputy for each activity. The pattern by area may vary. It was pointed out that the “confidential” activities of O/PC as distinguished from the “secret” operations might be separated. The general operations of the two offices break down into political-economic, paramilitary, and intelligence. It was also suggested that perhaps area divisions might have a deputy for each of these activities rather than a deputy for O/SO and one for O/PC.

4. O/PC raised the question of the responsibility for dealing directly with resistance groups. It was pointed out that it was the O/PC function to run resistance groups although it is recognized that it is the O/SO function to get intelligence from these groups. A task force composed of Mr. Angleton, Mr. [name not declassified], and Mr. Rositzke was named to reach an agreement on this subject and to present any points of controversy to the Assistant Directors for referral, if necessary, to the Deputy Director.

5. There was talk of the fact that three offices, OO [Office of Operations],² less than 1 line not declassified]. It was agreed that this was a very sensitive subject and that there should be a unified approach. A task force composed of Mr. Thompson, Mr. Houck, Mr. Hunter, and Mr. Ashcraft was named to determine a policy on dealing with labor.

6. A similar problems of three offices all dealing with the [less than 1 line not declassified] was raised. A task force composed of Mr. Horton, Mr. Ashcraft and Mr. Lloyd was named to determine an agency policy for dealing with the [less than 1 line not declassified].

7. The question of training was brought up and Mr. Kirkpatrick was asked to prepare for Mr. Dulles a statement on training.

Lyman B. Kirkpatrick

³

1. Source: Central Intelligence Agency, Directorate of Operations, Job 78–05091A, Box 1. Secret.
2. Brackets in the original.
3. Printed from a copy that bears this typed signature.