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

== 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 Counterintelligence Interrogation|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 Counterintelligence Interrogation|KUBARK manual]] recommends that “screening should be conducted by interviewers, not interrogators.”50