.

~,

• Event: Tom Fingar

Type of Event: Interview

Date: November 19, 2003

Special Access Issues: None

Prepared by: Gordon Lederman

Team Number: 2

Location: Commission's K Street Office

Participants - non-Commission: Tom Fingar; Paula Burton (State Dept. representative)

Participants - Commission: Col. Lorry Fenner, Gordon Lederman

(U) BACKGROUND

•
(U) He is currently Acting Assistant Secretary of INR. He was a German linguist in the
U.S. Marines from 1969-1972. From 1972-1985, he was at Stanford University. In
1975, he began serving as a consultant to the State Department via its External
Consultants Program. He also served as a consultant to CIA, 000, Congress and
Congress's Office of Technology Assessments. From 1986-1988, he headed INR's
, China office. From 1989-1991, he headed INR's office of East Asian and Pacific affairs.
From 1992-3, he attended a senior executive seminar. From 1994-December 2000, he .
was INR's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Analysis. From December 2000 to June 2001,
he was Acting Assistant Secretary. From June 2001 until October 2003 he was Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary, and since October 2003 he has been Acting Assistant
Secretary.

CU) THE ROLE OF DIPLOMATIC REPORTING

(U) Diplomatic reporting is valuable for analysis. Every analyst likes it because it is clear
- it is what foreign interlocutors want the U.S. Government to know and believe. It is
usually first-hand reporting, unlike HUMINT reports. State 'automatically disseminates
to the IC almost all substantive reporting. State labels as "nodis" reporting that is
perishable' and action-oriented; some nodis material is sent to CIA but is not widely
disseminated) and sometimes it is sent to 000. Material that State labels as "exdis" is
shared with the IC once a waiver is obtained.

(U) There are two views of diplomatic reporting. One is that it is a subset of HUMfNT
and thus should be incorporated into HUMINT requirements. The second is that it is
different than HUMINT. The Ie squares the circle by incorporating diplomatic reporting
into HUMINT reporting requirements, but in reality the fact that diplomatic reporting is

Sl!:ertEi
 ,.
SECIltE't'

included in HVMINT reporting requirements makes "no difference" because Foreign

Service Officers know what is important to U.S. interests about the country in which they
are stationed and will report accordingly. A significant amount of diplomatic reporting is
oriented toward reports that State is required to write, such as human rights reports.
•
(U) The Chief of Mission may redirect reporting, as diplomacy moves very fast. INR
rarely formally tasks osts.· Instead, INR is a conduit for requests from analysts in the Ie,
but these requests 9/11 Classified Information are usually to justify analysts' rice-
bowls.

(V) Regarding the requirements process more generally, "the way the world really works
and the formal mechanisms are different." Diplomatic reporting essentially derives from
targets of opportunity within the context of overall priorities. The number of reporting
a
officers at post is very small. The IC is oblivious to that fact. The IC's.requests for
reporting boils down to a few junior officers at a post, all of whom have other
responsibilities such as CODELs.

CU) Over time, reporting has been degraded because it is not needed by State's
Washington headquarters - for the State/Washington to do its job, it can rely on
telephone calls to embassies, and State/Washington tends to micromanage its posts'

•
activities.

(U) Diplomatic reporting has ancillary benefit to the Ie. Reporting was deemphasized by
the dynamics of the 1990s and the competing demands on the IC. We used to care only
whether a country was with us or the USSR and what needed to be done to sway that
country to our side. Now, there is an enormous range of interests faced by U.S.
diplomacy, and the V.S. presence is "everywhere" throughout the globe. Yet the
downsizing of the Foreign Service has hampered State's capacity for reporting. In the
19905, the Ie decided not to do a lot of things, which meant that the IC relied more on
diplomatic reporting - but at the same time, State was shifting away from diplomatic
reporting. Open source grew in importance, but FBIS shrank. He recounted a
conversation in which DCI Deutch referred to State's legions of linguists - which Fingar
does not see existing, particularly on low-density languages. In sum: we are still living
the consequences of decisions made in the early 1990s.

(U) RELATIONS WITH THE RESt OF THE Ie

9/11 Classifled Information

2
•
 '.

'/

• 9/11 Classified Information

9/11 Classified Information

(U) The main problem with information-sharing generally is that the issue of sharing
certain information too often has to get raised to very senior levels and becomes a
'political' issue. Asked who has authority in the Ie to decide rules on information-
sharing and force cultural change, he responded that "there is no easy answer." There is
ORCON, and regarding SIGINT CIA is concerned that releasing SIGINT will
compromise HUMINT. Finally, there is the basic cultural and historical issue that State

•
generally wants to reveal more information concerning sources and methods while the
rest of the Ie is more conservative - it is an "ever-present tension." The process for
assessing releasability needs to be streamlined. State needs the process to work because
State often needs the information very quickly; other information-sharing issues, such as
regarding military issues, is on a longer time-fuse and is not hampered by a longer
decisiorunaking process on releasability.

(U) Most of the U.S. Government's intelligence apparatus (NFIP, TIARA, etc.) is
oriented toward support for the military - which is what it was intended to do - and on
15-20 countries, plus counterterrorism, countemarcotics, and counterproliferation.
However, State is concerned with so much more - ] 70 countries and many different
dimensions that have not made it into the NIPF. State is basically like a flea trying to
change the course of an elephant by pulling on its tail - State basically does not even try.

(U) State relied a lot on overtly-collected information, FBIS is key and needs to be
strengthened. FBIS also needs to realize that it does not necessarily need as much
language capability as it thinks - for example, much can be learned about Albania
without looking at Albanian-language websites.

(U) INR.has a big advantage in the Ie ...:.it can rely on the entire Foreign Service. INR
has personal contacts throughout the Foreign Service and uses email extensively. The

I
e
9/11 Classified Information

..... ~------------------------~
..1(3) State reports via official channels
whatever is important from those emails. fNR does not use email to set requirements and

SECRET 3
 ~ECREI
- I

give taskings but rather to solicit the views of relevant individuals. State is adopting a
.new "smart" computer system which will make emails more accessible. .e

9/11 Classified Information

(U) THE CRAFT OF ANALYSIS

(U) As to whether counterterrorism analysis requires skills different from traditional

analysis, counterterrorism requires an extra skill set and contacts, but the world is still
divided geographically and by country. Transnational actors still act in geographic
terrain .: It is much more productive to take an expert on a place, culture, religion, etc. and
add counterterrorism to that person's portfolio vis-a ..vis the issues that the analysts
already covers. In essence, INR's perspective is that "expertise counts"....,.the idea that-an
analyst is a "utility infielder" is "ludicrous." Centers are not the wave of the future.

(U) When it comes to all-source anal sis, much the Ie tends to care about information's •
pedigree - unlike INR. 9/11 Classi fied Information
 ., r,,··

"

• 9/11 Classified Information ILater, he-clarified his views, stating that there is a
legitimate tendency for analysts who have access to the sources and methods
undergirding reporting from a particular INT to gi ve more credence to that INT. He
disagreed that there is no true all-source capability in the Ie - he advised against
overstating his point about analysts giving more credence to information from certain
INTs.. .

(U) CIA has too many masters - ranging from Congress, to the Commerce Department,
to Bill Gertz. INR has only one master: the State Dept.

9/11 Classified Information

(U) Good analysts who have broad areas of inquiry are looking at all of the information
but are essentially approaching that information from the perspective of how to answer

•
certain questions. The key issue is, what is the question that is guiding the analysis?
Taskings to collectors are geared to questions as well, which may differ depending upon
the £NT. If analysts were allowed to drive collection without the constraint of the
overriding questions that the analysts are required to answer, then the analysts would
likely drive the collection system toward finding answers to whimsical questions. On the
other hand, constraining collection to the predetermined questions causes collection to
miss important information that does not answer one of the predetermined questions. The
IC needs to move away somewhat from using predetermined questions to constrain
analysts' ability to drive collection - analysts should be allowed to step back to figure out
what macro-level questions need to be answered. .

(U) The Community Management Staff does episodic surveys of which analysts use
information from what !NT, and he believes that the results are neither surprising nor
upsetting. For example, there is no reason to believe that diplomatic reporting' would be
useful concerning counterterrorism.

~ Most of the Ie operates under a long time horizon, which is an outgrowth of the Cold
War-era focus on military systems. In contrast, intelligence on economic and diplomatic
matters needs to be very timely because those areas move very quickly; State's
intelligence needs are very tactical in nature. Counterterrorism is somewhere in the
middle between economic/diplomatic issues and military issues. INR does a lot of
tactical support - conveying a lot of information orally. INR's papers concentrate on
longer-term issues.

9/11 Classified Information

SECREI 5
 .~

1
SECRET

•
-,

9/11 Classified Information

9/11 Classified Information

multip e views. n onna teams are assem e to InC u e individuals from offices
throughout State to get various views on subjects - those individuals are not allowed to
'chop' on INR's products but lend valuable insights and perspectives. INR's use of
teams in some ways resembles the use of red teams.

(U) INR is a big supporter of the NIC process because INR gets a vote. The NIC is the
center of analysis. INR is not a "contrarian" but rather fiercely protects its independence.
If INR disagrees with another agency's analytic conclusions, INR will voice its dissent in
order to temper the enthusiasm of policymakers in relying on those analytic conclusions.
INR never receives pressure from within State to concur with other agencies' analytic
conclusions.

(U) Measuring performance is an inherently difficult process. Informal feedback is

critical, such as emails from conswners as well as the notes of senior officials in the
margins' of INR products. INR tries to write its products at the lowest-level of secrecy

•
possible for maximum dissemination. The problem of intelligence is-that it is a free
good, and consumers do not want to voice criticism for fear that criticism will cause them
(
,
)
.
to lose the free good.

(U) As for the pathways of information, .intelligence reaching senior State policymakers
circumvents INR via the PDB. CIA is supposed to disseminate information in the State
Department only through INR channels. INR'sjob is to make sure that everyone
involved in a policy issue at State is working from the same set of intelli ence so that one
olic office does not have an unfair advanta e over another.
9/11 Classified Information

(U) Regarding the question of how much INR screens intelligence given to IN,R by the
rest of the Ie for dissemination to State officials INR must exercise some' udgment in
this regard because IN 9/11 Classified Information annot flood
policymakers with that m ormation. course, policymakers always think that they are
their own best analysts, but the reality is that INR does significant screening although
will alter its screening based on the desires of a particular State consumer. In other
words, it is a conscious INR policy to screen intel1igence rather than burying the
policymakers in raw material.

The ADell A&P used to be a si

SECRET 6
•
 ,,/,/,/9/11 Closed by Statute
.~
·~!:e~,.

• ......--.01!'....,..--Jh~ not dual-hatted

as.the NIC.Chainnan, whi'~h'mean,~. that most of what he
does is in the "community mode," such as concerning requiremenis.]

who voted on the NIPF "were from the military." What Lowenthal is doing concerning
analytic priorities .involves the rest of the Ie, not INR.
~npF
is too skewed toward military issues, namely because "11 of the 13 people in the room"

CU) OVERALL MANAGEMENT ISSUES

(U) Each agency in the Ie does a reasonably good job of fulfilling its own duties.
However, the Ie needs someone to ask, can't we do more, can't we do better, shouldn't
we ask different questions? When asked who is accountable for the Ie's failure to ask
these questions, he replied, "Everyone and no one." In a line chart, the DCI is ultimately
.responsible. However, seeking synergy requires having someone' who has that issue high
on his list of responsibilities. There is also the problem that there are too many chiefs and
not enough worker-bees. The NIC lacks inducements and troops.

(U) The amount of time and effort that is spent "oiling the machine" is enormous.
Congressional QFRs must be answered, budget documents must be submitted, and CMS
"exists to call meetings and do the budget" - and has 100 people more than INR. The
enormous effort needed to keep the machine churning rivals the number of people

•
employed by the IC for analysis .

(U) Col. Fenner asked who has the power to .create solutions. He responded that it is not
a simple question of structure, although he recommended the "nuclear fine adjustment
tool" because if we were building the Ie
today we would never design the IC the way it
currently exists. The key issue is cultivating expertise. There used to be expertise on
various issues in pockets around the IC. However, other agencies have not cultivated
expertise and instead have shifted toward being flexible. and responsive. Also, there is a
generational change and experts are leaving the Ie. There need to be core groups of
experts who nurture the next generation of experts, and teams that stick together over
time. Also, analysts need to spent time in different offices such as consumers' in order to
understand consumers' needs. The IC has programs such as ICAP and tiger teams to
promote rotations, but such rotations are not done by design 'in order to culti vate in-depth
expertise on particular issues and to ensure that people will stay in the IC over the long
term. INR used to cherry-pick from the IC, but now that expertise does not exist and
instead INR is trying to grow its analysts internally. Yet like other agencies, INR itself
lacks masters to teach the students.

CU) 9111

(U) His portfolio included much of the world but specifically not counterterrorism,
counternarcotics, and crime for "various historical reasons." With respect to the Cole and
other bombings, if we had been alert to these clues we would have been more suspicious

•
of what was to come. After the East African embassy bombings, we should have asked
what is it about those countries that made it easy for terrorists to operate. Thinking about
that question may have led to greater insights into the terrorist threat.

SECft~T 7
 • • • to·

SECRET

•
9/11 Classified Information

r: )~
-,

CU) He cautioned against drawing lessons from the 9/11 attacks that are too rigid.
Terrorists are like douds rather than machines - they group and group constantly.
Moreover, we impute to terrorists too much cognitive process; it is not that hard to pull
•
off two simultaneous attacks involving car bombs against civilian targets. However, it is
very difficult to penetrate terrorist groups because the terrorists have such close relations
among themselves.

9/11 Classified Information

SECRI!:T 8
•