Editing KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation Review: Observations of an Interrogator (section)

== 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.