211. Memorandum From the Secretary of State’s Special Assistant for Research and Intelligence (Eddy) to Acting Secretary of State Acheson0
Washington, April 17, 1947.
SUBJECT
- Comment on National Security Act of 1947, Title II, Section 202, “Central Intelligence Agency”
In connection with the hearings on national intelligence to which you have instructed me to accompany you Monday, April 21, I enclose copy of the National Security Act of 1947,1 wherein Title II, Section 202, sets forth the plan for the Central Intelligence Agency, concerning which I submit the following comments:
- 1.
- It is my conviction that the proposals in Title II, Section 202, would render more difficult the promotion of peaceful foreign relations by subordinating the political and economic intelligence activities of the Department of State to a Central Intelligence Agency completely dominated by the Armed Forces; and that it would further have the ultimate, if not the immediate, effect of placing the reporting activities of the Foreign Service under military control in time of peace as well as in time of war.
- 2.
- The National Intelligence Authority would be abolished and replaced by the National Security Council. (Section 202,(c) (1)) Whereas the Secretary of State is at present Chairman of the NIA composed of four members, he would be reduced on the National Security Council to an equality with one of the three subdivisions of the Armed Forces establishment, and civilian political intelligence would, therefore, have one representative out of six or more (see Title II, Section 201 (a)).
- 3.
- The Central Intelligence Group would be abolished and would be replaced by the Central Intelligence Agency (Section 202, (c)(2)). This CIA would be dominated by the military, with no indication that a representative of the Secretary of State would be accredited even as an adviser to the new Director of Central Intelligence, to whom it is proposed to give the salary and prerequisites of a 4-star general. The extended discussion of his right to retain his military salary and allowances, together with a supplement to bring the total to $14,000, makes it quite clear that there is an expectation to appoint to this elevated office an officer on active duty in the armed forces who will serve the primary interests of the five military members of the National Security Council rather than the civilian and peacetime interests of the Department of State.
- 4.
- In this connection it should be pointed out that the Foreign Service is the only collection agency of the U.S. Government which effectively covers the world. For every Military or Naval Attaché’s office abroad, there are dozens of Foreign Service Officers and specialists, and for every Embassy or Mission with a Military or Naval Attaché there are many Consulates General, Consulates or Vice Consulates with no military or naval staff. It is, therefore, clear that at present our Government is served with foreign intelligence chiefly by the Foreign Service trained to preserve political and economic good relations with the rest of the world. Under the proposed act this world-wide coverage and personnel would be forced into the service of the military, directly or indirectly, with a consequent damage to our peace-time policy that would be difficult to estimate. The provisions of this act might have merit if made effective upon the declaration of war, but in time of peace the National Intelligence Service should be under genuinely civilian control and its estimates of political and economic situations abroad should be subject, as at present, to preview by the Department of State, which has the responsibility for foreign policy.
William A. Eddy
2
- Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Decimal File 1945–49, 101.5/5–547. Confidential. Drafted by Eddy.↩
- See footnote 1, Document 220.↩
- Printed from a copy that bears this typed signature.↩