138. Letter From the President’s Military Representative (Taylor) to the Deputy Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (Johnson)0
Dear Alex: I am writing you in your capacity as Chairman-designate of the interdepartmental committee set up to implement National Security Action Memorandum No. 146.1 My purpose in writing is to make available to your committee my personal views on this important matter of improving U.S. organization and techniques in support of police training in foreign countries.
In considering the requirements for police-type training abroad, I am first struck by the diversity in the problems of various countries. In some, the primary need may be for crime prevention and routine police techniques such as are found in our city and state police forces in the United States. At the other extreme there are other countries with a requirement for paramilitary constabulary forces of the kind maintained in many Latin American countries to offset the armed forces and to protect the regime against subversion and coup d’etat. Between these extremes [Page 300] are many gradations which involve activities related to the work of the FBI, the Army, and the CIA.
Thus, every country tends to pose a special police problem to be diagnosed and resolved by our ambassador with the help of his country team. It is his task to produce an effective program suited to the needs of his country which utilizes all U.S. assets to meet the local situation without concern for departmental lines of jurisdiction. This local plan should represent the best use of U.S. assets to meet the particular indigenous problem.
I have no difficulty with this concept and consider that its general acceptance would meet, in principle, the organizational requirements abroad, provided that our ambassadors understand their responsibility and are acquainted with the assets of the various Federal departments at home which can support them. The difficult question is how to deal with these differing country team programs when they reach Washington. They will, presumably, arrive through State Department channels but, after reaching State, they must be sent to some focal point in the Government where over-all responsibility will rest for their implementation and support at the Washington end.
It appears to me that this focal point could be in State, in AID, in Defense, or in a newly created agency. As I am instinctively averse to the latter solution except as a last resort, I feel that we should first explore thoroughly the relative merits of the first three solutions. It is this exploration of pros and cons which I would regard as the primary task of your new committee.
It might be worthwhile to ask State, AID and Defense to submit separate plans showing how they would carry out their responsibility if this task were assigned to them. Such a plan should include the designation of the key individuals who would be nominated to the principal positions. Of one thing I am quite sure, namely, that the head man must be a strong figure, supported by a joint staff representing AID, FBI, Defense, and CIA. I would prefer to find this individual in AID, but the primary consideration is to get the best man and set him up in the best place to produce results. This pragmatic consideration, I feel, should take precedence over any question of principles with regard to civil versus military control or any related scruple.
Please excuse the long letter on the ground that my work in the Special Group (Counter-Insurgency) has aroused a very keen interest in the police training program. I am at the disposition of your committee for any follow-up discussion which you may desire.
Sincerely,
- Source: Department of State, S/S-NSC Files: Lot 72 D 316, NSAM No. 146. Secret.↩
- Document 137. In an April 25 memorandum to the heads of the other Departments participating in this study, Secretary Rusk formally designated U. Alexis Johnson as chairman of the committee. (Department of State, S/S-NSC Files: Lot 72 D 316, NSAM No. 146)↩