Editing KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation Review: Observations of an Interrogator

KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation Review: Observations of an Interrogator
Lessons Learned and Avenues for Further Research
Steven M. Kleinman, M.S. February 2006
The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government.
Abstract
A careful reading of the KUBARK manual is essential for anyone involved in interrogation, if perhaps for no other reason than to uncover a definition of interrogation that accurately captures the fundamental nature of interroga- tion while also concretely establishing what it is not (i.e., a game between two people to be won or lost). A major stumbling block to the study of inter- rogation, and especially to the conduct of interrogation in field operations, has been the all-too-common misunderstanding of the nature and scope of the discipline. Most observers, even those within professional circles, have unfortunately been influenced by the media’s colorful (and artificial) view of interrogation as almost always involving hostility and the employment of force – be it physical or psychological – by the interrogator against the hap- less, often slow-witted subject. This false assumption is belied by historic trends that show the majority of sources (some estimates range as high as 90 percent) have provided meaningful answers to pertinent questions in re- sponse to direct questioning (i.e., questions posed in an essentially adminis- trative manner rather than in concert with an orchestrated approach designed to weaken the source’s resistance).
  95
                Introduction
The KUBARK21 Counterintelligence Interrogation Manual, produced by the Central Intelligence Agency in 1963 (and declassified in 1997), has become an icon of Cold War subterfuge and a lightning rod for those who allege that the United States continues to employ similar coercive interrogation techniques in the new conflict of the 21st century: the Global War on Terror. In an emphatic article, Alfred W. McCoy provides a sweeping review of the development of the KUBARK manual and its disturbing legacy throughout the remaining course of Cold War history.22 McCoy makes a compelling argument that coercive interrogation methods, such as those set forth in the KUBARK manual, carry a far-reaching negative impact on U.S. foreign policy: a premise with critical implications for current counterinsurgency operations in Iraq.
Rather than address these geopolitical concerns, this review will concern itself exclusively with the potential for lessons learned that could be derived from a highly controversial document. Just as important ideas for enhancing security practices can be elicited from a felon convicted of armed robbery, in looking past the ignominy of KUBARK’s intended use, one can find useful insights into the dynamics of intensive intelligence interrogation that can lead to principles applicable to current challenges.
Observations Interrogation: A Definition
There is nothing mysterious about interrogation. It consists of no more than obtaining needed information through responses to questions.23
An interrogation is not a game played by two people, one to become the winner and the other the loser. It is simply a method of obtaining correct and useful information.24
Some might argue that these definitions fail to distinguish interrogation from a debriefing. While there are far more similarities than differences between the two activities, what ultimately separates an interrogation from a debriefing
21 The term “KUBARK” is the Central Intelligence Agency cryptonym for a counterintelligence collection operation conducted in the early 1960s. In the cryptonym system employed by the CIA, the first two letters (the “digraph”) may refer to a country or a specific clandestine or covert activity, while the remaining word (in this instance, “BARK”) may refer to a specific operation or recruited source.
22 Alfred W. McCoy, “Cruel Science: CIA Torture and U.S. Foreign Policy,” The New England Journal of Public Policy (Winter 2005): 209-262.
23 Central Intelligence Agency, KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation, Washington, DC, 1963, 1; available at http://www.parascope.com/articles/0397/kubark06.htm. Hereafter cited as KUBARK.
 24 KUBARK, 85.
  96

                rests in the nature of two fundamental elements: psychological set and physical setting.
• Psychological Set. In the context of a debriefing, the debriefer and the source have essentially committed to the primary, shared purpose of producing actionable intelligence, even though each may be motivated by dramatically different personal objectives. The debriefer seeks the fulfillment of tasked intelligence collection objectives, while the source may act out of a sense of patriotism (e.g., a legal traveler25 reporting information learned while traveling abroad) or may be seeking preferential treatment from government authorities (e.g., a defector). In the course of an interrogation, both parties approach the interaction with different — and at times widely conflicting — sets of expectations and objectives. While the interrogator may share the debriefer’s objective of obtaining actionable intelligence, he or she may expect to encounter a source who seeks to resist, withhold, distort, and deceive.
• Physical Setting. A legal traveler, in essence, submits voluntarily to the questioning of the debriefer, and reserves the right (in most instances) to end the session and depart at any time. It is therefore in the debriefer’s best interest to make the experience a positive one for the source. By contrast, an interrogator enjoys a significant degree of control over the movement of the source, the duration of the encounter, and often the degree of liberty available to the source (at that moment and for the immediate future). The interrogator has the option of leveraging his/her control over these factors — in the form of the “threat” of continued detention or the “reward” of early release or expanded privileges — as a means of influencing the source’s responsiveness to questioning.
Focus on Communist Methods of Interrogation
The intelligence service which is able to bring pertinent, modern knowledge to bear upon its problems enjoys huge advantages over a service which conducts its clandestine business in eighteenth century fashion. It is true that American psychologists have devoted somewhat more attention to Communist interrogation techniques, particularly “brainwashing,” than to U.S. practices. Yet they have conducted scientific inquiries into many subjects that are closely related to interrogation: the effects of debility and isolation, the polygraph, reactions to pain and fear, hypnosis, and heightened suggestibility.26
25 Legal travelers are individuals who may lawfully travel to a foreign country for commercial, personal, or government purposes who may be debriefed upon their return by a representative of the Intelligence Community for information of intelligence interest obtained in the normal course of their official duties or personal activities. Legal travelers are not tasked (officially requested or directed) to collect information.
   26 KUBARK, 2.
  97

                The study of hostile interrogation methods has been an essential undertaking in the noble effort to better prepare U.S. personnel to endure and withstand the challenges they might face if taken prisoner. However, no similar effort has ever been undertaken to better prepare U.S. intelligence personnel for their important role in gleaning critical intelligence data from enemy prisoners and detainees. The reasons for this omission remain unknown.
Operating with a dearth of research in support of offensive interrogation methodology, the writers of the KUBARK manual appear to have found themselves in a situation not unlike that experienced by interrogation personnel today. In essence, KUBARK’s coercive methods reflected concepts derived from research into hostile methods — government research carried out specifically to help identify effective countermeasures — and then “reverse engineered” selected principles to meet operational requirements. It is interesting to note that the KUBARK manual (and the methods it proposes) was substantially informed by studies conducted by Albert Biderman, a sociologist and principal investigator for an Air Force Office of Scientific Research contract to review literature on the stresses associated with captivity.27
In large measure, the abuses — alleged or actual — perpetrated by U.S. interrogation personnel since the advent of the war on terror can be explained (albeit not defended) by the very same dynamic. With interrogation doctrine reflecting little change from the 1960s and producing few substantial successes in the current battlespace, commanders, operators, and intelligence officers have sought an alternative. In considering options, it became readily apparent that the experts in Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) were the “only other game in town.”
While offensive and defensive interrogation operations have much in common, there are intractable differences. Defensive interrogation training is designed to help U.S. personnel withstand the unique stresses of all manner of exploitation
— including the employment of coercive methods — to protect information and avoid becoming pawns in an adversary’s attempt to generate useful propaganda. To prepare personnel for this substantial challenge, resistance training seeks to create a systematic threat environment to achieve “stress inoculation.” This includes exposing trainees to intensive role-played interrogation scenarios. In the course of many years of experience in such practical exercises, many of the resistance instructors have become accomplished role-play interrogators.
However, there are three fundamental reasons why experience as a resistance instructor does not necessarily prepare someone for service as an intelligence interrogator. First, resistance instructors — portraying interrogators from potential adversarial nations that have shown disregard for international convention on the treatment of prisoners — routinely employ a wide range of coercive methods that often fall well outside Geneva Convention guidelines. Second, although questioning is an important element of the role-play exercise, this activity does
 27 KUBARK, 110–111.
  98

                not reach the depth required in an intelligence interrogation. Third, resistance instructors, though talented professionals, lack the training, linguistic skills, and subject matter expertise required of interrogation personnel. In sum, the employment of resistance instructors in interrogation — whether as consultants or as practitioners — is an example of the proverbial attempt to place the square peg in the round hole. (NOTE: In the months after 11 September 2001, special operations personnel, many of whom have received resistance training, were quick to request interrogation support from the SERE community based on well-entrenched memories of the skill and polish of resistance instructors during intense role-play scenarios.)28
The Objective of an Interrogation: Information or Confession?
[U]nlike a police interrogation, the [intelligence] interrogation is not aimed at causing the interrogatee to incriminate himself as a means of bringing him to trial. Admissions of complicity are not...ends in themselves but merely preludes to the acquisition of more information.29
While interrogations conducted to support law enforcement objectives have many similarities to those designed strictly to satisfy intelligence requirements, there are several subtle yet important differences. The methods employed within each context are essentially interchangeable, with discernible differences identifiable only in nuance. At the same time, the fundamental objectives can be strikingly different. From a process perspective, the ultimate objective of the interrogation will inform — and significantly influence — the methodology employed.
The confession that can be such a monumental achievement in the law enforcement world is often of little interest to the Intelligence Community. Conversely, the exhaustive detail necessary to support subsequent intelligence analysis and production often ranges far beyond that needed to support a conviction. While law enforcement seeks to establish responsibility, the Intelligence Community seeks to exploit knowledgeability. In sum, law enforcement attempts to understand the past; intelligence attempts to probe the future.
Other key differences must be clearly understood. Law enforcement officials must adhere to federal and state laws pertaining to rights of the accused (including legal representation and the right to remain silent), standards of evidence, investigative parameters established by the prosecution, and limits on the duration of custody. In contrast, the activities of intelligence officials are governed by international and federal guidelines pertaining to the treatment of prisoners, priority intelligence requirements, the need to manage a potentially
28 During his recall to active duty from June 2003 to January 2005, the author served as the Department of Defense Senior Intelligence Officer for Special Survival Training.
 29 KUBARK, 4–5.
  99

                long-term exploitation process, and the pursuit of actionable information and/or information that corroborates or contributes to intelligence data gathered from other sources.
As noted previously, what ultimately informs the methodology employed to collect data from a source is, in large measure, the nature of the information sought. It is critical, then, to understand the vital differences between gathering information to support a criminal case and gathering information to support foreign intelligence production.
  Objective: Standard: Limits: Protections: Confession:
Criminal Case
Conviction
Legal Code
Rules of Evidence Fifth Amendment Considerable Value
Foreign Intelligence
Understanding Analytical Methodology None30
None31
Relative Value32
An analysis of these critical factors would suggest that interrogators operating in support of foreign intelligence requirements be afforded a considerably greater degree of flexibility than law enforcement personnel. While the two interrogation contexts have numerous areas of commonality, it is imperative that the strategies, tactics, and techniques developed for each reflect the differences between them. Without this understanding, the potential exists for significant error in application and practice.
One explanation for this can be found in the specificity principle. Arising from studies in the field of kinesiology (the science of human movement), the specificity principle suggests that the closer two activities are to one another — without becoming the same activity — the more practice in one will degrade skills in the other. To borrow an example from sports, the individual who plays softball and also participates in a bowling league (activities that require vastly different skill sets) would not find his or her skill in one sport impaired by participation in the other. Conversely, the individual who plays both racquetball and squash would likely encounter difficulties in transitioning from one activity to the other, especially in areas such as strategy, timing, and focus. It is precisely in the areas of strategy, timing, and focus that law enforcement and intelligence interrogation are critically different.
30 Any and all information collected by the U.S. Intelligence Community outside the United States from non-U.S. Persons may be used for intelligence analytical purposes.
31 While the Constitution of the United States specifically protects individuals from unreasonable searches and self-incrimination, the non-U.S. Person intelligence source does not enjoy these same protections.
32 A “confession” obtained from an intelligence source only has value to the extent that it establishes direct access to the information reported. For intelligence purposes, the other interrogatives (e.g., why, how, how many, when again) are more important than confirmation of an individual “who.”
   100

                Qualities of an Effective Interrogator
A number of studies of interrogation discuss the qualities said to be desirable in an interrogator...perhaps the four qualifications of chief importance to the interrogator are 1) enough operational training and experience to permit quick recognition of leads; 2) real familiarity with the language to be used; 3) extensive background knowledge about the interrogatee’s native country; and 4) a genuine understanding of the source as a person...of the four traits listed, a genuine insight into the source’s character and motives is perhaps most important but least common.33
The human intelligence (HUMINT) career field has long employed various psychological testing protocols (e.g., Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, California Psychological Inventory, etc.), in conjunction with exhaustive background investigations, in an effort to both identify those candidates with the inherent aptitude and/or personality profile for a given operational activity and to screen out those who would likely prove ill-suited and/or ill-equipped for the profession. A similar psychological screening protocol (without the background investigation) has been employed in the SERE career field in an effort to eliminate those candidates with the highest apparent probability for acting out violently or abusively while interacting with students during intensive practical exercises. For application to the interrogation discipline, a critical underpinning of such screening efforts is the availability of a “model” of a successful interrogator...and it is unlikely that a properly vetted model exists.
While identifying effective methods and processes is a key element of the Intelligence Science Board’s EI project mandate, designing a means for selecting candidates with the highest potential for success in implementing these methods and processes is of equal importance. Research in this regard should be acutely informed by the following three considerations:
 33 34
• Those in hierarchical authoritarian structures have a documented tendency to engage in what appears to be “acceptable” inhumane behavior toward others, as demonstrated in the famous “Stanford University Experiment” (Haney, Banks, and Zimbardo, 1973).
• Dr. Howard Gardner’s seminal work on multiple intelligences suggests that certain people might be naturally gifted with uncommon abilities and aptitudes in various areas, including (for EI purposes) interpersonal intelligence (the capacity to understand the intentions, motivations and desires of other people) and intrapersonal intelligence (the capacity to understand oneself, to appreciate one’s feelings, fears and motivations).34
KUBARK, 1011.
See, for example Howard Gardner, Ph.D., Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences (New York: BasicBooks, 1983).
  101

                • Perhaps the most important single trait of individuals who have demonstrated long-term success in HUMINT operations is an exceptional aptitude for dealing with ambiguity. Whether this characteristic can be reliably measured remains to be seen.
The “Magic” of Rapport:35 The Emotional Component of Interrogation
One general observation is introduced now, however, because it is considered basic to the establishment of rapport, upon which the success of non-coercive interrogation depends...The skilled interrogator can save a great deal of time by understanding the emotional needs of the interrogatee. Most people confronted by an official — and dimly powerful — representative of a foreign power will get down to cases much faster if made to feel, from the start, that they are being treated as individuals.36
Despite the impressive success achieved by interrogators who have mastered the skill of effectively establishing rapport with a source — the celebrated Luftwaffe interrogator Hanns Scharff37 providing but one well-known example
— methods for rapport-building continue to receive relatively little attention in current interrogation training programs. There seems to be an unfounded yet widespread presumption that all persons inherently possess the skills necessary for building rapport and therefore do not require any supplemental training to hone this ability. While the KUBARK manual has gained a degree of infamy through its association with coercive means, it also, in an interesting stroke of irony, consistently emphasizes the value of rapport-building as an essential tool for the interrogator.
The devaluation of rapport — that is, building an operational accord with a source — as an effective means of gaining compliance from a resistant source is in large measure the product of the misguided public debate over the role of interrogation in the Global War on Terror, one that seems invariably to focus on the “ticking bomb” scenario. The point can be safely made that for every instance where a source might have information about an imminent, catastrophic terrorist event, there are hundreds (possibly thousands) of interrogations where the information requirements are far less urgent and the opportunity exists for a
35 Rapport is one of the interrogator’s most powerful tools in gaining a source’s cooperation. It must be made clear that, in the context of an interrogation, the term “rapport” is not limited to the idea of friendship that builds between two individuals (although this may actually occur over the course of an extended interrogation). For the purposes of this paper, the term will be used to imply a state in which a degree of accord, conformity, and or/affinity is present within a relationship. Source: Jerry Richardson, The Magic of Rapport (Capitola, CA: Meta Publications, 1987), 13.
36 KUBARK, 11.
37 Raymond F. Toliver, The Interrogator: The Story of Hanns Joachim Scharff, Master Interrogator
of the Luftwaffe (Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publishing, Ltd., 1997).
   102

                thoughtful, systematic approach. In the case of the latter, the interrogator might be well served in designing an effective approach regime by asking himself/ herself, as recommended in the KUBARK manual, “‘How can I make him want to tell me what he knows?’38 rather than ‘How can I trap him into disclosing what he knows?’” 39 Operational accord seeks to effectively, albeit subtly, gain the source’s cooperation and maintain that productive relationship for as long as possible without betraying indicators of manipulation or exploitation on the part of the interrogator.
One constructive paradigm for interrogation, yet one that is rarely considered, views it in terms of a recruitment (or even, perhaps, a seduction). Returning to the basic definition of interrogation noted at the beginning of this paper, it consists of no more than obtaining needed information through responses to questions. To achieve that objective, one can “pull” (i.e., elicit compliance) or “push” (i.e., coerce capitulation). While the former is likely to obtain information that can often exceed the interrogator’s expressed scope of interest — as the source often possesses both greater depth and breadth of knowledgeability than the interrogator might assume — the latter will, in the best of circumstances, only obtain information responding to questions directly asked. Even then the information will often be limited to the minimum necessary to satisfy the interrogator.
Effectively establishing an operational accord with a source — especially in a cross-cultural setting — must become a major component of interrogator training and included in that problem set of necessary yet difficult to define, measure and train skills needed by all HUMINT operators. A review of studies in interpersonal conflict resolution and relationship-building under competitive circumstances (e.g., sales, counseling, negotiation, etc.) can provide a meaningful starting point from which to launch original research for specific application in the interrogation context.
Reliability of Casual Observation
Great attention has been given to the degree to which persons are able to make judgments from casual observations regarding the personality characteristics of another...the level of reliability in judgments is so low that research encounters difficulties, when it seeks to determine who makes better judgments...the interrogator is likely to overestimate his ability to judge others than to underestimate it, especially if he has had little or no training in modern psychology.40
The reliability of casual observations made by interrogators has too often gone unchallenged. Unfortunately, the fact that someone is a “trained” interrogator is
38 The term “want” in this context refers to creating conditions that make cooperation appear to be an attractive, even self-serving alternative for the source rather than a characterization of the source’s efforts to escape physical or psychological force.
39 KUBARK, 12.
40 KUBARK, 12–13.
   103

                too frequently construed as evidence that the individual possesses an uncommon ability to make rapid and valid assessments of a source with little background information or direct exposure to support that judgment.
While extensive and consistent experience in interrogation can offer a person the opportunity to develop above-average assessment skills, this ability is contingent upon several important factors. First, each assessment must be subsequently evaluated to determine validity (once additional corroborating or contradicting information is available) and the method(s) used explicitly described, deconstructed, and recorded to definitively capture that cause and effect for future study and possible employment. Second, the key processes used in a given assessment should be examined, evaluated, and corroborated or discredited by trained behavioral science professionals. Finally, the individual interrogator must be sufficiently disciplined to avoid drawing unsupported, possibly self-serving conclusions as to his or her assessment skills. In this regard, it would be helpful to keep in mind the caveat set forth in the KUBARK manual: An interrogation is not a game played by two people, one to become the winner and the other the loser.
Assessment, in the context of interrogation, is a multi-dimensional concept. The interrogator must be able to effectively — and accurately — assess a source’s emotional state, psychological set, veracity, and knowledgeability. Individuals cannot attain the ability to meet such a broad-based challenge successfully in a single, even months-long training course. Training in assessment must begin early in an interrogator’s professional preparation and be followed by continuous study, research, and practice. Although a considerable body of knowledge already exists in this area and could be profitably mined for supporting techniques and procedures, new and original studies of assessment in the unique context of interrogation are needed.
Analytical Support to Interrogation
The interrogator should be supported whenever possible by qualified analysts’ review of his daily “take;” experience has shown that such a review will raise questions to be put and points to be clarified and lead to a thorough coverage of the subject in hand.41
In prosecuting the Global War on Terror, the targets of primary interest from both an operational and intelligence perspective are terrorism’s critical centers of gravity: financing, transportation, logistics, communications, and safe havens. Just as it would not be reasonable to expect any single analyst to be an accomplished subject matter expert in more than one (or possibly two) of these areas, it should not be assumed that any single interrogator can be prepared to explore the full knowledgeability of sources who have information pertaining to these key target areas. It is therefore important for interrogators to have on-scene analytical support for precisely the purposes identified in the above quotation.
 41 KUBARK, 13.
  104

                While the Joint Interrogation Facilities established during the 1990-91 Gulf War were equipped with on-site intelligence support centers, the level of expertise of the personnel assigned and the real-time access to intelligence information systems fell short of what would be required of a world-class effort. In contrast, the World War II Joint Interrogation Center at Fort Hunt, VA, included a robust analytical support annex that was shaped by, and expanded in response to, the specific needs of the interrogation cadre. As a result, interrogators were able to design highly productive lines of questioning, effectively detect attempts at deception, and often obtain compliance from prisoners as a result of the semblance of dominant knowledge (a graphic example of Cialdini’s authority principle in persuasion42).
Interrogation centers would be well-served by the support of an on-site analytical cell staffed with bona fide subject matter experts and configured to exploit secure information systems that would facilitate real-time access to larger intelligence centers. This would have a considerable positive impact on the ultimate value of the intelligence products generated at the field level. Given the historical precedent, this is clearly an eminently achievable goal.
Psychological Assessment: Categorizing Sources by Personality Type
The number of systems devised for categorizing human beings is large, and most of them are of dubious validity.43
Every interrogator knows that a real understanding of the individual is worth far more than a thorough knowledge of this or that pigeon-hole to which he has been consigned. And for interrogation purposes, the ways in which he differs from the abstract type may be more significant than the ways in which he conforms.44
The pursuit of a valid means of quickly and accurately assessing a source’s psychological set — presumably with the objective of identifying an avenue for expeditiously obtaining compliance in the form of meaningful answers to pertinent questions — has been something of a search for the Holy Grail in the world of interrogation. This quest raises three fundamental questions:
• Is it possible to conduct a meaningful psychological assessment of a resistant source?
• Would such an assessment provide substantial assistance in the interrogation of that source?
• Would the administration of such testing violate governing professional standards of ethics?
 42
43 KUBARK, 19.
44 KUBARK, 20.
Robert B. Cialdini, Ph.D., Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (New York: William Morrow, 1993), 208-236.
  105

                Certainly, the last question must be satisfactorily answered before a sanctioned effort can be launched to study the feasibility suggested by the first two. Ethical considerations aside, the use of some manner of personality assessment presents intriguing possibilities. As the quotations above indicate, the KUBARK manual appears to dismiss the potential of in-depth assessment, noting that an interrogator
“does not dispose of the time or personnel to probe the depths of each source’s individuality.”45 Instead, it suggests some form of categorizing sources based on observations made in early rounds of interrogation. Even then, the manual is quick to emphasize that this method, “like other interrogation aids, [is] a scheme of categories [that] is useful only if recognized for what it is — a set of labels that facilitate communication but are not the same as the persons thus labeled.”46
In contrast, at least one account would appear to support the concept of a formal program for assessing sources. According to Orrin DeForest, a CIA intelligence officer and interrogator during the Vietnam War, psychological testing was employed with significant success. The test, based on work conducted by Dr. John Gittinger, sought to measure IQ in addition to three other components of personality reflected in demonstrated propensities toward Externalizing or Internalizing, Regulation or Flexibility, and Role Adaptivity or Role Uniformity.47 This test was administered to the interrogator and interpreter staff (and used to design tailored training programs and subsequent assignments) as well as to the
Vietcong undergoing interrogation. According to DeForest’s account, this tool proved consistently effective and a valuable supplemental tool used in conjunction with other creative systems for interrogation.48
Perhaps the most important role psychological testing can play in interrogation is as a means for enhancing communication and accord between two people; anything beyond this would be an unexpected windfall. If a current or emerging testing protocol would prove valid in accurately measuring a relevant component of the source’s personality — and thereby assisting the interrogator to design an effective means of approach — it would offer an important alternative that could help stem the trend of default to coercion that has occurred too often in the course of dealing with a resistant high-value source.
Screening: Overlooking a Critical Phase of the Exploitation Process
The purpose of screening is to provide the interrogator, in advance, with a reading on the type and characteristics of the interrogatee...even a preliminary estimate, if valid, can be a boon to the interrogator because it will permit him to start with
45 KUBARK, 20.
46 KUBARK, 20.
47 Orrin DeForest, Slow Burn: The Rise and Bitter Fall of American Intelligence in Vietnam (New
York: Simon and Schuster, 1990), 62-65.
48 Some observers might find it curious that a source would voluntarily submit to psychological
testing, yet this is precisely what occurred. This seemingly inexplicable compliance may be a result of a “conditioned reflex” to completing the ubiquitous paperwork intractably associated with military/ paramilitary service.
   106

                generally sound tactics from the beginning. [T]he second and related purpose of screening is to permit an educated guess about the source’s probable attitude toward the interrogation. An estimate of whether the interrogatee will be cooperative or recalcitrant is essential to planning because very different methods are used in dealing with these two types. It is recommended that screening be conducted whenever personnel and facilities permit.49
In strategic and operational settings, where depth and accuracy of information take precedence over timeliness, screening is a critical component of the overall interrogation process. Every effort must be made not only to assess the knowledgeability and cooperation of the source, but — of supreme importance
— to vet the individual in a manner that provides the interrogator with a high degree of confidence in the source’s identity.
This point, while seemingly obvious, has proven anything but in the course of current interrogation operations. From the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan, to various interrogation facilities in Iraq, reports abound of prisoners held in detention and interrogated at length because of mistaken identification. Several factors contribute to this unfortunate situation, including difficulties in transcribing names from Arabic, Pashto, and Urdu into English; classic cross-cultural misunderstandings; and a high-threat operating environment that leads many to err on the side of capture rather than release.
Whatever the causative factor, properly conducted screening operations can make a significant contribution on two important fronts. First, from a counterinsurgency perspective, false identification and internment can inflame an already tenuous relationship between an occupying power and the indigenous population. The false imprisonment of even a single individual can cause a profound shift in the insurgent/counterinsurgent dynamic as evidenced by the French experience in Indochina and Algeria and the U.S. experience in Vietnam and Iraq. Each instance of mistaken imprisonment, especially if it involves some form of mistreatment, shifts those who previously supported the foreign presence toward a more neutral position, those who formerly were neutral may begin to support the insurgents, and the insurgents may adopt a more militant campaign, one made all the more robust by a sudden influx of new supporters and combatants. This untoward cascading effect can be relatively simple to prevent through the establishment of a vigorous screening program that systematically filters out the innocent while identifying those of genuine intelligence interest.
Second, from an interrogation perspective, a proper screening effort helps to ensure the efficient allocation of available assets — interrogators, interpreters, and analysts — to those sources with the greatest potential knowledgeability. As one historical example, the U.S. strategic interrogation program in place during World War II (MIS-Y) employed a multi-tiered screening process that required
 49 KUBARK, 30–33.
  107

                an enemy prisoner of war (EPW) of potential major intelligence interest to be progressively screened for knowledgeability, expertise, and access at the scene of capture, at subsequent points of detention, upon embarkation from the European Theater, and upon disembarkation in the United States. Only those prisoners who had been assessed as being of the highest value were ultimately interrogated at the Fort Hunt Joint Interrogation Center. Ahead of its time in managerial acumen, MIS-Y effectively used the “80/20” principle to better focus its considerable resources on that small segment of the EPW population able to meet the most pressing intelligence information requirements of the war effort.
The later stages of the screening process were informed by guidelines and methods taught by MIS-Y personnel. The last stage almost always included direct examination by MIS-Y interrogators before final determination of the EPW’s status. In this regard, it is important to note that the MIS-Y personnel involved in the screening process were experienced interrogators. In contrast, the KUBARK manual recommends that “screening should be conducted by interviewers, not interrogators.”50
Chess in the Real World
No two interrogations are the same. Every interrogation is shaped definitively by the personality of the source — and of the interrogator, because interrogation is an intensely interpersonal process. The whole purpose of screening and a major purpose of the first stage of interrogation are to probe the strengths and weaknesses of the subject. Only when these have been established and understood does it become possible to plan realistically.51
Building upon the fundamental definition of interrogation noted previously, the KUBARK manual provides a conceptual perspective on interrogation— that of an “intensely interpersonal process” — that offers invaluable clues in the search for relevant supporting research and methodologies. Social scientists have rigorously studied other intensely interpersonal processes — counseling and therapy, negotiation, sales, conflict mediation, and even formal debate, to name but a few. Within the myriad studies investigating the dynamics involved in these activities, one is likely to uncover concepts with direct application to interrogation and/or useful protocols for designing studies on the interrogation process.
The KUBARK manual also challenges interrogators to view each source as unique, therefore requiring judicious planning and a flexible approach tailored to that individual’s specific strengths and weaknesses. This is especially important for those interrogators who run default programs comprising a limited array of approaches that have worked well in the past on a dramatically different
50 KUBARK, 30.
51 KUBARK, 38.
   108

                source pool. The disciplined interrogator must constantly battle the tendency to expect, and subsequently to look for, commonalities from one source to another. This is especially true when dealing with sources from a foreign and possibly little-understood culture and linguistic background. While a studied awareness of culture is important in planning for the exploitation of a given source, that newfound understanding can also cause the interrogator to catch only the cultural overtones and miss the individual nuances that would prove critical to gaining compliance.
The effort to build a useful model of the interrogation process must begin with a conceptual framework. Important components of that framework are flexibility, individuality, and constant adaptability. Inherent in the underlying philosophy is the requirement to search for general trends and individual nuance, commonalities and unique differences.
Ultimately, the successful model must generate an effective strategy for successful performance in keeping with the Law of Requisite Variety, a principle drawn from the study of cybernetics with remarkable application to the context of interrogation.52 Cybernetic theory suggests that in the competition between two processes within a closed system, the one with greater variety of options will be successful. Applying the Law of Requisite Variety to the context of an interrogation, the individual with the larger number of available options (e.g., strategies, behaviors, etc.) should prevail. It is therefore of great importance that the interrogator always have at least one more method of leveraging compliance than the source has for resisting.53
Saving Face: Helping the Source to Concede
Another key to the successful interrogation of the resisting source is the provision of an acceptable rationalization for yielding. As regression proceeds, almost all resisters feel the growing internal stress that results from wanting simultaneously to conceal and divulge...To escape the mounting tension, the source may grasp at any face-saving reason for compliance— any explanation which will placate both his own conscience and the possible wrath of former superiors and associates if he is returned to [his place of origin]. It is the business of the interrogator to provide the right rationalization at the right time. Here too the importance of understanding the interrogatee is evident; the right rationalization must be an excuse or reason that is tailored to the source’s personality.54
52 Essentially, the Law of Requisite Variety states that the greater the variety of actions available to a control system, the larger the variety of perturbations (i.e., challenges to its control) for which it is able to compensate. (Source: Principia Cybernetic Web, URL: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/REQVAR.html )
53 Richardson, The Magic of Rapport, 15-17.
54 KUBARK, 41.
   109

                This point highlights a central, two-dimensional element of the interrogation process. At a fundamental level, the challenge for the interrogator is to make it as difficult (and unattractive) as possible for the source to resist and/or make it as easy (and attractive) as possible for the source to cooperate. Choice of the component upon which to focus is driven by both individual and contextual factors. With regard to the former, the interrogator must judiciously select the strategy that presents the greatest promise of success given a specific source — a decision based on extended observation and assessment. At the same time, the choice of strategy should enable the interrogator to most effectively leverage his or her personal strengths, professional experience, skills in the range of interrogation tradecraft, and language ability. Concurrently, a number of circumstantial variables must be assiduously considered, to include the time available for the interrogation (or series of interrogations), the nature of the existing information requirements, the physical setting, and the operational/intelligence information available about the source, his organization, and activities. The calculus involved represents a subset of the KUBARK concept noted above.
From a social science perspective, this dynamic suggests the possibility of several behavioral theories at work, including approach/avoidance (Lewin,
1935)55 and bind-strain (Milgram, 1974).56 Exploration of these two theories (and perhaps others) might explain, at least in part, the compliance-resistance dilemma facing the source, and uncover methods for shaping the source’s behavior.
The Alternative Question57 methodology frequently employed in law enforcement interrogations specifically seeks to present the source with what the KUBARK manual describes as an “acceptable rationalization for yielding.” Offering an attractive option other than outright confession to a heinous crime, the alternative question allows the source to “save face” by agreeing with the interrogator’s characterization of the criminal behavior as inherently positive in intent or objective.58
While often effective in eliciting a confession, the alternative question method may be problematic when it comes to collecting intelligence information. In presenting a source with two possible “alternatives” (e.g., “Did you plan to use C4 or Semtex as the explosive in that device?”), the interrogator runs the risk of
55 As first described by Dr. Kurt Lewin, approach-avoidance conflict results from the stress of simultaneous attraction to and repulsion by the same goal.
56 In Dr. Stanley Milgram’s Model of Obedience, individuals may bind to an authority figure through reinforcing acts of obedience (and thereby externalize responsibility for specific acts), yet also encounter role strain when that obedient behavior becomes uncomfortable (e.g., when the acts violate the individual’s personal moral values or when bringing harm to another contradicts the individual’s self-image).
57 An alternative question is a question that presents two or more possible answers and presupposes that only one is true.
58 An example of an alternative question might be, “Did you start the fire at your company because you wanted to hurt people or as a way of calling attention to the fact that your contributions to the company have been consistently ignored for many years and you felt you had no other options available to you?” Regardless of how an individual responds, there is an admission of guilt.
   110

                undermining the objectivity and accuracy of the information obtained. In contrast, an open-ended question (e.g., “What type of explosive did you plan to use in that device?”) requires the source to answer on the basis of his personal experience/ knowledge, without the benefit of clues or restrictions contained in the question.
A Systematic Approach to Interrogation: More Than the Sum of Its Parts
Therefore, it is wrong to open [an] interrogation experimentally, intending to abandon unfruitful approaches one by one until a sound method is discovered by chance. The failures of the interrogator, his painful retreats from blind alleys, bolster the confidence of the source and increase his ability to resist. While the interrogator is struggling to learn from the subject the facts that should have been established before the interrogation started, the subject is learning more and more about the interrogator.59
This passage contains an exceptionally important warning, one that an interrogator must always keep in mind: while the interrogator is watching (and listening to) the source, the source is watching (and listening to) the interrogator.
The interrogator often enters the interrogation with two distinct advantages. First, sources may be suffering from the shock of capture that undermines their psychological and emotional stability (often causing them to say and do things against their own interests). Second, while a long-serving intelligence officer may have the experience of dozens of interrogations behind him or her, it is often the source’s maiden voyage into this uncertain territory. The interrogator can quickly surrender these advantages, however, by approaching the source in a hesitant, indecisive manner. This false start can be largely avoided through careful planning.
The MIS-Y interrogators of the Joint Interrogation Center routinely invested six hours in preparation for every hour spent in the actual interrogation of a prisoner. Their approaches, including alternatives, were carefully designed on the basis of extensive observation and assessment of the source. Intensive study of pertinent military, technical, economic, and/or political materials enabled the interrogators to demonstrate a solid understanding of the topics raised during the interrogation (contributing to the development of Cialdini’s authority effect). They were similarly prepared to question the source systematically, including the ability to consistently and logically follow up on new avenues of inquiry as they unfolded. Not only did this disciplined operating procedure enhance the depth and breadth of the information collected, but it also facilitated a strong degree of control over the source. Opportunities for the prisoner to gain confidence from the miscues of an ill-prepared interrogator were rare.
 59 KUBARK, 42.
  111

                Anticipating Resistance: The Importance of Being Shrewd
It is useful to recognize in advance whether the information desired would be threatening or damaging in any way to the interests of the interrogatee.60
Resistance to questioning is the primary barrier to entry in the context of interrogation. The challenge to the interrogator is to manage resistance effectively while systematically working to overcome it.
As an interrogator explores a given source’s range of knowledgeability, he or she must be judicious in framing questions while concomitantly concealing the true focus of intelligence interest. One productive approach is to concentrate initially on areas that do not appear to provoke concern, and therefore resistance, on the part of the source. This requires shrewd questioning by the interrogator. In essence, shrewd questioning demands that the interrogator carefully consider the possible range of answers and responses (emotional and/or psychological) a question may elicit before it is asked, and selectively postpone asking the most provocative questions until later in the process.
Posing potentially provocative questions in the course of developing rapport/ accord with a source (or doing so too quickly after such an operational relationship has been established) can seriously — and at times irreversibly — undermine that cooperative relationship. In addition, drawing upon Cialdini’s concept of the consistency principle,61 it is important to avoid creating a situation where the source has the opportunity to formally assume a resistance posture either by word or deed. If allowed to do so, Cialdini’s research would suggest that the source might be under additional self-induced pressure to remain consistent in his or her defiance.62
Capturing the Advantages of Technology: Monitoring Interrogations
Arrangements are usually made to record the interrogation, transmit it to another room, or do both. Most experienced interrogators do not like to take notes. Not being saddled with this chore leaves them free to concentrate on what sources say, how they say it, and what else they do while talking or listening. Another reason for avoiding note-taking is that it distracts and sometimes worries the interrogatee. In the course of several sessions conducted without note-taking, the subject is likely to fall into the comfortable illusion that he is not talking for the record.63
60 KUBARK, 44.
61 The consistency principle suggests that if individuals make an expressed commitment — by
word or by action — toward a goal or idea, they are more likely to honor that commitment.
62 Cialdini, 57–113.
63 KUBARK, 46.
   112

                The fundamental objective of an interrogation is to collect useful information, and that information must be recorded in a manner that will ensure it can be faithfully incorporated in formal reporting. In a bygone era, taking notes was the only realistic option. The information age, however, which makes an astonishing array of technical devices available to surreptitiously capture the sounds and images of an interrogation, presents the interrogator with a host of attractive options that yield significant operational benefits.
As noted above, the simple act of taking notes provides the source with a graphic reminder of the interrogator’s primary goal — the collection of actionable intelligence — despite the well-orchestrated approaches designed to disguise that intent. In addition, when the interrogator appears to make note only of exchanges pertaining to certain topics, this not only transmits to the source an indicator of what is important to the interrogator, but also strongly hints at what the interrogator does and does not know.
There are myriad reasons to employ monitoring, audiovisual recording, and transcription technology to relieve the interrogator of this counter-productive burden, from the ability to accurately capture the information provided by the source to the opportunity to carefully analyze the source’s behavioral cues, to providing a visual record of events to guard against the mistreatment of prisoners (and unfounded allegations of prisoner abuse). In contrast, there is really no compelling reason for interrogators not to avail themselves of this advantage (where available). The promise of technology, in the form of field-deployable recording equipment and well-designed, well-equipped, long-term interrogation facilities, should be expeditiously embraced. The return on investment would likely be extraordinary.
  113

                The Dual Nature of Interrogation
Once questioning starts, the interrogator is called upon to function at two levels. He is trying to do two seemingly contradictory things at once: achieve rapport with the subject but remain an essentially detached observer. Or he may project himself to the resistant interrogatee as powerful and ominous (in order to eradicate resistance and create the necessary conditions for rapport) while remaining wholly uncommitted at the deeper level, noting the significance of the subject’s reactions and the effectiveness of his own performance. Poor interrogators often confuse this bi-level functioning with role-playing, but there is a vital difference. The interrogator who merely pretends, in his surface performance, to feel a given emotion or to hold a given attitude toward the source is likely to be unconvincing; the source quickly senses the deception.64
Once again, the KUBARK manual eloquently captures the essence of the internal dynamic of the accomplished interrogator. Reaching this state of almost unconscious competence requires a consistent regimen of training, experience, reflection, and peer review that can take years.
A likely factor driving the progressive “dumbing down” of interrogation and interrogation training in the United States has been the ubiquitous treatment of the craft in movies and Hollywood. Viewers are treated to endless examples of the calculating, quick-witted interrogator who can rapidly assess the vulnerabilities of the source/prisoner and instantaneously devise and orchestrate an approach that almost immediately leverages compliance. Of course, what the viewer does not see (or, therefore, remember) is that these five-minute long vignettes are carefully scripted and repeatedly rehearsed. The actors do not deal with a constant chain of unknowns, nor are they asked to remain joined in the intense interpersonal exchange for hours, perhaps days, on end. It is critical that this artificial and often unrealistic view of interrogation not be allowed to influence doctrine for the real world.
Pressures and the Non-Coercive Interrogation Model
The term non-coercive is used...to denote methods of interrogation that are not based upon the coercion of an unwilling subject through the employment of superior force originating outside himself. However, the non-coercive interrogation is not conducted without pressure. On the contrary, the goal is to generate maximum pressure, or at least as much as is needed to induce compliance. The difference is that the pressure is
 64 KUBARK, 48.
  114

                generated inside the interrogatee. His resistance sapped, his urge to yield is fortified, until in the end he defeats himself.65
The concept of “pressure” is an elusive one to capture in a manner that wins universal acceptance. For this reason, the term itself has played a significant, if misunderstood role with respect to allegations of prisoner mistreatment. This can be illustrated in the following recurring scenario:
A senior commander, whose forces have engaged a challenging insurgent adversary, rightfully seeks to gain every available advantage, including that possible through timely and tailored intelligence gathered from recently captured detainees. Interrogators, diligently employing the U.S. Army tactical interrogation model—one designed for a more conventional military paradigm—encounter difficulties in obtaining the desired intelligence information from suspected terrorists, captured insurgents, and other high-value detainees. In this highly charged environment, commanders direct interrogators to “increase the pressure” on the prisoners without additional guidance as to how that order might be acted upon. Operating without advanced training in the needed interrogation tradecraft and lacking guidance from doctrine tailored to the circumstances, some interrogators (the majority of whom are young and relatively inexperienced) interpret the order to
“increase the pressure” as meaning anything from extending the length of interrogations to pushing (and at times exceeding) the envelope of accepted methods. In a small number of cases, it is interpreted as meaning increased physicality.
In the context of an interrogation, myriad environmental factors may generate pressure (i.e., stress) within an individual. At the same time, it is important — and the KUBARK manual suggests — not to overlook the influence of the source’s self-induced pressures. For the purposes of this paper, self-induced pressures will be defined as those resulting from an individual’s interpretation of, and chosen response to, events, both real and imagined. Understanding this dynamic, the challenge for the interrogator is to skillfully (and carefully) manage the level of pressure in a manner that moves the interrogation toward its established objectives.
Nonetheless, pressure is an exceedingly difficult quality to measure accurately, especially on the exclusive basis of external observation. Additional degrees of difficulty are introduced by the cultural and linguistic barriers that are almost always present in an interrogation setting, individual responses to pressure, current levels of physical and emotional health, and time held in detention. Given this complex matrix, interrogators find themselves walking a very fine line,
 65 KUBARK, 52.
  115

                seeking to induce sufficient pressure to obtain the desired level of cooperation and compliance, but not so much pressure as to violate international convention or cause a sudden and/or severe emotional or psychological breakdown on the part of the source.
If the application and management of pressure are inherent components of the interrogation process, interrogators require a far more sophisticated understanding of the dynamics involved and more useful methods for accurately identifying and measuring that pressure. Cross-cultural studies are of great interest in this regard as an interrogator must, at the very least, appreciate the culturally based pressures a given source will likely encounter as he or she decides whether to cooperate or resist.
Deconstructing Resistance
Most resistant interrogatees block off access to significant [intelligence] in their possession for one or more of four reasons. The first is a specific negative reaction to the interrogator...The second cause is that some sources are resistant “by nature”— i.e., by early conditioning — to any compliance with authority. The third is that the subject believes that the information sought will be damaging or incriminating for him personally, that cooperation with the interrogator will have consequences more painful for him than the results of non-cooperation. The fourth is ideological resistance. The source has identified himself with a cause, a political movement or organization...Regardless of his attitude toward the interrogator, his own personality, and his fears for the future, the person who is deeply devoted to a hostile cause will ordinarily prove strongly resistant under interrogation.66
“If you know your enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. But, if you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.” This timeless observation from the renowned strategist Sun Tzu is as true in the interrogation room as it is on the battlefield. An interrogator acting upon this counsel would be reasonably expected to spend considerable time in identifying and deconstructing the source’s resistant posture and strategies. Unfortunately, current interrogation training — and thus the subsequent interrogation processes employed in the field — fail to invest sufficient time and energy in this important area.
Sales professionals and clandestine case officers are well-schooled in identifying areas of resistance and quickly designing a strategy for overcoming that resistance. The interrogator must be similarly skilled. And while resistance
 66 KUBARK, 53–54.
  116

                may be driven by intra- and/or interpersonal factors (one of the challenges of assessment addressed previously), there are two other key areas to consider.
The KUBARK manual correctly notes the substantial role ideological affiliation and commitment can play in a source’s resistance posture. In some instances (e.g., Al Qaeda), the source may be a product of years of fundamentalist religious schooling (e.g., the madrassas), where intense, rote learning has filled students’ minds with selected passages from spiritual texts. In the course of this training, they have embraced the “belief” that their cause is divinely inspired (which can place the interrogator on the side of “evil”). The inability to deconstruct this resistance posture remains a major hurdle in the current war on terrorism. The development of a useful counterstrategy will need to be informed by a solid understanding of the target cultures, ideologies, and languages to be relevant and effective.67
While much of the resistance posed by sources is ad hoc in nature, one cannot overlook the role of formalized resistance training. As the so-called Al Qaeda Manual attests, that organization has compiled a systematic resistance strategy for employment by operatives taken into custody.68 The impact of this training is revealed in certain consistencies in the behaviors of detainees at Guantanamo Bay that suggest the use of resistance strategies (e.g., claims of abuse, repetitive recitations of religious passages, etc.). Even then, the challenge for interrogators is not inconsequential. First, interrogators must confirm that a source is actually employing a systematic resistance strategy. Second, they must identify the components of that strategy. Finally, they must devise an effective counterstrategy.
To address the concept of resistance meaningfully requires a broad array of subject matter experts. Behavioral scientists can assist in developing methods for identifying personality-driven factors. Cultural, political, and theological experts are needed to better understand the significant environmental components in play. Accomplished linguists might assist in clarifying where apparent resistance might actually be the result of misunderstood questions (or answers). SERE specialists — experts in designing and teaching resistance strategies — would be an invaluable resource in helping to recognize, confirm, and deconstruct the resistance strategies encountered by interrogators. Finally, it might require this wealth of resources to correctly assess if a source’s failure to answer a pertinent question is the result of defiance or poor knowledgeability.
67 In the author’s recent discussion of this challenging scenario with a SERE psychologist, there emerged the novel idea of applying deprogramming methods used in the U.S. and abroad to help
“rescue” individuals from the destructive influence of religious cults.
68 A document described as an Al Qaeda training manual was discovered by the
Manchester (England) Metropolitan Police Department in the course of a raid on the home of a suspected Al Qaeda operative. The manual was located on a computer hard drive found at the site, in a file labeled “the military series” relating to the “Declaration of Jihad.” (Source: http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/manualpart1_1.pdf )
   117

                Nonverbal Communication
Human beings communicate a great deal by non-verbal means. Skilled interrogators, for example, listen closely to voices and learn a great deal from them. An interrogation is not merely a verbal performance; it is a vocal performance, and the voice projects tension, fear, a dislike of certain topics, and other useful pieces of information. It is also helpful to watch the subject’s mouth, which is as a rule much more revealing than his eyes. Gestures and postures tell a story. If a subject normally gesticulates broadly at times and is at other times physically relaxed but at some point sits stiffly motionless, his posture is likely to be the physical image of his mental tension. The interrogator should make a mental note of the topic that caused such a reaction.69
The role of nonverbal cues in the communication process is almost universally recognized. Some researchers (Mehrabian, 1971) have suggested that as much as 90% of communication is transmitted via nonverbal channels (i.e., gestures, vocal modalities, etc.). At the same time, the underlying meaning of specific physical gestures and vocal qualities seems subject to passionate debate. Crossing his arms means he is closed and defiant! Her posture of leaning forward indicates she is listening and engaged in the idea being presented to her. While the social science literature is filled with numerous — and often conflicting — studies on nonverbal communication, professionals who work in the interpersonal context (e.g., counselors, salespersons, interrogators, etc.) often rely heavily upon their understanding of nonverbal behavior to complete their work.
At a fundamental level, the process of “reading” body language is not unlike that used in a polygraph examination. The critical first step is to establish a baseline for the person being examined. Just as people show individual variation in blood pressure and heart rate, people similarly exhibit dramatically different gestures and voice inflections to supplement their verbal communications. Familial, regional, and cultural background can have a significant influence on an individual’s repertoire of nonverbal behaviors. At the same time, some researchers, most notably Desmond Morris, suggest there are a number of gestures that consistently communicate the same message across cultural and linguistic boundaries.70
Parallel Worlds: Inside and Outside the Interrogation Room
The history of interrogation is full of confessions and other self- incriminations that were in essence the result of a substitution of the interrogation world for the world outside. In other words,
69 KUBARK, 54–55.
70 See, for example, Desmond Morris, Manwatching: A Field Guide to Human Behavior (1979) or
Bodytalk: The Meaning of Human Gestures (1995).
   118

                as the sights and sounds of an outside world fade away, its significance for the interrogatee tends to do likewise. That world is replaced by the interrogation room, its two occupants, and the dynamic relationship between them. As [the] interrogation goes on, the subject tends increasingly to divulge or withhold in accordance with the values of the interrogation world rather than those of the outside world.71
Inside the interrogation room, the principals (interrogator and source) maneuver through two primary, interdependent spheres: the physical setting and the psychological set. While the source can only realistically influence the latter, the skillful interrogator can actively manipulate both of these elements in a manner designed to achieve the overarching goal of obtaining source compliance. In the effort to induce the source to respond meaningfully to pertinent questions, the underlying strategy set forth in the KUBARK manual is systematically to separate the source from anchors of the “outside world” and reset the operative value system to those of the “interrogation world.”
Perhaps the most important understanding for the interrogator to draw from this concept is that forecasting events within the interrogation world is problematic if the prediction is based on trends in the outside world. One excellent example of this conundrum is provided by Orrin DeForest’s experience during the Vietnam War. Common sense would deem it unlikely that a prisoner would willingly complete a written psychological examination (especially one that would subsequently be used in formulating an effective means of exploiting that prisoner). Yet that is precisely what repeatedly occurred.
This opens up tremendous possibilities for creativity on the part of the interrogator. Employing Cialdini’s principle of social proof, for example, the interrogator could convince the source that every one of his co-detainees has cooperated fully with the interrogator (who, operating under the rules of the interrogation world, can assume the persona of the helpful interviewer). Even though experience in the outside world tells the source that his colleagues were disciplined soldiers committed to the cause, as the outside world “fades away” so does his confidence in the assumptions made there.
The most important point to be made in this observation is that the truth of the interrogation room can range widely from that of the outside world. Those involved in the quest for new and better strategies for educing information must remain ever cognizant of this unique phenomenon.
Reconnaissance: Maintaining an Outcome-Orientation
Two dangers are especially likely to appear during the reconnaissance. Up to this point, the interrogator has not continued a line of questioning when resistance was
 71 KUBARK, 57–58.
  119

                encountered. Now, however, he does so, and rapport may be strained. Some interrogatees will take this change personally and tend to personalize the conflict. The interrogator should resist this tendency. If he succumbs to it, and becomes engaged in a battle of wits, he may not be able to accomplish the task at hand. The second temptation to avoid is the natural inclination to resort prematurely to ruses and coercive techniques in order to settle the matter then and there. The basic purpose of the reconnaissance is to determine the kind and degree of pressure that will be needed in the third stage. The interrogator should reserve his fire-power until he knows what he is up against.72
This passage suggests two very important guidelines for the interrogator. First, the approach to any source must be measured, systematic, and always outcome- oriented. What this means is that the interrogator should understand the phased nature of interrogation, that “victories” sought early can result in later “failures,” and that — and this is of critical importance — one’s ego should be checked at the door. The outcome-oriented approach facilitates a more reasoned, objective interrogation process, with the goal of obtaining actionable intelligence being primary. In contrast, how the source ultimately views the interrogator (e.g., as omnipotent, incompetent, clever, a genius, a dunce, etc.) is of little long-term importance.
The second point refers back to the observations on the dual nature of interrogation. The interrogator must constantly manage the internal-external reference dynamic in a manner that best supports the approach(es) being employed. The interrogator is present, interacting with the source, and appears to respond (believably so) in appropriate ways to the unfolding events. At the same time, the interrogator checks his or her natural emotional responses (e.g., sympathetic feelings for the source’s plight, anger at the source’s insults, etc.) and replaces them with fabricated responses — accompanied by nonverbal cues consistent with the response — that move the interrogation process toward the desired outcome.
As noted earlier, SERE instructors are required to complete a psychological examination and interview prior to working directly with students in resistance role-play exercises. The objective is to screen out those who appear to present a significant potential for abusing their authority. Psychological screening for interrogators might incorporate a similar filtering mechanism that would, for example, attempt to screen out candidates who demonstrate low levels of self- control. Although the now-famous Zimbardo experiment has shown that even apparently healthy, stable individuals can succumb to the authoritarian influence of power, this should not stand in the way of further research to identify personality traits, belief systems, and/or values that might enable an organization
 72 KUBARK, 60.
  120

                to reliably filter out those individuals with the highest probability of acting out inappropriately (i.e., abusively, violently, etc.) in the interrogation room.
In sum, the interrogation process can be an emotionally charged, high-intensity activity that requires a considerable degree of self-control — accompanied by strategic thought and action — on the part of the interrogator. The unique challenges set before the interrogator strongly underscore the importance of 1) a systematic screening and selection process, 2) comprehensive initial and ongoing training, and 3) continuous assessment of the interrogator (including a self- assessment) as well as that of the team.
Question Design: Tools of the Trade
Debriefing questions should usually be couched to provoke a positive answer and should be specific. The questioner should not accept a blanket negative without probing. For example, the question “Do you know anything about Plant X?”is likelier to draw a negative answer than, “Do you have any friends who work at Plant X?”or “Can you describe its interior?”73
Planning, preparation, approaches, rapport-building, detection of deception, and subject matter expertise are all key elements of the overall interrogation process. In a real sense, however, each of these is but a supporting player to the art of effective questioning. Going back to the fundamental definition of interrogation set forth previously (“it consists of no more than obtaining needed information through responses to questions”), it becomes readily apparent that the entire effort hinges upon the ability of the interrogator to methodically ask meaningful questions of the source.
Of all the skills required of the accomplished interrogator, none is more important than mastery of interrogatives. Rudyard Kipling went straight to the heart of the matter when he observed, “I kept six honest serving-men (they taught me all I knew); their names are what and why and when and how and where and who.”74 These six questions provide the basic tools of the trade that can enable the skilled interrogator to expertly probe a source’s knowledge with laser-like precision while adroitly disguising intent.
Research in the social sciences, communication theory, and linguistics has uncovered a number of useful understandings about the potential power of well- designed questions that could have immediate application in interrogation. Subtle changes in syntax, for example, have shown to greatly enhance the persuasive power of a given question (Davis and Knowles, 1999). Additional study is required to assess the effect of such questioning techniques through the cross- cultural filter.
73 KUBARK, 62.
74 From Rudyard Kipling’s Just So Stories.
   121

                Veracity vs. Knowledgeability
It is important to determine whether the subject’s knowledge of any topic was acquired first hand, learned indirectly, or represents merely an assumption. If the information was obtained indirectly, the identities of sub-sources and related information about the channel are needed. If statements rest on assumptions, the facts upon which the conclusions are based are necessary to the evaluation.75
One of the weaknesses attributed specifically to human intelligence (and especially to interrogation) is the questionable reliability of the information provided by a source. “Prisoners often lie!” is the oft-repeated mantra chanted by those who have ardently embraced the technical side of intelligence gathering (while overlooking the numerous examples of how camouflage, concealment, and deception or spoofing have successfully fooled imagery and signals intelligence analysts, respectively). Nonetheless, reliability is a critical factor in the human intelligence equation.
Simply stated, source reliability can be broken down into two categories: veracity and knowledgeability. Veracity refers to the truthfulness of the source, while knowledgeability refers to the scope of first-hand information a source possesses. Although two fundamentally different concepts, they can, at times, become interwoven.
• A source may tell the interrogator the truth about the topics raised in the course of the interrogation. The source may, however, have a wider range of knowledgeability than he or she has allowed to become known. Essentially, the source has told the truth...just not the whole truth.
• Conversely, a source may tell the interrogator more than he or she really knows. In an effort to secure some real or imagined form of reciprocity from the interrogator, the source speaks truthfully about all he or she knows...and then some. This “extra” may be the product of speculation, imagination, and/or fabrication.
• The end game of deception, then, occurs in two primary ways: 1) the source might purposefully falsify information and/or 2) the source might withhold known information on specific topics. While there are unique dangers inherent in each of these scenarios, both could lead to corrupted data being reported as intelligence information.
In addition to systematic questioning techniques and subject-matter expertise, assessing the veracity and knowledgeability of the source requires that the interrogator have a third critical skill: detecting deception. Scientific (and popular) literature abounds with studies of how, why, and when people deceive. Searching for reliable indicators, researchers have focused on body movements (e.g., micro-
 75 KUBARK, 62.
  122

                expressions), vocal cues (e.g., changes in pitch), verbal errors (e.g., so-called Freudian slips), language patterns (e.g., repeating the question), and measurable changes in physiological processes (e.g., polygraph examination and voice stress analysis). While many individuals — including interrogators — are convinced of their ability to effectively and consistently detect deception, most are unable to clearly describe the set of behaviors that provided that insight. Further, most studies indicate that these individuals’ confidence in their lie-catching ability is not substantiated by performance in controlled conditions.
Although numerous studies have investigated the ability of one individual to reliably identify another’s efforts to deceive, these studies have been conducted almost exclusively in the safe environment of laboratory conditions. For the
“deceiver,” there really are no significant consequences involved if he or she is “caught.” As a result, there is minimal stress involved, yet most theorists suggest that it is stress that causes the psycho-physical changes that, in turn, are manifested
by external cues (e.g., stereotypical grooming behaviors).
The Strategy of Non-Coercive Interrogation
If source resistance is encountered during screening or during the opening or reconnaissance phases of the interrogation, non- coercive methods of sapping opposition and strengthening the tendency to yield and to cooperate may be applied. Although these methods appear here in an approximate order of increasing pressure, it should not be inferred that each is to be tried until the key fits the lock. On the contrary, a large part of the skill and the success of the experienced interrogator lies in his ability to match method to source. The use of unsuccessful techniques will of itself increase the interrogatee’s will and ability to resist.76
The effectiveness of most of the non-coercive techniques depends upon their unsettling effect. The interrogation situation is in itself disturbing to most people encountering it for the first time. The aim is to enhance this effect, to disrupt radically the familiar emotional and psychological associations of the subject. When this aim is achieved, resistance is seriously impaired.77
The KUBARK manual offers a broad array of useful insights into the interrogation process — insights gleaned from extensive real-world experience. While the coercive approaches are rightfully rejected, it is clear the intelligence officers and behavioral scientists who contributed to this manual spent considerable time studying and reflecting upon their craft. It is up to the current generation of practitioners to sort through this treatise to uncover the invaluable take-aways.
76 KUBARK, 65.
77 KUBARK, 65-66.
   123

                One of those can be found in the above passage. Interrogators must consistently guard against taking actions that will prove counterproductive as the process unfolds. Rather, interrogation must be approached in a systematic fashion, thinking, as a chess master must, several steps ahead of the interrogatee. This is where the aforementioned Law of Requisite Variety comes into play, as the interrogator always maintains at least one more method of obtaining compliance
— be it a new line of questioning, an alternative approach, or a well-crafted ruse (see below) — than the source has means of resisting. But, as the manual states, employing those options in a confused, ill-conceived manner will only “increase the interrogatee’s will and ability to resist.”
The KUBARK manual offers specific techniques (i.e., approaches) for use in a non-coercive interrogation setting. Several of these have potential for application in current intelligence collection operations.
Going Next Door
Occasionally the information needed from a recalcitrant interrogatee is obtainable from a willing source...[t]he labor of extracting the truth from an unwilling interrogatee should be undertaken only if the same information is not more easily obtainable elsewhere....78
One of the fallacies of interrogation — and one that continues to be a significant factor in driving the use of coercive techniques — is the concept that every detainee is a unique, invaluable, and irreplaceable source of intelligence information and therefore must be leveraged into compliance. As with the
“ticking nuclear bomb” scenario so often cited in the debate over just how far U.S. interrogators should go to force a source to cooperate, such instances are extremely rare. Nonetheless, there is almost a default pattern wherein the path of greatest resistance is taken with a recalcitrant source rather than taking the more strategic route of seeking the same information from a more accessible and compliant source.
This common miscue is based on two fundamental errors in judgment. The first is an ego-based error. While persistence is a critical characteristic of many successful interrogators, the most accomplished among them focus their finite resources (e.g., time and energy) on the challenges that present the most attractive risk/gain ratio. After spending sufficient time to establish that the source’s resistance posture will be a significant hurdle, the wise interrogator quickly asks himself/herself, in keeping with the KUBARK manual guidance quoted above,
“Where else can I obtain the information I need?” Such prudent interrogators are not driven by the need to demonstrate their skill in overcoming a particular source’s line of resistance; rather, they are driven by the intractable need to obtain the desired information from whatever source is liable to offer it up.
 78 KUBARK, 66.
  124

                Second, there is the tactical error of assuming that a source’s level of resistance is directly correlated with his level of knowledgeability. While common sense might suggest a logic inherent in this assumption, reality will quickly correct it. Resistance is the direct product of several key factors: training, life experience, personality, commitment to a cause, deep-seated feelings about the interrogator and/or his country of origin, and even anger at the manner in which the source has been treated since capture. Any one of these can lead the truck driver to protect the already compromised route he was to drive during an operation more fiercely than a less-motivated nuclear engineer will protect the key to disabling a radioactive dispersal device.79
Nobody Loves You
An interrogatee who is withholding items of no grave consequence to himself may sometimes be persuaded to talk by the simple tactic of pointing out that to date all of the information about his case has come from persons other than himself. The interrogator wants to be fair. He recognizes that some of the denouncers may have been biased or malicious...the source owes it to himself to be sure that the interrogator hears both sides of the story.80
(See observations under next heading.)
Joint Suspects
If two or more interrogation sources are suspected of joint complicity in acts directed against U.S. security, they should be separated immediately. If time permits, it may be a good idea (depending upon the psychological assessment of both) to postpone interrogation for about a week. Any anxious inquiries from either can be met with a knowing grin and some such reply as, “We’ll get to you in due time. There’s no hurry now.”81
The primary difference between these two approaches is that in the first the source is presented with evidence — largely implicit — that other, unnamed, unknown (to the source), and as yet unseen detainees have provided information that reflects negatively upon him, while in the second scenario the interrogator refers directly to damaging information gathered from other detainees known to the source.
Leveraging one source against another is a common police tactic (the central idea of the classic “prisoner’s dilemma”) and is especially useful when dealing
79 A radioactive dispersal device is often referred to in the media and in popular literature as a “dirty bomb.”
80 KUBARK, 67.
81 KUBARK, 70.
   125

                with sources who have limited or no training in resistance strategies. With sufficient validated intelligence supporting him, the interrogator can effectively present information to source A that was allegedly (and plausibly) provided by source B. The wedge thus placed, in conjunction with time and careful orchestration, can be effective in eliciting progressively more information independently from each source.
The All-Seeing Eye
The interrogator who already knows part of the story explains to the source that the purpose of the questioning is not to gain information; the interrogator knows everything already. His real purpose is to test the sincerity (reliability, honor, etc.) of the source. The interrogator then asks a few questions to which he knows the answers. If the subject lies, he is informed firmly and dispassionately that he has lied. By skilled manipulation of the known, the questioner can convince a naïve subject that all his secrets are out and that further resistance would be not only pointless but dangerous.82
Similar to the We Know All approach outlined in U.S. Army Field Manual 34-52, the All-Seeing Eye has proven consistently effective with a broad array of sources.83 While simple in concept, as with other effective approaches, the underlying dynamic can be far more complex. In this instance, two fundamental activities occur to render it effective in obtaining compliance from a resistant source.
First, Cialdini’s authority principle plays an important part in this approach. The source, convinced that the interrogator knows as much as (perhaps more than) he does, sees little to be gained from protecting information of such apparently little value, especially if he anticipates that the consequences of withholding such information are undesirable. Second, recalling the premise that two of the interrogator’s primary objectives are to increase the stress the source internalizes about the consequences of resistance while simultaneously reducing the internalized stress over the prospect of cooperating, this approach systematically targets the latter. By maintaining this approach over time, the interrogator is able to introduce a new and perhaps unexpected factor in the source’s resistance/ cooperation calculus.
Ivan Is a Dope
It may be useful to point out to a hostile [source] that the cover story was ill-contrived, that the other service botched the job,
82 KUBARK, 67.
83 The author refers to this approach as “The Exquisite Ruse,” and has used it with great effect in interrogation operations conducted during Operations JUST CAUSE, DESERT STORM, and IRAQI FREEDOM.
   126

                that it is typical of the other service to ignore the welfare of its agents. The interrogator may personalize this pitch by explaining that he has been impressed by the [source’s] courage and intelligence.84
This approach also leverages the psychological and emotional partition between aforementioned values outside the interrogation room and those inside the interrogation room. By using this approach effectively, the interrogator continues to separate the source from his or her external anchors. In this instance, that anchor is a belief in the parent service’s skill in managing cover to properly protect the source operationally. This has direct application to the interrogation of suspected terrorists, not only as it relates to cover support, but also to the threat briefings, operational planning, and equipment provided to the source by his or her sponsoring organization.
A key element of systematic interrogation is systematic innovation. Rather than assume that the approaches outlined in U.S. Army Field Manual 34-52 are the limit of their repertoire of tactics, interrogators should view those approaches as only the very beginning. The drafters of the KUBARK manual demonstrated the value to be found in the ability to adapt to new challenges, design innovative strategies, identify through practical experience what appears to consistently work well, and share these novel concepts with other interrogators. If a central clearinghouse for new interrogation tactics, techniques, and procedures existed
— a means of capturing and widely disseminating the experience and insights of operators in the field — it is quite probable that the art of interrogation would currently be taught and practiced in a significantly different and far more effective fashion.
 84 85
The Need to Communicate
...continued questioning about lofty topics that the source knows nothing about may pave the way for the extraction of information at lower levels...complaints that he knows nothing of such matters are met by flat insistence that he does know, he would have to know, that even the most stupid men in his position know...after the process has continued long enough, the source was asked a question to which he did know the answer. Numbers of [former] American [POWs] have mentioned “the tremendous feeling of relief you get when [the interrogator] finally asks you something you can answer...I know it seems strange now, but I was positively grateful to them when they switched to a topic I knew something about.”85
KUBARK, 72. KUBARK, 75.
  127

                In yet another example of the many conundrums of the interrogation room, common sense would suggest that sources would find an advantage in being asked questions concerning topics about which they knew little or nothing. Such circumstances do not place them in a position where they felt pressure to deceive (“falsify”) or purposely withhold (“conceal”) information. As reported by U.S. POWs who were subjected to this manner of questioning during the Korean War, however, it often proved true that the inability to answer questions created tremendous pressure and, as the quotation above illustrates, the opportunity finally to address questions within the scope of their experience and knowledgeability proved a welcome relief. The need to communicate is surprisingly powerful, and more powerful still under traumatic circumstances.
Cialdini provides another perspective that may be a relevant factor at play in this approach. In his rejection-then-retreat scenario, when one asks for something difficult (a request that might often be denied) and then asks for something less demanding, the compliance rate for the lesser demand is higher when the demand is preceded by the more difficult demand than when the questions are asked in isolation.86 In the context of interrogation, a source may be reluctant to answer sweeping questions about organizational plans and intentions, but, in contrast, may be less guarded about lower-level details. Although declining to answer questions about strategic-level topics, the source may feel less pressure to keep from answering questions about tactical-level topics.
Taking into account Cialdini’s consistency principle (i.e., people tend to act in a manner consistent with formal, public statements made or positions taken previously),87 this strategy would probably work more effectively when the interrogator asks the strategic-level question, but, sensing hesitation on the part of the source, withdraws it before the source has the chance to resist. If allowed to formally assume a resistance posture, the pressure to remain consistent with that decision may have a greater influence than the relief gained from being able to respond to a question with which the source is more comfortable.
What internal dialogue takes place within a source in response to various approaches? Can Cialdini’s principles of persuasion explain, at least in part, why a given approach elicits compliance from a source? Do certain trends in behavior in the interrogation room prove valid in a sufficient number of cases that they can be routinely employed with a high degree of probability of ultimately proving effective? The review of available literature strongly suggests that these critical questions, and others, have not been satisfactorily addressed with regard to the traditional approaches and other tactics, techniques, and procedures still being employed. The move to the next generation of strategies for educing information depends on research that can uncover the answer to these questions. Once this has been accomplished, ineffective methods can be eliminated from the training curricula and replaced by innovative strategies complete with a valid description of the underlying factors that are essential to success.
86 Cialdini, 36–51.
87 Cialdini, 57–113.
   128

                Alice in Wonderland: The Power of Applied Confusion
The aim of the Alice in Wonderland or confusion technique is to confound the expectations and conditioned reactions of the interrogatee. He is accustomed to a world that makes sense, at least to him: a world of continuity and logic, a predictable world. He clings to this world to reinforce his identity and powers of resistance. The confusion technique is designed not only to obliterate the familiar, but to replace it with the weird...as the process continues, day after day as necessary, the subject begins to try to make sense of the situation, which becomes mentally intolerable...he is likely to make significant admissions, or even to pour out his story.88
SERE psychologists have identified the inability to effectively forecast near-term events as a major stressor in the detention environment. Adults grow accustomed to having a reasonable degree of control over their lives, which enables them to make accurate predictions about basic events such as when they go to sleep, when they wake up, when they eat, and when they use the toilet. In addition, if they find themselves encountering unpleasant circumstances (e.g., an annoying neighbor, a time-wasting work associate, etc.), it is normally within their power to escape those stressful situations at will (or least minimize the time spent engaged with the unattractive individual). In detention, avoidance may not be an option.
The KUBARK principle described in the passage above suggests that an interrogator is able to generate a significant degree of pressure on a source through the purposeful creation of confusing circumstances that effectively remove the source’s ability to make predictions. In effect, the source struggles to find a familiar logic to the chain of events, the nature of the interactions, and purpose of the exchanges with the interrogator. As the struggle proves unsuccessful, the level of stress can dramatically rise to an exceptionally uncomfortable level. According to the KUBARK manual, sources may offer up information to the interrogator in an effort to overtly introduce “sense” to their chaotic circumstances. In discussing that information, the source has recaptured a degree of comforting predictability.
From the source’s perspective, the experience of being detained and interrogated would seem to have inherent elements of disorder and ambiguity. The effect this has on a given source (negative or positive) would appear, then, to be directly correlated with each source’s need for order and level of comfort/ discomfort with ambiguity. While the literature on Communist methods of interrogation frequently references the value of confusion in obtaining compliance, it is less clear as it applies to obtaining relevant, accurate information. Perhaps additional study is warranted on the effects of confusion as well as a means for rapidly assessing a source’s tolerance for disorder and ambiguity.
 88 KUBARK, 76.
  129

                The Regression Factor: The Fundamental Objective of Coercive Methodology
All coercive techniques are designed to induce regression...the result of external pressures of sufficient intensity is the loss of those defenses most recently acquired by civilized man: “the capacity to carry out the highest creative activities, to meet new, challenging, and complex situations, to deal with trying interpersonal relations, and to cope with repeated frustrations. Relatively small degrees of homeostatic derangements, fatigue, pain, sleep loss, or anxiety may impair these functions.” As a result, “most people who are exposed to coercive procedures will talk and usually reveal some information that they might not have revealed otherwise.”89
The deprivation of stimuli induces regression by depriving the subject’s mind of contact with an outer world and thus forcing it in upon itself. At the same time, the calculated provision of stimuli during interrogation tends to make the regressed subject view the interrogator as a father-figure. The result, normally, is a strengthening of the subject’s tendencies toward compliance.90
Listening to the post-9/11 debate over guidelines for the interrogation of terrorist suspects, one could easily conclude that coercive methods are not only effective, but also substantially more effective than non-coercive methods in obtaining actionable intelligence from resistant sources. Even those opposed to the use of coercive methods fail to challenge this premise, exclusively focusing their arguments instead on the legal and moral issues at stake.
Those issues aside, from a geopolitical perspective alone, a judicious risk/gain assessment of this course of action is of critical importance, as the consequences are considerable. This was dramatically illustrated by the anti-
American demonstrations throughout the Muslim world in response to revelations of the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Ironically, while those risks are not exceptionally difficult to ascertain, the potential for gain is arguably problematic since the scientific community has never established that coercive interrogation methods are an effective means of obtaining reliable intelligence information. In essence, there seems to be an unsubstantiated assumption that “compliance” carries the same connotation as “meaningful cooperation” (i.e., a source induced to provide accurate, relevant information of potential intelligence value).91
 89 90 91
KUBARK, 83.
KUBARK, 90.
Claims from some members of the operational community as to the alleged effectiveness of
coercive methods in educing meaningful information from resistant sources are, at best, anecdotal in nature and would be, in the author’s view, unlikely to withstand the rigors of sound scientific inquiry.
  130

                The concept of regression appears to be a consistent theme in much of the research conducted on long-term detention and interrogation, a considerable portion of which involved the experiences of U.S. military personnel held prisoner during the Korean conflict. The psychologist Martin Orne, writing in 1961, noted that:
[C]onditions of interrogation are sometimes conducive to a regression on the part of the source. The interrogator can exercise complete control of the source’s physical being
— his primitive needs such as elimination, eating, and sleeping, and even bodily postures. He is also in a position
to reward or punish any predetermined activity on the part
of the captive. This tends to create a situation where the individual feels unable to observe any control over himself. This extreme loss of control is handled in a variety of ways, one of which is regression to a childlike state of dependence on and identification with the aggressor...some prisoners adopt a cooperative role because of the need to reassure themselves that they retain some control over their behavior in the coercive situation. Complying “voluntarily” for such cases is less threatening, and may be regarded by them as less shameful, than losing control completely over their actions.92
Assuming for a moment that this regression dynamic accurately describes the underlying process that leads a once-resistant source toward compliance,93 the use of interrogation techniques to bring about regression still raises a number of key questions:
1. What precise means are required to obtain this end?
2. What are the overarching management and operational requirements for orchestrating such a process?
3. Is the length of time required for the regression to occur reasonable enough to render it a useful method of obtaining time-sensitive intelligence?
4. What are the long-term effects of the regression experience?
5. Are individuals subjected to this condition profoundly changed?
6. Is their emotional and psychological stability significantly harmed such that treatment is required to address — and reverse — the condition?
7. What are the legal and moral issues involved?
 92
93 Two additional important points with respect to regression warrant further comment. First, a given individual’s response to circumstances designed specifically to cause regression cannot be reliably predicted in advance. Second, regression in general receives far less professional acceptance as a psychological concept today than was true in the 1950–1960 timeframe.
Martin T. Orne, “The Potential Uses of Hypnosis in Interrogation,” in The Manipulation of Human Behavior, ed. Albert D. Biderman and Herbert Zimmer (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1961), 206. Hereafter referred to as The Manipulation of Human Behavior.
  131

                8. How would the revelation of this form of interrogation be received by various audiences, domestic and foreign?
9. Would the use of coercive methods — real or alleged — have an impact on the treatment of U.S. personnel held captive in adversarial hands?
10. Would the use of forced regression as a sanctioned method of exploitation be viewed as being consistent with long-standing U.S. values and military traditions?
11. The above considerations notwithstanding, does the use of regression consistently produce reliable, actionable intelligence information?
In The Manipulation of Human Behavior, Biderman decried the fact that, in 1961, the “dearth of sober information on interrogation has had the unfortunate consequence of facilitating the exploitation of United States prisoners of war by Communist captors.”94 While he was specifically addressing a research shortfall that undermined training in the resistance to interrogation for U.S. military personnel, the same observation remains essentially true over 40 years later with regard to the paucity of relevant information on effective tactics, techniques, and
procedures for the interrogation of adversarial detainees under U.S. control.
Obstacles to Meaningful Intelligence: The Negative Effects of Coercion
[T]he response to coercion typically contains “at least three important elements: debility, dependency, and dread.”95
“[A]mong the American POWs pressured by the Chinese Communists, the DDD syndrome in its full-blown form constituted a state of discomfort that was well-nigh intolerable.” If the debility-dependency-dread state is unduly prolonged, however, the [source] may sink into a defensive apathy from which it is hard to arouse him.96
Psychologists and others who write about physical or psychological duress frequently object that under sufficient pressure subjects usually yield but that their ability to recall and communicate information accurately is as impaired as the will to resist.97
...a strong fear of anything vague or unknown induces regression, whereas the materialization of the fear, the infliction of some form of punishment, is likely to come as a relief. The subject finds that he can hold out, and his resistances are strengthened.
94 Albert Biderman, “Introduction – Manipulations of Human Behavior,” in The Manipulation of Human Behavior, 4.
95 KUBARK, 83.
96 KUBARK, 84.
97 KUBARK, 84.
   132

                In general, direct physical brutality creates only resentment, hostility, and further defiance.98
As these passages from the KUBARK manual suggest, the very means by which coercive methods undermine the source’s resistance posture may also concomitantly degrade his ability to report the intelligence information they possess in a valid, comprehensive fashion. There would, then, appear to be a very fine line that the interrogator would need to walk deftly as he uses sufficient force to cause the source to yield to questioning, but not so much as to impede the source’s ability to answer those questions meaningfully.
In examining this complex issue, it is important to keep clearly in mind that interrogations take place in real-world settings, without the controls available in the safety of the institutional research environment. Managing levels of internalized pressure experienced by a source subjected to coercive means is most definitely neither a science nor a precise art. The pressure interrogators and overseers would seek to measure is an elusive entity, one that can only be gauged by highly subjective standards. Levels of pressure introduced by coercive methods, as with torture in general, are often in the eye of the beholder as illustrated in the following passage from Phoenix and the Birds of Prey, an account of Operation Phoenix, conducted during the Vietnam War:
Some people define torture as the infliction of severe physical pain on a defenseless person. I define torture as the infliction of any pain on a defenseless individual because deciding which activities inflict severe pain is an excessively complicated and imprecise business. (Original italics)99
The KUBARK manual offers unique and exceptional insights into the complex challenges of educing information from a resistant source through non- coercive means. While it addresses the use of coercive methods, it also describes how those methods may prove ultimately counterproductive. Although criticized for its discussion of coercion, the KUBARK manual does not portray coercive methods as a necessary — or even viable — means of effectively educing information.
Shock of Capture: A Strategic Inflection Point in an Interrogation
 98 99 100
The manner and timing of arrest can contribute substantially to the interrogator’s purposes. “What we aim to do is to ensure that the manner of arrest achieves, if possible, surprise, and the maximum amount of mental discomfort in order to catch the suspect off balance and to deprive him of the initiative.”100
KUBARK, 90–91.
Mark Moyer, Phoenix and the Birds of Prey (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1997), 90.
KUBARK, 85.
  133

                According to the tactical interrogation model, a source should be questioned as soon as possible after capture to obtain time-perishable intelligence information. In the strategic interrogation model, the importance of the time component has less to do with the nature of the intelligence sought than with exploiting a unique window of vulnerability in the detention experience.
Only a small percentage of military personnel, and a much smaller percentage of terrorists and insurgents, have been exposed to resistance training that includes the stress-inoculation of intensive practical exercises. As a result, the trauma and the perceived chaos of capture — the so-called “shock of capture” — and initial detention will likely prove profoundly unsettling and cause detainees to do and say things against their interest that, upon reflection under more stable circumstances, they would not do or say. In most instances, newly captured detainees expect the worst in terms of treatment at the hands of the enemy and only later draw strength from the realization that they will not be killed or brutally tortured. By exploiting this initial period of overwhelming confusion, the well-trained and prepared interrogator may be able to obtain useful information through the immediate questioning of a source.
The shock of capture phenomenon is not necessarily limited to the initial point of detention. Every time the detainee is transferred to new surroundings — a new cell, a different wing of the current holding facility, or an entirely new facility
— a measure of shock of capture will likely occur. The detainee can be presented with a strange setting, a different routine, new guards, and a fresh interrogator. The rules of engagement in effect at the previous place of confinement may no longer apply in the new facility. The trauma born of confusion, ambiguity, and negative expectations can produce a new period of capture shock that an interrogator can strategically exploit.
A creative and often effective strategy for profiting from the shock of capture phenomenon is to use a dislocation of expectations approach. For example, anticipating mistreatment in the hands of the “infidels,” the detainee may steel himself for the worst, preparing mentally to respond to harsh approaches, abusive language, and a blatant disregard for personal and cultural preferences. With such hardened expectations, the detainee may be ill prepared to encounter someone who affords him better treatment and demonstrates an impressive understanding of his culture and language. Without a clear strategy at the ready for resisting this unexpected turn of events, the source may find himself — similar to the situation described above — responding to questions that he might choose to ignore or outright refuse to answer later on.
Interrogation is both an art and a science, with the proportion attributed to each difficult to determine precisely. In many instances, a “principle” of interrogation (i.e., a concept or method that has proven consistently applicable in a variety of circumstances) may have an equally true obverse. The KUBARK manual emphasizes the importance of conducting early “reconnaissance” of a source: screening and initial interrogation sessions designed exclusively to assess personality, to identify strengths, and to probe for weaknesses. Only after this has
  134

                been accomplished would the interrogator begin the formal examination process. Such an approach has often proven effective.
The shock of capture phenomenon, by contrast, suggests that there are instances where a brief window of opportunity presents itself for the interrogator to question the source with little or no preliminary assessment. This approach has also proven effective.
Which method is better? If research were able to provide a valid answer, or to point to a protocol that could assist an interrogator in making the correct call on a consistent basis, this would then become an element of the overall interrogation process that could be moved from the category of “art” to “science.” Until then, the selection of an approach for dealing with newly detained sources remains not unlike the artist’s selection of paint from a palette filled with an array of attractive hues...the appropriateness of the selection largely reflects the talent of the artist.
The Challenge of Apathy
Little is gained if confinement merely replaces one routine
with another. Prisoners who lead monotonously unvaried lives “cease to care about their utterances, dress, and cleanliness. They become dulled, apathetic, and depressed.” And apathy
can be a very effective defense against interrogation.101
Little is known about the duration of confinement calculated to make a subject shift from anxiety, coupled with a desire for sensory stimuli and human companionship, to a passive, apathetic acceptance of isolation and ultimate pleasure in the negative state. Undoubtedly, the rate of change is determined almost entirely by the psychological characteristics of the individual.102
Once again, this observation demonstrates the unique challenge of source management: a challenge made even more complex by the introduction of coercive measures. Perhaps the principle to be drawn here is that the interrogator may use the advantage of physical setting (i.e., confinement, routine, movement) to his advantage...but only to a point. The prolonged effort to influence psychological set by controlling the physical setting can quickly and unexpectedly become counterproductive when, as in the scenario cited above, the source’s routine existence and distant hope of release cause him to view his circumstances — and his life, his future, and the prospects for change — with apathy.
This brings up a larger point about the fundamental nature of interrogation as either a “push” or “pull” (“control” or “rapport”) phenomenon. In the former, the
101 KUBARK, 86.
102 KUBARK, 87.
   135

                interrogator seeks to use his control advantages to introduce external, “moving away” pressure on the source to comply. For example, the interrogator can place the source in isolation; establish mind-numbing routine or constant, unsettling change in the source’s daily activities; or introduce physicality into the interaction. The myriad forms of coercive methods essentially attempt to obtain capitulation in this manner.
By contrast, the “pull” approach views interrogation as not unlike a recruitment. The interrogator, having invested sufficient time in assessing the source’s personality and — most important — that which the source values, seeks to introduce internal, “moving toward” pressure. When this is deftly accomplished, the interrogator presents the source with an attractive goal (i.e., freedom, better treatment, communication with family) that appears to be within the source’s sphere of influence through cooperative behavior. In essence, the source comes to recognize — through implicit or explicit communication from the interrogator — that the source’s actions can achieve these goals. For the interrogator, the challenge is to ensure that the path to the source’s objectives will lead directly through the accomplishment of the interrogator’s own objectives. In a recruitment, this might mean that to achieve the source’s goal (e.g., removing the autocratic regime currently ruling his country, sending his children to college in the United States, etc.), the source would need to help the case officer by agreeing to serve as an agent reporting on specific targets of intelligence interest. In an interrogation, the line between the source and his or her goal (e.g., early release) runs directly through the interrogator’s objective (i.e., actionable intelligence on priority information requirements).
While a dearth of evidence exists regarding the efficacy of either the “push” or “pull” model of interrogation, there are two important considerations, one relating to time intensity and the other to the scope of information. Both approaches are likely to be time-intensive (despite the seemingly popular belief that coercive measures are more likely to produce the desired intelligence in time to resolve the “ticking time-bomb” scenario). But in the best of circumstances, it is anticipated that the control model would obtain information only in direct response to the specific questions posed. In contrast, the “rapport” model is more likely to obtain not only similar kinds of information, but also additional information within the scope of the source’s knowledgeability that was not necessarily addressed by the interrogator. In the former, the source seeks minimal fulfillment of requirements to move away from the pressure of control; in the latter, the source is more prone to provide satisfaction of requirements and additional self-initiated reporting to
enhance rapport...and expedite movement toward objectives.
The Effects of Isolation
“The symptoms most commonly produced by isolation are superstition, intense love of any other living thing, perceiving inanimate objects as alive, hallucinations, and delusions.” The apparent reason for these effects is that a person cut off from external stimuli turns his awareness inward, upon
  136

                himself, and then projects the contents of his own unconscious outwards....103
The stated objective of using isolation in the context of an interrogation is not to inflict punishment, but to leverage the source into compliance, a state in which the source is willing to answer pertinent questions on areas within the scope of the source’s knowledgeability and direct access. Given the following description of interrogation, drawn from U.S. Army Field Manual 34-52, Intelligence Interrogation, obtaining source compliance would appear to be a critical step in the overall process.
Interrogation is the process of questioning a source to obtain the maximum amount of usable information. The goal of any interrogation is to obtain reliable information in a lawful manner, in a minimum of time, and to satisfy intelligence requirements of any echelon of command.104 (Emphasis added)
Since holding detainees under specific conditions of isolation for a sufficient period of time appears to produce compliance — the willingness to respond to questioning — and since compliance is a key step in the interrogation process, logic would therefore suggest that isolation would be an effective interrogation technique. The problem arises when one introduces an additional, indispensable element to the concept of compliance. Given that the objective of an interrogation, as set forth in FM 34-52, is to obtain usable and reliable information (and in a lawful manner), compliance means not just the willingness to answer questions, but also the ability.
Hinkle, whose medical studies serve as a major reference cited in the KUBARK manual, raises fundamental questions about the ability of a source subjected to extended isolation to provide meaningful, coherent answers in response to an interrogator’s questions. He observed that “Any attempt to produce compliant behavior by procedures which produce...disturbances of homeostasis, fatigue, sleep deprivation, isolation, discomfort, or disturbing emotional states carries with it the hazard of producing inaccuracy and unreliability.”105 (Emphasis added.)
Much of the Cold War-era research on Communist methods of interrogation sanctioned by the U.S. Government was conducted to obtain a better understanding of, and therefore an enhanced ability to withstand, coercive interrogation methods. Therefore, emphasis on the subject’s vulnerability to compliance-inducing techniques overshadowed the concept of the source’s ability to report information
103 KUBARK, 88.
104 Department of the Army, U.S. Army Intelligence And Interrogation Handbook (Guilford, CT:
The Lyons Press, 2005), 8.
105 Lawrence E. Hinkle, Jr., “The Physiological State of the Interrogation Subject as it Affects Brain Function,” in The Manipulation of Human Behavior, 43.
   137

                reliably.106 Perusing the literature on long-term isolation, one quickly draws the conclusion that the subject experiences profound emotional, psychological, and physical discomfort, and that such abuse would therefore fail to measure up to the standards for the treatment of prisoners as set forth in international accords and U.S. Federal statutes. In this alone, it fails one criterion of interrogation noted in FM 34-52: lawfulness.
From a purely operational perspective, the effects of isolation can truly be a double-edged sword. Isolation, especially in the initial stages of an interrogation, is a fundamental strategy designed to prevent a source from collaborating with other detainees (e.g., coordinating an overarching “story”) as well as from drawing emotional and psychological strength from time spent in the company of associates. This notwithstanding, the literature also suggests that effects of isolation can significantly and negatively impact the ability of the source to recall information accurately. Given that source veracity and the reliability of HUMINT source reporting have long been viewed as problematic within the Intelligence Community, long-term isolation of sources appears unlikely to produce useful data.
The Interrogator’s Checklist
The KUBARK manual sets forth an Interrogator’s Checklist of 50 questions (although several have been deleted for security reasons) that would be exceptionally useful in guiding the interrogator through all phases of the interrogation process. With an uncommon degree of both depth and breadth, the questions are arranged sequentially, enabling the interrogator not only to carefully consider a broad range of complex factors involved in an extended interrogation, but also to evaluate the results of the interrogation objectively. This latter aspect would foster the type of reflection necessary to continually improve knowledge, skills and abilities.
The checklist includes several questions that are particularly noteworthy. It asks the interrogator, for instance, to consider whether the interrogation is even necessary or if the information requirements could be satisfied through other, overt sources (the “Going Next Door” approach cited previously). The checklist reminds the interrogator of the importance of rapport, asking if it has been established properly during the opening phase of the interrogation. If the interrogator anticipates that the source will be resistant, it directs the interrogator’s focus to the source of that resistance (e.g., fear, political convictions, stubbornness, etc.).107
Intelligence analysts have described the changing tactics and strategies employed by terrorists and insurgents as indicative of a learning organization.
106 This is an especially important observation to recall as individuals from the SERE community contribute to the study of educing information from resistant sources. As with the research studies that support them, SERE training and practical exercises focus on issues pertaining to compliance rather than information reporting reliability.
 107 KUBARK, 105–109.
  138

                The U.S. interrogation effort must similarly learn and adapt to the emerging challenges it faces in gathering information from detainees. This checklist can serve as a useful template for building a contemporary version tailored to meet the unique requirements of educing information in response to current and future challenges to the national security interests of the United States.

== Bibliographic Reference==
The KUBARK manual includes an extensive bibliography, including a number of references produced by the notable researchers Biderman and Hinkle. Also included are several military documents pertaining to interrogation developed
at Fort Holabird, the former center for military HUMINT operational training. For security reasons, a number of references have been excised completely (evidenced only by the remaining entry number in the bibliography).
=== Findings ===
A careful examination of the KUBARK manual yields a wealth of potentially valuable concepts that either have the potential for immediate application in the development of a next generation of tactics, techniques, and procedures for educing information or that warrant further study by relevant professionals. While most of these have been identified previously, a few additional observations — some of which cross over two or more of the topics addressed earlier — merit specific comment.
* A theme that recurs in the KUBARK manual is that interrogation is defined both by its intensely interpersonal nature and intractably shaped by the unique personalities of both the interrogator and the source. This observation suggests both an important avenue of research as well as a notable caution. In describing interrogation as an “interpersonal” event, it offers social scientists an important sense of how to approach — at least initially — this complex activity. At the same time, it seems to offer a reminder that, in many important ways, each interrogation is unique and therefore one must be cautious in trying to apply a strategic template that would prove effective in each case.
* Because interrogation is a complex process, practitioners of the art of interrogation require extensive training and progressive, supervised experience to meet current and emerging operational requirements. From the moment of capture, the value of a given source’s knowledgeability begins to degrade as the gap in direct access to the information of intelligence interest widens and memory for detail diminishes. The windows of opportunity to gather information in response to priority intelligence requirements are finite, especially those involving high-value targets. In the course of an interrogation, errors in strategy, approach planning, and actions are in many instances irreversible.
* In seeking to identify an effective protocol for selecting and training a cadre of interrogators who would ultimately be able to perform at this level, the Intelligence Community might derive value from reviewing selection and training models for activities involving similarly intense psycho- physical operations (e.g., sports, martial arts, surgery, psychotherapy, etc.). Consideration might be given to modeling this internal-external reference dynamic as executed by high-performing individuals with the objective of designing methods for developing and enhancing the necessary supporting skills and strategies.
* The study of nonverbal communication highlights a central theme in the Educing Information study: How do we know what we know? Given that the search for timely, accurate, and responsive intelligence information from a source can be easily corrupted by the misreading of a single gesture or voice inflection, the importance of this avenue of research cannot be overstated.