202. Statement Prepared for Secretary of Defense Laird in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Administration1
Intelligence Resource Management
The Department of Defense is confronted with several problems of intelligence resource management. These are: (1) the inability to determine the value of the intelligence product; (2) the inability to compare the resources in different programs against the same targets;(3) the absence of long-range resource management planning as a base for programming; (4) the need to conduct studies leading to program trade-offs; and (5) the absence of frank and unrestricted dialogue within the intelligence community.
As a result of Bob Froehlke’s study last summer2 I have given him the responsibilities to first, set up an intelligence resource review [Page 417]process that will look at the total effort; second, to open up the dialogue in the intelligence community; third, to take a look at organizations, roles, and missions; and fourth, to review security policies with the objective of eliminating unnecessary classification and compartmentation. His objectives are to insure the most economical and effective allocation of resources, and most importantly, to insure that the decision-makers get timely intelligence in which they can have high confidence.
He now has a small staff of eleven professionals under Vice Admiral Harold G. Bowen Jr. to address the problems I have outlined. This group was directly involved in the recent review of the intelligence portion of the FY 71 budget. They were instrumental in sorting out over $167 million in intelligence program reductions. Concurrently, Admiral Bowen established the fiscal guidance in the intelligence portion of the Five Year Defense Program.
Secretary Froehlke, replacing the Director DIA, now sits as the DoD representative of the National Intelligence Resources Board, which advises the DCI, the Secretary of State and myself on intelligence resource needs to support the U.S. foreign intelligence effort.
To accomplish their on-going tasks, Secretary Froehlke and Admiral Bowen are developing a display of intelligence resources which will serve as the baseline of resources and tell us what the resources are doing. While doing this, we are keeping in mind the need to reduce requirements for trivia. This display, the Consolidated Intelligence Resource Information System (CIRIS), tells us what we are doing, but not how well nor what should the community be doing.
Since we must know whose needs come first and how much it is reasonable to spend, Secretary Froehlke has tied the CIRIS data base to the concept of a Consolidated Defense Intelligence Program (CDIP). Inherent to the CDIP is the selection and study of major issues involving intelligence resources. We will address questions involving the impact—dollar wise—of technological advances and their relationship to the efficiency and effectiveness of existing systems; questions involving who takes what cuts in overall system reductions; and questions concerning future changes in requirements, systems capabilities, and in operating conditions.
At present our efforts center on data collection and development of study methodology and format. Major issue studies will be done this year in conjunction with the first cut of a Consolidated Defense Intelligence Program. Relative to our intelligence activities, I expect the Blue Ribbon Defense Panel to provide some inputs on roles and missions.
Improvement lies not in drastic reorganization. The right people and techniques are being brought together to accomplish our objectives.