This article contains instructions, advice, or how-to content. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to train. Please help improve this article either by rewriting the how-to content or by moving it to Wikiversity or Wikibooks. (June 2009)

HUMINT, a syllabic abbreviation of the words HUMan INTelligence, refers to intelligence gathering by means of interpersonal contact, as opposed to the more technical intelligence gathering disciplines such as SIGINT, IMINT and MASINT. NATO defines HUMINT as "a category of intelligence derived from information collected and provided by human sources."^[1] Typical HUMINT activities consist of interrogations and conversations with persons having access to pertinent information.

Good intelligence management begins with the proper determination of what needs to be known. Unless precise requirements are set, data will be collected unsystematically and the decision maker ultimately left without pertinent information on which to act. Collected data must be evaluated and transformed into a usable form and sometimes stored for future use. Evaluation is essential, because many of the wide variety of sources are of doubtful reliability. A standardized system is used to rate the reliability of sources and the likely accuracy of the information they provide; information may be classified as true once it is confirmed by a number of sources.

The manner in which HUMINT operations are conducted is dictated by both official protocol and the nature of the source of the information. Within the context of the U.S. Military, most HUMINT activity does not involve clandestine activities. Both counter intelligence and HUMINT do include clandestine HUMINT and clandestine HUMINT operational techniques.

Sources may be neutral, friendly, or hostile, and may or may not be witting of their involvement in the collection of information. "Witting" is a term of intelligence art that indicates that one is not only aware of a fact or piece of information, but also aware of its connection to intelligence activities. Examples of HUMINT sources include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Advisors or foreign internal defense (FID) personnel working with host nation (HN) forces or populations
• Diplomatic reporting by accredited diplomats (e.g., military attachés);
• Espionage clandestine reporting, access agents, couriers, cutouts;
• Military attachés
• Non-governmental organizations (NGOs);
• Prisoners of war (POWs) or detainees;
• Refugees;
• Routine patrolling (military police, patrols, etc.)
• Special reconnaissance
  • Traveler debriefing (e.g., CIA Domestic Contact Service)

It is necessary to know the people from whom information is being obtained, and then to obtain it. HUMINT can provide several kinds of information. It can provide observations during travel or other events from travelers, refugees, escaped friendly POWs, etc. It can provide data on things about which the subject has specific knowledge, which can be another human subject, or, in the case of defectors and spies, sensitive information to which they had access. Finally, it can provide information on interpersonal relationships and networks of interest.

HUMINT is both a source of positive intelligence, but also of information of strong counterintelligence value. Interviews should balance any known information requirements of both intelligence collection guidance and of counterintelligence requirements.

Basic HUMINT operations[link]

Human source screening is the logical start of collection of HUMINT. This involves selecting people who may be sources of meaningful HUMINT, possibly positively identifying them, and conducting interviews of various types. Properly recording and cross-indexing the results of interviews is essential. No intelligence collection discipline is more likely to find meaning in apparently small bits of information than is HUMINT. Especially when there is reason to have additional interviews with the same individual, the subsequent interviews need careful planning, especially when the interrogator does not speak the language of the person being interviewed.

Intelligence preparation for working in cultures[link]

As with other intelligence collection disciplines, intelligence analysis can play many supporting roles. An obvious one is biographical intelligence, to help identify known hostile undercover personnel, or individuals who will impartially mislead an assortment of national intelligence services for profit.

Equally important is the broader area of cultural intelligence, which draws heavily on the social sciences. In a book review in the CIA professional journal, Lloyd F. Jordan recognizes two forms of study of culture, both of which are relevant to HUMINT.^[2] In the review, Jordan describes Patai's book^[3] as an excellent example of a second type of cultural analysis. He reviews the first group of scientific analyses of culture and character as beginning with "cultural anthropology as early as the 1920s. During World War II, those methods employed earlier in the academic community in this field of research were brought to bear upon a variety of problems connected with the war effort.

"It was precisely the inaccessibility of the target country and the availability of only fragmentary information about it that made national character research relevant to intelligence analysis during the war. The cultural anthropologists had long been developing models of former and disappearing cultures from fragmentary materials. The anthropologists, joined by the psychiatrists, combined the use of psychoanalytic theory, interaction theory, child development theory, and learning theory with standard anthropological research methods to construct models of the contemporary cultures of wartime enemy countries, Japan and Germany." The classic work of this type is Ruth Benedict's study of Japan, The Chrysanthemum and the Sword.^[4]

Jordan observes that Benedict's approach was the only one in use until the late 1950s. "National character studies" focused on the statistically most significant personality characteristics of the group (i.e., the modal personality), rather than the most common manifestation of the traits. "...modal personality construct[s] tended to be related to the total culture, or at least, its salient features."

The second class of studies, of which Patai's is an exemplar for Arab culture, had a more narrow focus. "...they concentrated on the relationship of personality traits to subsets of a given society or a given category of roles of that society, rather than on the identification of relationships between personality and the social structure as a whole." A third category, the comparative study, included Francis L. K. Hsu's Americans and Chinese.^[5] Indeed, some recent and controversial works, such as Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order can be regarded as an extension of comparative study into the idea of conflicts among the groups compared.^[6]

Basic differentiation by subject type[link]

Different types of human subjects will share information voluntarily or involuntarily. The interrogator builds a relationship with the subject, a relationship that can be based on trust, fear, friendship, or any of a range of human emotions. Prisoners have an understandable fear of what may happen, and, contrary to "tough guy" images, it can be important to relax them and, as much as possible, put them at ease.^[7] Some organizations teach their members that the other side tortures everyone, and, if that is known, that fear must be addressed; Japanese prisoners in WWII often attempted suicide for that reason^[8] but were sometimes dissuaded, as by Guy Gabaldon.

"The question of torture should be disposed of at once. Quite apart from moral and legal considerations, physical torture or extreme mental torture is not an expedient device. Maltreating the subject is from a strictly practical point of view as short-sighted as whipping a horse to his knees before a thirty-mile ride. It is true that almost anyone will eventually talk when subjected to enough physical pressures, but the information obtained in this way is likely to be of little intelligence value and the subject himself rendered unfit for further exploitation. Physical pressure will often yield a confession, true or false, but what an intelligence interrogation seeks is a continuing flow of information."^[7]

Especially when the subject is a prisoner, the screener, who need not be the main interrogator, should examine the Enemy Prisoner of War (EPW) captive tag or other basic information giving the circumstances of capture: when, where, how, by whom, and so forth.^[9] If the subject is not under any restraint, it is still quite useful for a screener to prepare contact information comparable to the information on the EPW tag.

When the subject is a POW, screeners should pay particular attention to rank insignia, condition of uniforms and equipment, and behavior demonstrated by the source. Screeners should look for things like attempts to talk to the guards, intentionally joining placement in the wrong segregation group, or any signs of nervousness, anxiety, or fear. Any source whose appearance or behavior indicates that he is willing to talk should be noted by the screeners.^[9]

Assuming the subject has been under guard, the screener often can get valuable information about the subject's behavior from the guards. They can tell the screener how the source has responded to orders, what requests have been made by the source, what behavior has been demonstrated by the source, and so forth.^[9] Along with the basic contact information, such observations can be extremely helpful to the interrogator, who can study the information before the interview. Having background on the subject helps the interrogator retain the initiative in an interview.

Again for prisoners, screeners should examine the documents captured with the source and any documents pertaining to the source.^[9] If the subject is voluntary and providing documents, they may even be more valuable. Screeners may need to get help from linguists or document specialists in understanding the material. If the documents have insignia or other graphics, these should be compared with an existing graphics register, and added to it if they are new.

Documents captured with the source (identification card, letters, map sections, and so forth) can provide information that identifies the source, his organization, his mission, and other personal background (family, knowledge, experience, and so forth). This information can be used to verify information from documents captured with the source and further assess his willingness to cooperate. When examining documents, screeners should look for items that will indicate whether the source is cooperative or willing to cooperate based on any specific personal interest.

If the source has information pertaining to new foreign material, contact appropriate TECHINT specialists, and if the source has information of target exploitation interest, contact the appropriate staff members who deal with targeting. These specialists are not necessarily qualified interrogators and may need to meet jointly with the subject and interrogator, or pass questions to the interrogator.

Selecting potential sources[link]

It involves evaluating an individual, or group of individuals, "to determine their potential to answer [intelligence] collection requirements or to identify individuals who match a predetermined source profile. The goal of the process is to identify individuals who may have information of interest, and are willing or can be persuaded to cooperate. Willing individuals will undergo debriefing, and, subject to the relevant laws, regulations and policies of the HUMINT organization, unwilling people may be interrogated.

Screening techniques also can select individuals who may be prospects to collect intelligence or work, in other ways, with the HUMINT organization or its sponsor. Individuals may also be identified who are of interest to counterintelligence or to technical intelligence specialists.^[10]

Priorities of subjects for interrogation

It may be necessary to screen individuals in a local area, as residents or possibly workers, to determine if they may be security risks.

Identification[link]

Since the identity of individuals is very relevant to HUMINT, it makes extensive use of biometric data (e.g., fingerprints, iris scans, voice prints, facial/physical features) collected on persons of interest.^[11]

Types of interviews[link]

Often not realized is that either a friendly or hostile subject interview has many of the same dynamics as a psychotherapeutic relationship, although obviously for very different, nontherapeutic reasons. In an extended interrogation session, or series of sessions, if there is dialogue between interrogator and subject, as opposed to a subject remaining silent, there will be dynamics closely related to the psychotherapeutic concept of transference and countertransference. In the former, the subject projects emotional experiences of his own onto the interrogator, and in the latter, the interrogator will start thinking of the subject in terms of his own life experiences.

There are other ways to use social science to understand interviews, in the broad sense of cooperative debriefing and hostile interrogation. Speaking of interrogation in the law enforcement context, "There is a vast literature on interrogation ... but hardly anything on it at all in the field of argumentation theory. There is, of course, a reason for this imbalance. Argumentation theorists have taken as their point of interest rational argumentation in which two parties reason together to try to get at the truth of a matter following collaborative rules of procedure. And the interrogation is scarcely a model of how to conduct balanced rational argumentation. Far from that, it seems to represent a coercive kind of dialogue exchange that is associated with intimidation..."^[12] but a debriefing is not necessarily coercive, and, in some cases, even an interrogation becomes less coercive, if the subject begins to identify with the conceptual framework of the interrogator. The latter can be a false Stockholm syndrome context, or it can be a case where the subject actually sees that his belief system has fallacies, and he may start to share aspects of the interrogator's mindset.

One variant occurred with WWII Japanese prisoners who, perhaps having been captured while unconscious, believe that the shame of capture, in their native culture, permanently separates them from that culture.^[13] If they are unable to commit suicide,^[8] they appeared to see themselves as now part of the interrogator's culture, and became quite cooperative. "...there was one infallible method of convincing a reluctant Japanese prisoner to tell all he knows: to tell him, via interpreters, that they will send his name and picture back to Japan. ... We might note that few Japanese ever attempt to hold anything back. Being taken prisoner is not in their handbooks. No Japanese is ever taken alive. Thus, they are not drilled in the "Name- Rank- Serial No- nothing more" routine. They usually reveal everything easily without any persuasion and seem unhappy when their lack of information does not permit them to answer a specific question. [a captured officer]...doesn't expect to return to Japan ever, has completely excluded his family and his wife from his thinking, and appears pleasantly resigned to going to the States and working there even as a prisoner for the rest of his life."^[13] In argumentative theory, interrogation is a form of information-seeking dialogue, but also can include other kinds of dialogue, such as negotiation. In both police and intelligence interviews, there may be bargaining, where the interrogator offers incentives for the subject to reveal information. The revealed information, especially in a HUMINT context, is not necessarily about the interrogation and also may involve persuasion of the subject to speak.^[12]

Before going on to study the relationship of the interrogation to information seeking dialogue, some account must be given of other types of dialogue related to interrogation as well. For the interrogation has a way of shifting from pure information-seeking to other types of dialogue. As an example, argumentative theory recognizes 'persuasion', in the sense meant in the persuasion dialogue,^[12] with certain strategic interrogations, the interrogator might objectively question some of the practices of the subject's side. This is not done for direct elicitation of information, but to set a new context for further interrogation in which the subject might question some of his own loyalties and assumptions. In the case of the Japanese prisoners of the US, they began to operate in that new context.^[13]

Debriefing[link]

Debriefing involves getting cooperating human sources to satisfy intelligence requirements, consistent with the rules, laws, and policies of the HUMINT organization. People being debriefed are usually willing to cooperate, although it is possible to obtain information through casual conversation. Debriefing may be conducted at all echelons and in all operational environments. While it is usually face-to-face, it can be done by voice, video, or computer messaging.

Types of people being interviewed include both "tasked" and "non-tasked" individuals. Tasked individuals are, in some way, part of the interviewer's organization.

Tasked personnel giving brief reports of the enemy use the SALUTE technique. More formal or extensive debriefing methods are used for obtaining specialized or complex information.

Other than talking to tasked personnel, there is a tendency for some HUMINT collectors to regard debriefing as a waste of time. The approach to a voluntary source needs to be quite different than even to a cooperative prisoner, especially if the interrogator has reason to believe the source is knowledgeable. While a subject may be a volunteer, a refugee or displaced person is likely to have some of the fears and uncertainty undergone by POWs. Active listening and sympathy can pay great benefits, especially in the areas of love of family, and anger at those who made them homeless.

The HUMINT collector should allow specialized or senior sources more latitude to interpose their opinions and evaluations. Prior to the meeting, collectors need to examine all available information, to have an idea of the subject's personality and motivations when beginning to talk to them. It also may require unobtrusive observation of the subject to establish such things as patterns of activity and likes and dislikes. The closer the interview environment can be to the customary surroundings of the subject, the more comfortable and cooperative the source may be.

One example of source that should have latitude are trained foreign internal defense (FID) or unconventional warfare (UW) personnel that work with local residents, or military forces, on a routine basis. Such people may very well themselves have HUMINT and/or CI training; US Special Forces groups have two-man HUMINT/CI teams that can augment operational detachments.

Historically, after the WWII experience of resistance leaders such as the Jedburgh teams, occurred to various commanders that soldiers trained to operate as guerillas would have a strong sense of how to fight guerillas. Even before specialist FID/UW units were constituted, organizations such as Military Assistance Advisory Groups, as in Greece just after WWII, also had extensive local knowledge. Before the partition of French Indochina in 1954, French Groupement de Commandos Mixtes Aéroportés(GCMA) took on this role, drawing on French experience with the Jedburgh teams.^[14] GCMA, operating in Tonkin and Laos under French intelligence, was complemented by Commandos Nord Viêt-Nam in the North. In these missions, the SOF teams lived and fought with the locals.

United States Army Special Forces, U.S. Marine Corps Combined Action Program (CAP) program personnel (originally in Vietnam,^[15] but now in Iraq^[16]) and various training detachments are apt to have valuable and structured information.

In all cases, the more knowledgeable the interrogator is to the volunteer, the better the result is likely to be. A collector does not need to keep the same level as control as in a hostile interrogation. Sometimes, admitting ignorance of a custom, and respectfully asking for explanation, will trigger a flow of information.

While it takes sophistication, the best general approach to willing subjects is a planned elicitation of information, always with a specific goal in mind. The key to elicitation is the establishment of a rapport between the elicitor and the source, normally based on shared interests. In the initial stages of an elicitation, the collector confines his conversations to innocuous subjects such as sports and social commentary. Dependent on the value of the source, the collection environment, and the security consciousness of the subject, the HUMINT specialist will then shift to a more focused topic.

Once in that mode, elicit the information by continuing to ask for clarification, with questions of the form "I agree, however, what did you mean by....?") or expressing a hypothetical situation. The focused discussion can involve mild flattery and interest in the conversation, or, in a much more delicate approach, selectively challenging statements or introducing new information to show knowledge and stimulate more responses.^[10]

Interrogation[link]

As opposed to debriefing, the subject of interrogation is not necessarily cooperating with the obtaining of information by the organization. The subject is normally in custody, although the legal circumstances may be such that an uncooperative subject may be able to leave.

Examples of subjects being interrogated include POWs, individuals detained by patrol as not being from the area, and a thief arrested by the civilian police.

Interrogation is a skilled technique, which often involves building rapport with the subject. In an intelligence context, interrogators should be trained specialists, although they may work with linguists and subject matter experts.^[17]

Regardless of whether the interview is voluntary or involuntary, the interrogator needs to keep the initiative. To keep the initiative, the interrogator may not need to be harsh. Indeed, the many successful interrogators are formally polite within the subject's cultural traditions.^[9] If, in societies with a strong host-guest tradition, the interrogator takes the role of host, that can allow polite domination of the conversation.

The interrogation process itself is a HUMINT collection, not analysis, technique. It may well be that the interrogator, after the interview, does analysis, cross-checking statements made against name indices and "wiring diagrams" of social networks.^[18] The interrogator checks his notes against the finished report to ensure that the report contains and identifies the information as heard, seen, or assumed by the source^[9]

Planning the initial interview[link]

While the actual interview technique will vary with the attitude of the subject and the needs of the interviewer's service, the interrogator should develop a basic plan for the first interview. This might be put into a paper folder along with documents (or copies) associated with the subject, or, if available, it can go into a HUMINT database so other interrogators, analysts, cultural and language specialists, can review it. Reviews can help plan the current interview, or give ideas to other interrogators for other interviews.

The basic elements to collect are:

• Any urgent HUMINT collection requirements
• Serial number of EPW/detainee to be questioned.
• Location and time for the questioning.
• Primary and alternate approaches.
• Questioning plan including topics to be covered and the planned sequence of these topics.
• Prepared questions for unfamiliar or highly technical topics.
• Method of recording and reporting information obtained
• Linguist support, if needed
• Additional general or technical interrogators needed

"The preliminary interview is not intended to obtain intelligence, but only to enable the interrogators to make a firm assessment of the character and type of subject with whom they will have to deal."^[7]

How much psychological pressure to use, how many symbols of dominance are appropriate to use, require great judgment. Some classic interviewing techniques, without threatening the subject, make him uncomfortable, as, for example, having "interrogators - preferably two of them - seated behind a table at the far end of a long room, so that the subject after entering will have some distance to walk before taking his chair in front of them. This device will enable them to observe his poise and manner, and may often quite unsettle the subject. In this pressure-oriented technique, the interrogators should sit with their backs to the main source of light in order to obscure their faces, veil their expressions, and place a strain on the prisoner. The subject can be placed under further strain by providing him an uncomfortable chair, say one with a polished seat and shortened front legs so that he tends to slide off it, or one with wobbly legs.^[7]

"On the other hand, an opposite technique has sometimes been successful: the prisoner is made so comfortable, after a hearty lunch with beer, that he drops his guard in drowsiness.^[7] When conducting military source operations, the location of the questioning will have psychological effects on the source. The questioning location should be chosen and set up to correspond to the effect that the HUMINT collector wants to project and his planned approach techniques. For example, meeting in a social type situation such as a restaurant may place the source at ease. Meeting in an apartment projects informality while meeting in an office projects more formality. Meeting at the source's home normally places him at a psychological advantage, while meeting in the HUMINT collector's work area gives the collector a psychological edge. The HUMINT collector should consider the status and level of the source, security, the workspace available, furnishings, the amount of lighting provided, and the ability to heat or cool the room as needed.^[10]

Characteristics of the interrogator(s)[link]

Interrogation is an interaction, and, even before considering the different attitudes the subject may have, the interrogator needs to know his own style, strengths and weaknesses. He needs to judge if he needs cultural advice, how to handle language issues, and if he needs specialist help.

The HUMINT collector must also consider the physical conditions of the source and himself. After extended operations, there may be a limit on how long either the HUMINT collector or source can concentrate on a given subject.

Support needs[link]

If the interrogator thinks that offering incentives will help, he must decide what they are and how they are obtained. If incentives were promised in earlier interviews, the collector must know if they were delivered. If they were not, the interrogator needs to plan how the failure to deliver may interfere with any trust built, and how to correct the problem.

The HUMINT collector must decide if he will need additional support including analytical, technical, or interpreter support. On rare occasions, it may be desirable for the HUMINT collector to seek polygraph support or support from a Behavioral Science Consultant (BSC). BSCs are authorized to make psychological assessments of the character, personality, social interactions, and other behavioral characteristics of interrogation subjects and advise HUMINT collectors of their assessments, as needed.

Attitudes of the subject[link]

The basic attitude of the subject will help define the approach to the interview. There are four primary factors that must be considered when selecting tentative approaches:

• The source's mental and physical state. Is the source injured, angry, crying, arrogant, cocky, or frightened?
• The source's background. What is the source's age and level of military or civilian experience? Consider cultural, ethnic, and religious factors.
• The objective of the HUMINT collection. How valuable is the source's potential information? Is it beneficial to spend more effort convincing this source to talk?
• The HUMINT collector himself. What abilities does he have that can be brought into play? What weaknesses does he have that may interfere with the HUMINT collection? Are there social or ethnic barriers to communication? Can his personality adapt to the personality of the source?

Cooperative and friendly[link]

A cooperative and friendly source offers little resistance to the interrogation and normally speaks freely on almost any topic introduced, other than that which will tend to incriminate or degrade him personally.

To obtain the maximum amount of information from cooperative and friendly sources, the interrogator takes care to establish and to preserve a friendly and cooperative atmosphere by not inquiring into those private affairs which are beyond the scope of the interrogation. At the same time, he must avoid becoming overly friendly and losing control of the interrogation.^[9] The interrogator, however, may need to get expert advice on the customs of the subject's culture. While Americans might not spend time inquiring about the journey to the place of the interrogation, the health of one another's family, etc., not to do so is extremely impolite in some cultures. Not following cultural norms may transform a cooperative subject into a silent one.

For example, Arab cultural norms, reasonable to follow in a friendly conversation with a subject of that culture, do, often in ceremonial terms, speak of family. Handshakes are traditional at the start and end of the meeting.^[19]

Neutral and nonpartisan[link]

A neutral and nonpartisan source is cooperative to a limited degree. He normally takes the position of answering questions asked directly, but seldom volunteers information. In some cases, he may be afraid to answer for fear of reprisals by the enemy. This often is the case in low-intensity conflict (LIC) where the people may be fearful of insurgent reprisals. With the neutral and nonpartisan source, the interrogator may have to ask many specific questions to obtain the information required.

Hostile and antagonistic[link]

A hostile and antagonistic source is most difficult to interrogate. In many cases, he refuses to talk at all and offers a real challenge to the interrogator. An interrogator must have self-control, patience, and tact when dealing with him.

Inexperienced interrogators may do well to limit their interview, and pass the subject to a more senior interrogator. When handing off the subject, the next interrogator will find it very useful to have any clues why the subject is being hostile.

"The recalcitrant subject of an intelligence interrogation must be "broken" but broken for use like a riding horse, not smashed in the search for a single golden egg."

No two interrogations are the same. Each interrogation is thus carefully tailored to the measure of the individual subject. The standard lines of procedure, however, may be divided into four parts:

1. arrest and detention
2. preliminary interview and questioning
3. intensive examination
4. exploitation.

The first three steps, which emphatically do not involve torture, can be combined and called the "softening-up" process. If the subject is using a cover story, it may be broken by softening-up.

"Showing some subjects up as liars is the very worst thing to do, because their determination not to lose face will only make them stick harder to the lie. For these it is necessary to provide loopholes by asking questions which let them correct their stories without any direct admission to lying".^[7]

The questioning itself can be carried out in a friendly, persuasive manner, from a hard, merciless and threatening posture, or with an impersonal and neutral approach. In order to achieve the disconcerting effect of alternation among these attitudes it may be necessary to use as many as four different interrogators playing the following roles, although one interrogator may sometimes double in two of them:

1. the cold, unfeeling individual whose questions are shot out as from a machine-gun, whose voice is hard and monotonous, who neither threatens nor shows compassion.
2. the bullying interrogator who uses threats, insults and sarcasm to break through the subject's guard by making him lose his temper or by exhausting him.
3. the ostensibly naive and credulous questioner, who seems to be taken in by the prisoner's story, makes him feel smarter than the interrogator, gives him his rope and builds up false confidence which may betray him.
4. the kind and friendly man, understanding and persuasive, whose sympathetic approach is of decisive importance at the climactic phase of the interrogation. He is most effectively used after a siege with the first and second types, or after a troubled sleep following such a siege.

Planning additional interviews[link]

This can be part of softening-up, or part of the exploitation phase. "When the cover story and the will to resist have been broken, when the subject is ready to answer a series of carefully prepared questions aimed at an intelligence target, the exploitation can begin, often in a veiled spirit of cooperation and mutual assistance. At this stage the interrogation may for example be moved to an office assigned the subject, where he might even be left alone for a few minutes to show that he is being trusted and that there is something constructive for him to do. This feeling of trust and responsibility can be very important to a broken subject, because he may now have suicidal inclinations; he must be given something to occupy his mind and keep him from too much introspection.

Which course is better will depend on the subject's character, the way he was broken, and his present attitude toward those who have been handling him. Sometimes only a fresh interrogator can get real cooperation from him. Sometimes, on the other hand, he is so ashamed of having broken that he is unwilling to expose himself further and wants to talk only to his original questioner. And sometimes he has built up a trustful and confiding relationship with his interrogator which should not be destroyed by the introduction of another personality.

Principles of questioning[link]

The HUMINT collector adopts an appropriate persona based on his appraisal of the source but remains alert for verbal and non-verbal clues that indicate the need for a change in the approach techniques. The amount of time spent on this phase will depend mostly on the probable quantity and value of information the source possesses, the availability of other sources with knowledge on the same topics, and available time. At the initial contact, a businesslike relationship should be maintained. As the source assumes a cooperative attitude, a more relaxed atmosphere may be advantageous. The HUMINT collector must carefully determine which of the various approach techniques to employ.

If a source cooperates, his or her motivations vary. They can range from altruism to personal gain; they may be based on logic or emotion. From a psychological standpoint, the HUMINT collector must be cognizant of the following behaviors.^[10] People tend to—

• Want to talk when they are under stress and respond to kindness and understanding during trying circumstances. For example, enemy soldiers who have just been captured have experienced a significant stress-producing episode. The natural inclination is for people to want to talk about this sort of experience. If the EPW has been properly segregated and silenced, the HUMINT collector will be the first person the EPW has a chance to talk to. This is a powerful tool for the collector to use to get the subject talking. The desire to talk may also be manifested in refugees, DPs, and even local civilians when confronted by an unsettled situation.
• Show deference when confronted by superior authority. This is culturally dependent but in most areas of the world people are used to responding to questions from a variety of government and quasi-government officials.
• Operate within a framework of personal and culturally derived values. People tend to respond positively to individuals who display the same value system and negatively when their core values are challenged.
• Respond to physical and, more importantly, emotional self-interest. This may be as simple as responding to material rewards such as extresponding to support in rationalizing guilt.
• Fail to apply or remember lessons they may have been taught regarding security if confronted with a disorganized or strange situation.
• Be more willing to discuss a topic about which the HUMINT collector demonstrates identical or related experience or knowledge.
• Appreciate flattery and exoneration from guilt.
• Attach less importance to a topic if it is treated routinely by the HUMINT collector.
• Resent having someone or something they respect belittled, especially by someone they dislike.

Building rapport[link]

"Establish and maintain a rapport between the HUMINT collector and the source. Rapport is a condition established by the HUMINT collector that is characterized by source confidence in the HUMINT collector and a willingness to cooperate with him. This does not necessarily equate to a friendly atmosphere. It means that a relationship is established and maintained that facilitates the collection of information by the HUMINT collector. The HUMINT collector may establish a relationship as superior, equal, or even inferior to the source. The relationship may be based on friendship, mutual gain, or even fear.

If he does introduce himself, normally he will adopt a duty position and rank supportive of the approach strategy selected during the planning and preparation phase. The HUMINT collector must select a rank and duty position that is believable based on the HUMINT collector's age, appearance, and experience. A HUMINT collector may, according to international law, use ruses of war to build rapport with interrogation sources, and this may include posing or "passing himself off" as someone other than a military interrogator. However, the collector must not pose as—

• A doctor, medic, or any other type of medical personnel.
• Any member of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) or its affiliates. Such a ruse is a violation of treaty obligations.
• A chaplain or clergyman.
• A journalist.
• A member of the civilian government, such as a Member of Parliament.^[10]

"The attitude of the interrogators at the preliminary interview should usually be correct, studiously polite, and in some cases even sympathetic. It is imperative that they keep their tempers both now and throughout the interrogation. The prisoner may be given the true reason for his arrest or a false one, or he may be left in doubt, according to the circumstances of the case. The interrogators must try to determine whether his usually vigorous protestations of innocence are genuine or an act, but they should not at this stage give any indication of whether they believe or disbelieve him. A clever prisoner will try to find out how much the interrogators know; they should at all costs remain poker-faced and non-committal.^[7]

"At this interview the interrogators should do as little as possible of the talking, however many questions they are anxious to have answered. The prisoner should be asked to tell his story in his own words, describe the circumstances of his arrest, give the history of some period of his life, or explain the details of his occupation. The object is to get him to talk without prompting in as much continuous narrative as possible; the more he talks the better the interrogators can assess his personality.

Use of recorders[link]

"The interview must of course be recorded, either [as audio] or in stenographic notes." An audio recording is particularly useful if the interview requires an interpreter. If the interpreter is not a regular member of the interrogator's forces, a recording, which can be reviewed by a staff linguist, can be an important part of quality control.

"The interrogators must on no account try to do this job themselves; it would distract them from the critical task of framing questions and steering the course of interrogation according to the implications of the subject's replies. Whether the stenographer or recorder should be concealed or visible depends on the subject's sophistication and the state of his alert. If the recording process is not evident some subjects may become careless of what they say when they see that the interrogators are not taking notes, whereas a visible recording would alert them to be more cautious. For others, consciousness of a recording going on in full view may be unnerving, and they may betray the weak links in their stories by showing signs of distress at these points.

"At a later stage of the interrogation it may be of value to play back to the subject some part of this recording. The sound of his own voice repeating his earlier statements, particularly any with intonations of anger or distress, may make a psychological breach in his defenses."

Working with interpreters[link]

"Without doubt an interrogator using the subject's language is in a much better position than one who has to work through an interpreter. But the interrogation skill is infinitely more important than the language skill, and a good linguist should not be substituted for a good interrogator. In the absence of an interrogator who speaks the language, an interpreter should be used, preferably one with some training in interrogation techniques. It is very important that the interpreter not only report accurately what both parties say but also reflect as faithfully as he can their inflection, tone, manner, and emphasis. He should try to become part of the furniture in the room rather than a third personality, and the interrogator should act as though he were not there."^[7]

Interpreters are frequently a necessary aid to HUMINT collection. There are certain advantages to using an interpreter. The most obvious is that without an interpreter, a HUMINT collector without the proper language or necessary proficiency in that language is severely limited. Furthermore, if properly trained, briefed, and assessed, the interpreter can be a valuable assistant to the HUMINT collector.

Interpreters may have more knowledge of the local culture as well as the language, but the HUMINT manager must be cautious that the interpreter is not, for example, a member of a subculture, religion, etc., of the area, that would be offensive to the subject.

Going through an interpreter will slow the process, and also increase the chance of miscommunication. HUMINT collectors also need to be sure that local or third-country nationals are aware of security, and indeed will be loyal to the interpreter's side.

The collector should be aware of potential problems in interpretation. Some warning signs include:

• Long-to-short. If the interpreter delivers a long statement of yours as a short statement in the subject language, there are several possibilities. The interpreter may be trying to speed the interview, and the collector has to insist on accurate translation. The question may relate to a sensitive subject, perhaps even inducing fear in the interpreter.
• Short-to-long. If a brief question of the collector turns into a lengthy statement, it must be resolved that the interpreter does not have his own agenda. It is possible that the interpreter is using honorifics, indirect approach, or other culturally appropriate phrasing. There are times, however, when a translation, to control the relationship, needs to be translated exactly and without indirect language.
• Body-language shift. If the interpreter seems to change his body language or tone, the collector needs to learn the reason. This may be a justification to suspend the questioning until the interrogator can speak privately with the interpreter and find out if there is a problem. Sometimes, the change may be do to nothing more than fatigue or physical discomfort, but the interrogator must be sure that the native-language conversation has not gotten into dislike, threats, or personal connection that would bias the translation.

Recruited/trusted sources[link]

Special Reconnaissance Patrolling[link]

Special reconnaissance is done by soldiers, normally uniformed, who observe enemy activity deep beyond the front line of one's own side. See special reconnaissance for details. Since these are highly trained specialists, they will usually have been communicating clandestinely to the HUMINT organization, and will be systematically prepared for debriefing. The debriefing may be done by HUMINT officers of their own organization, who are most familiar with their information-gathering techniques. Some of those techniques may be extremely sensitive and held on a need-to-know basis within the special reconnaissance organization. They operate significantly farther than the furthest forward friendly scouting and surveillance units; they may be tens to hundreds of kilometers deeper. They may enter the area of operations in many ways.

Their mission is not to engage in direct combat. It may be to observe and report, or it may include directing air or artillery attacks on enemy positions. If the latter is the case, the patrol still tries to stay covert; the idea is that the enemy obviously knows they are being attacked, but not who is directing fire.

Espionage[link]

Espionage is the collection of information by people either in a position of trust for the enemy, or with access to people with such access. The process of recruiting such individuals and supporting their operations is the HUMINT discipline of agent handling.

It may be possible for an agent handler to meet directly with the agent and debrief him. More commonly, agents send messages to the organization for which they work, by radio, Internet, or by leaving the messages in a hard-to-find place. The latter technique, called a dead drop, will have either a courier or the agent handler retrieve them in a clandestine manner. These are examples of espionage tradecraft.

Analyzing relationships among HUMINT subjects[link]

After interviews, be they debriefings or interrogations, there is likely to be data about other people with whom the subject has had contact or knows about. These data are focused on human relationship networks, not, for example, on military information that the subject knows.

Once information is obtained, it is put into an organized form. Very frequently, information obtained at one interview may help structure the next interview with the same person, or with another subject.

Identifying other people of interest[link]

During interviews, a subject is apt to mention things about other people, or be prompted in a seemingly conversational way.

Social networks[link]

A first interview could begin with a villager named Anna. The interviewer notices that she is wearing a very attractive scarf, and inquires about it, careful to avoid customs that might obligate the wearer to give him the object he admired. She said "Thank you. I bought it from the silk man."

Human network information from first interview

The interviewer, really not knowing many of the villagers, guesses and prompts. "The silk man? Is that the son of the olive farmer married to...umm...I will think of their names".

Anna responds, "No, the silk man is not of the village. I do not know his name."

Human network information from second interview

Knowing another subject to be debriefed is from the same village, the interviewer might arrange to have cheese and olives available as snacks in the interview room. During the interview with George the villager, the interviewer might say "these are poor olives, but the best I could find in the local market. They are not as good as Gregory, in your village, grows."

"Yes, Chino has excellent trees. It's too bad only one of his sons, Enzo, stayed on the farm. He misses his wandering son who sells cloth to women."

Confirming Anna's statement that the silk man is an outsider, the interviewer seeks confirmation. "Is that the silk man?"

"No, the silk man is Hassan, but only visits the village. Gregory's son Fritz sells wool."

"Do you know the sons of Diana and Chino?"

"Oh yes! I ran a long time to get Iliana the midwife to come. She delivered both his sons."

The interviewer sips his tea and asks, "Midwives are so valuable. Yet what if a baby is coming in wrong, and Iliana cannot get it?"

"Iliana's husband, Justinian, has a truck. Iliana will decide whether he should go get the doctor, or bring the mother and herself to the doctor."

Human network information from third interview

The interviewer sees Anna in the street, getting out of Justinian's truck, and asks if all is well. "Oh yes, I was just visiting the doctor and everything is fine." Note that Anna has confirmed a relationship between Justinian and the doctor, whose name is not yet known.

"Anna, I forgot to ask. Who is your husband?"

"I thought everyone knew that Homer and I are such lovers. You must be blind!" The culturally sensitive interviewer laughed, and agreed he needed new glasses.

Human network information from repeat interview of first subject

The interviewer now knows that the Silk Man and the Doctor are outsiders that visit the village. If there is underground activity, they are possible couriers. Either the interviewer, or a HUMINT analyst, need to find other villages that are visited by the Silk Man and the Doctor, and see if any guerilla events correlate to their visits.

Operational network "wiring diagram"[link]

Much modern interest in tracking networks of people are relevant to guerilla operations and terrorist networks, two loose categories that do not completely overlap. When examining the overall structure of terrorist groups, there are two general categories of organization: networked and hierarchical. A terrorist group may employ either type or a combination of the two models. Newer groups tend towards organizing or adapting to the possibilities inherent in the network model. Ideology can have an effect on internal organization, with strict Leninist or Maoist groups tending towards centralized control and hierarchical structure.^[20] Whether the organizational model is hierarchical or not, the operational personnel almost invariably use the cell system for security.

One relevant study looks at modeling terrorist networks in a manner similar to other systems that "exhibit regularity but not periodicity (i.e., locally random, but globally defined).^[21]

Their model focuses at the "mid-range", "not at the level of state leadership, and not at the level of mapping and predicting the behavior of each individual terrorist, but rather at an intermediate or organizational level"... Much as vulnerability analysis of connectionless packet networks such as the Internet^[22] concentrates on the nodes whose loss would most interfere with connectivity, the study here looks for the "pattern of connections surrounding a node that allows for wide network reach with minimal direct ties. "Structural holes" at the intersection of flows across knowledge communities position unique and superior nodes. It is the individuals spanning these "internal holes of opportunity" that impact the network's functioning and performance. The implicit corollary of this is that if a small number of these critical nodes can be identified and "clipped" from the network, then command signals will not be able to propagate through the system."

In the 9/11 case, the pilots were such key nodes, once the US operational groups were in-country and operating.^[23] Taking the observation of centrality a step farther, COMINT can complement HUMINT in finding the nodes of a geographically dispersed human network.

Obstacles to development of HUMINT capabilities[link]

The following observations are drawn from the article by Lawrence Wright who interviews Director of National Intelligence John Michael McConnell.^[24]

Inability to recruit people who are different due to a misperception of security risk factors[link]

To develop HUMINT agents it is necessary to recruit HUMINT controlling officers with native foreign-language skills. However, the U.S. Security clearance process has several problems:

• It is biased against first-generation immigrants with active relationships to their former country.
• It is biased against non-heterosexuals. (For overview see Wikipedia article Sexual orientation and military service.) The U.S. Army, for example, has dismissed hundreds of gays with important language skills, during a time of critical national need for Arabic linguists.^[25] This while, according to Wright's article, the FBI has gone from 8 Arabic-speaking agents to 9 in the seven years since the 9/11 attacks.
• It takes up to two years to complete, longer than many immigrants are willing to put their careers on hold while waiting for a clearance.

McConnell's solution to this is to

• Shorten the clearance process to a month or less.
• Subject officers to "'life-cycle monitoring' – that is, constant surveillance".

There have been other cases in the past where it has been necessary to balance security clearance policy against national needs, for example:

• Alan Turing's homosexuality versus Britain's need for cryptanalysis.
• Robert Oppenheimer's radical politics versus US need for nuclear weapons.

DNI McConnell notes also in Wright's article that the predominant risk factor which turns officers into traitors is not ethnicity, sexuality or politics, it is money:

"'Look back at all the spies we've had in our history', he said. 'About a hundred and thirty. How many did it for money? A hundred and twenty-eight.'"

For example,

• Philip Agee received $1 million from Cuban intelligence service to publicize the names of CIA agents as part of an active measures campaign by the KGB.^[26]
• Israel Defense Forces psychiatrist David Shamir "attempted to make contact with the Iranian Foreign Ministry, Hamas officials, and the Russian intelligence service, the FSB, with the intention of selling them classified information which he came upon during his military service".^[27] While his claimed motivation was political, the bottom line was still money (emphasis added in quote):

"Shamir said his prime motivation for his actions was what he viewed as the continued breakdown of the state's social fabric. 'The idea was to save my life and that of my son and the last years of my parents' lives, and to have things happen so that we can really be saved,' he said. 'The thinking was that I would receive money which I would use to attain asylum for me, my son, and my family, and to enable them to live as reasonably as possible, not in Iran, not in Lebanon, but rather in a European country.' "

Inability to trust people who are different due to failure to innovate in technical OPSEC[link]

Wright claims that

"Much of the intelligence community is technophobic and is also hamstrung by security concerns. Only recently have BlackBerrys made their way into some agencies, and many offices don't even have Internet connections."

Hence it is difficult to institute technical controls that would allow the organization to effectively compartimentalize the knowledge of officers in the organization so that even moderately untrusted people could serve. I.e., in many cases of "moles" or internal spies, low-level spies have had access to huge volumes of secret data. This would not be possible if adequate technical measures were instituted to effectively compartmentalize information access on a more finely categorized and motivated need-to-know basis. In other words, there is a so far lost opportunity to use technical measures to improve operational security while at the same time allowing a broader range of people to serve. Another aspect of this would be to automatically filter information "down to" and tailored to a specific subject-matter need-to-know characterization of the requesting individual.

Inability to share information across the community due to operational technophobia[link]

A third obstacle to HUMINT and intelligence analysis in general is effective information sharing across the intelligence community. Wright's article notes that

• "the community still relies on more than thirty online networks and eighty databases, most of which are largely inaccessible to one another."

Lack of information sharing has been partly addressed technically by adding new information-sharing tools

• Intellipedia, using MediaWiki software with additional security features.
• A-Space, "based on sites such as MySpace and Facebook – in which analysts post their current projects as a way of creating social networks."
• The Library of National Intelligence,^[28] which "is an online digest of official reports that will soon provide analysts who use it with tips, much the way Amazon and iTunes offer recommendations to their customers."

However, Wright notes that "These innovations have not yet made their way to the analysts and agents in the field", and "the intelligence community has only warily appropriated models whose usefulness is blindingly obvious".

See also[link]

• Document Exploitation (DOCEX)
• Espionage
• Intelligence collection management
• List of intelligence gathering disciplines

References[link]

Colin Powell KCB MSC
65th United States Secretary of State
In office January 20, 2001 – January 26, 2005
President	George W. Bush
Deputy	Richard Armitage
Preceded by	Madeleine Albright
Succeeded by	Condoleezza Rice
12th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
In office October 1, 1989 – September 30, 1993
President	George H. W. Bush Bill Clinton
Deputy	Robert Herres David Jeremiah
Preceded by	William Crowe
Succeeded by	David Jeremiah
16th National Security Advisor
In office November 23, 1987 – January 20, 1989
President	Ronald Reagan
Deputy	John Negroponte
Preceded by	Frank Carlucci
Succeeded by	Brent Scowcroft
Personal details
Born	(1937-04-05) April 5, 1937 (age 75) New York City
Political party	Republican
Spouse(s)	Alma Johnson
Alma mater	City College of New York, CUNY George Washington University
Signature
Military service
Allegiance	United States
Service/branch	United States Army
Years of service	1958–1993
Rank	General
Unit	3rd Armored Division 23rd Infantry Division
Commands	V Corps Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Forces Command
Battles/wars	Vietnam War Invasion of Panama Gulf War
Awards	Defense Distinguished Service Medal (4) Army Distinguished Service Medal (2) Defense Superior Service Medal Legion of Merit (2) Soldier's Medal Bronze Star Purple Heart

Colin Luther Powell ( /ˈkoʊlɨn/; born April 5, 1937) is an American statesman and a retired four-star general in the United States Army.^[1] He was the 65th United States Secretary of State, serving under President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2005. He was the first African American to serve in that position.^[2][3][4][5] During his military career, Powell also served as National Security Advisor (1987–1989), as Commander of the U.S. Army Forces Command (1989) and as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1989–1993), holding the latter position during the Gulf War. He was the first, and so far the only, African American to serve on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Early life[link]

Colin Luther Powell was born on April 5, 1937^[6] in Harlem, a neighborhood in the New York City borough of Manhattan, to Jamaican immigrant parents Maud Arial (née McKoy) and Luther Theophilus Powell. He also has Scottish ancestry.^[7][8] Powell was raised in the South Bronx and attended Morris High School, a former public school in the Bronx, from which he graduated in 1954. While at school, he worked at a local baby furniture store where he picked up Yiddish from the shopkeepers and some of the customers.^[9] He received his Bachelor of Science degree in geology from the City College of New York in 1958 and was a self-admitted C average student. He was later able to earn a Master of Business Administration degree from the George Washington University in 1971, after his second tour in Vietnam.

Despite his parents' pronunciation of his name as /ˈkɒlɨn/, Powell has pronounced his name /ˈkoʊlɨn/ since childhood, after the heroic World War II flyer Colin P. Kelly Jr.^[10] Public officials and radio and television reporters have used Powell's preferred pronunciation.

Military career[link]

Powell described joining the Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) during college as one of the happiest experiences of his life; discovering something he loved and could do well, he felt he had "found himself." According to Powell:

“It was only once I was in college, about six months into college when I found something that I liked, and that was ROTC, Reserve Officer Training Corps in the military. And I not only liked it, but I was pretty good at it. That's what you really have to look for in life, something that you like, and something that you think you're pretty good at. And if you can put those two things together, then you're on the right track, and just drive on.”^[11]

Cadet Powell joined the Pershing Rifles, the ROTC fraternal organization and drill team begun by General John Pershing. Even after he had become a general, Powell kept on his desk a pen set he had won for a drill team competition.

Upon graduation, he received a commission as an Army second lieutenant.^[12] He was a professional soldier for 35 years, holding a variety of command and staff positions and rising to the rank of General.^[13] Powell was a captain during the Vietnam War, serving as a South Vietnamese Army adviser from 1962 to 1963. While on patrol in a Viet Cong-held area, he was wounded by stepping on a punji stake.^[14] He returned to Vietnam as a major in 1968, serving in the Americal Division (23rd Infantry Division), then as assistant chief of staff of operations for the Americal Division. He was charged with investigating a detailed letter by Tom Glen (a soldier from the 11th Light Infantry Brigade), which backed up rumored allegations of the My Lai Massacre. Powell wrote: "In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between American soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent." Later, Powell's assessment would be described as whitewashing the news of the massacre, and questions would continue to remain undisclosed to the public. In May 2004 Powell said to Larry King, "I mean, I was in a unit that was responsible for My Lai. I got there after My Lai happened. So, in war, these sorts of horrible things happen every now and again, but they are still to be deplored."^[15]

Powell as Commanding General, FORSCOM

Powell served a White House fellowship, a highly selective and prestigious position, under President Richard Nixon from 1972 to 1973.

In his autobiography, My American Journey, Powell named several officers he served under who inspired and mentored him. As a lieutenant colonel serving in South Korea, Powell was very close to General Henry "Gunfighter" Emerson. Powell said he regarded Emerson as one of the most caring officers he ever met. Emerson insisted his troops train at night to fight a possible North Korean attack, and made them repeatedly watch the television film Brian's Song to promote racial harmony. Powell always professed that what set Emerson apart, was his great love of his soldiers and concern for their welfare.

In the early 1980s, Powell served at Fort Carson, Colorado. After he left Fort Carson, Powell became senior military assistant to Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, whom he assisted during the 1983 invasion of Grenada and the 1986 airstrike on Libya.

In 1986, he took over the command of V Corps in Frankfurt, Germany, from Robert Lewis "Sam" Wetzel. Following the Iran Contra scandal, Powell became Ronald Reagan's National Security Advisor, serving from 1987 to 1989. In April 1989, Powell was promoted to General and briefly served as the Commander in Chief, Forces Command, headquartered at Fort McPherson, Georgia. Later that year, President George H.W. Bush selected him as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.^[16]

Dates of ranks[link]

Promotions

Rank	Date
General	April 4, 1989
Lieutenant General	March 26, 1986
Major General	August 1, 1983
Brigadier General	June 1, 1979
Colonel	February 1, 1976
Lieutenant Colonel	July 9, 1970
Major	May 24, 1966
Captain	June 2, 1962
6px First Lieutenant	December 30, 1959
Second Lieutenant	June 9, 1958

Awards and decorations[link]

Badges[link]

• Combat Infantryman Badge
• Expert Infantryman Badge
• Ranger Tab
• Parachutist Badge
• Pathfinder Badge
• Air Assault Badge
• Presidential Service Badge
• Secretary of Defense Identification Badge
• Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge
• Army Staff Identification Badge

Medals and ribbons[link]

	Defense Distinguished Service Medal (with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters)
	Distinguished Service Medal, Army (with Oak Leaf Cluster)
	Defense Superior Service Medal
	Legion of Merit (with Oak Leaf Cluster)
	Soldier's Medal
	Bronze Star
	Purple Heart
	Air Medal
	Joint Service Commendation Medal
	Army Commendation Medal (with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters)
	Presidential Medal of Freedom
	Presidential Citizens Medal
	National Defense Service Medal (with 1 Bronze Service Star)
	Vietnam Service Medal (with 1 Silver Service Star)
	Army Service Ribbon
	Army Overseas Service Ribbon (with award numeral 4)

Foreign decorations[link]

• Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation
• Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal
• Skanderbeg's Order (Albania)
• Honorary Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath (KCB) (United Kingdom)
• Légion d'honneur (France)
• Meritorious Service Cross (M.S.C.) (Canada)
• Order of Stara Planina in the First Order (Bulgaria)^[17][18]

National Security Advisor[link]

President Ronald Reagan and National Security Advisor Powell in 1988

At the age of 49, Powell became Ronald Reagan's National Security Advisor, serving from 1987 to 1989 while retaining his Army commission as a lieutenant general. After his tenure with the National Security Council, Powell was promoted to a full general under President George H.W. Bush and briefly served as Commander-in-Chief (CINC) of Forces Command (FORSCOM), overseeing all Army, Army Reserve, and National Guard units in the Continental U.S., Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff[link]

Official Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff portrait

His last military assignment, from October 1, 1989 to September 30, 1993, was as the 12th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest military position in the Department of Defense. At age 52, he became the youngest officer, and first Afro-Caribbean American, to serve in this position. In 1989, he joined Dwight D. Eisenhower and Alexander Haig as the third general since World War II to reach four-star rank without ever being a divisional commander.^[19]

During his chairmanship of the JCS, there was discussion of awarding Powell a fifth star, granting him the rank of General of the Army. But even in the wake of public and Congressional pressure^[20][21] to do so, Clinton-Gore presidential transition team staffers decided against it.^[22][23][24]

During this time, he oversaw 28 crises, including the invasion of Panama in 1989 to remove General Manuel Noriega from power and Operation Desert Storm in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. During these events, Powell earned his nickname, "the reluctant warrior." He rarely advocated military intervention as the first solution to an international crisis, and instead usually prescribed diplomacy and containment.

In his autobiography, Powell said he is haunted by the nightmare of the Vietnam War and felt that the leadership was very ineffective. Powell served a tour in Vietnam as a military adviser, and was mildly injured when he stepped on a bamboo "punji stick". The large infection made it difficult for him to walk, and caused his foot to swell for a short time, shortening his first tour. It was also during his Vietnam service, his second tour, that Powell was decorated for bravery. He single-handedly rescued several men from a burning helicopter, one of them being Maj. Gen. Charles Gettys, the commander of the Americal Division.

General Colin Powell, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, waves from his motorcade during the Persian Gulf War Welcome Home Parade in New York City.

Additionally, Powell has been critical of other instances of U.S. foreign policy in the past, such as its support for the 1973 Chilean coup d'état. From two separate interviews in 2003, Powell stated in one about the 1973 event "I can't justify or explain the actions and decisions that were made at that time. It was a different time. There was a great deal of concern about communism in this part of the world. Communism was a threat to the democracies in this part of the world. It was a threat to the United States."^[25] In another interview, however, he also simply stated "With respect to your earlier comment about Chile in the 1970s and what happened with Mr. Allende, it is not a part of American history that we're proud of."^[26]

As a military strategist, Powell has advocated an approach to military conflicts that maximizes the potential for success and minimizes casualties. A component of this approach is the use of overwhelming force, which he applied to Operation Desert Storm in 1991. His approach has been dubbed the "Powell Doctrine". Powell continued as chairman of the JCS into the Clinton presidency but as a dedicated "realist" he considered himself a bad fit for an administration largely made up of liberal internationalists.^[27] He clashed with then-US ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright over the Bosnian crisis, as he opposed any military interventions that didn't involve US interests.^[28]

Potential candidate[link]

Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. Presidential Election^[29] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,^[30] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.^[31] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. Presidential Election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa^[32] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,^[33] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.^[34] Powell defeated Clinton 50-38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.^[35] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.^[36]

In 1997 Powell founded America's Promise with the objective of helping children from all socioeconomic sectors.

In the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election Powell campaigned for Senator John McCain and later Texas Governor George W. Bush after the latter secured the Republican nomination.^{[citation needed]} Bush eventually won, and Powell was appointed Secretary of State.

During the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election, Powell endorsed Barack Obama for President.^[37]

Secretary of State[link]

Portrait as Secretary of State

Powell, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld listen to President George W. Bush speak.

As Secretary of State in the Bush administration, Powell was perceived as moderate. Powell was unanimously voted in by the United States Senate. Over the course of his tenure he traveled less than any other U.S. Secretary of State in 30 years. ^[38]

On September 11, 2001, Powell was in Lima, Peru, meeting with President Alejandro Toledo and US Ambassador John Hamilton, and attending the special session of the OAS General Assembly that subsequently adopted the Inter-American Democratic Charter. After the September 11 attacks, Powell's job became of critical importance in managing America's relationships with foreign countries in order to secure a stable coalition in the War on Terrorism.

Powell came under fire for his role in building the case for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. In a press statement on February 24, 2001 he had said that sanctions against Iraq had prevented the development of any weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein. As was the case in the days leading up to the Persian Gulf War, Powell was initially opposed to a forcible overthrow of Saddam, preferring to continue a policy of containment. However, Powell eventually agreed to go along with the Bush administration's determination to remove Saddam. He had often clashed with others in the administration, who were reportedly planning an Iraq invasion even before the September 11 attacks, an insight supported by testimony by former terrorism czar Richard Clarke in front of the 9/11 Commission. The main concession Powell wanted before he would offer his full support for the Iraq War was the involvement of the international community in the invasion, as opposed to a unilateral approach. He was also successful in persuading Bush to take the case of Iraq to the United Nations, and in moderating other initiatives. Powell was placed at the forefront of this diplomatic campaign.

Computer-generated image of an alleged mobile production facility for biological weapons, presented by Powell at the UN Security Council. On May 27, 2003, US and UK experts examined the trailers and declared they had nothing to do with biological weapons.^[39]

Colin Powell holding a model vial of anthrax while giving a presentation to the United Nations Security Council

Powell's chief role was to garner international support for a multi-national coalition to mount the invasion. To this end, Powell addressed a plenary session of the United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003 to argue in favor of military action. Citing numerous anonymous Iraqi defectors, Powell asserted that "there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more."^[40] Powell also stated that there was "no doubt in my mind" that Saddam was working to obtain key components to produce nuclear weapons.^[40]

Most observers praised Powell's oratorical skills. However, Britain's Channel 4 News reported soon afterwards that a UK intelligence dossier that Powell had referred to as a "fine paper" during his presentation had been based on old material and plagiarized an essay by American graduate student Ibrahim al-Marashi.^[41][42] A 2004 report by the Iraq Survey Group concluded that the evidence that Powell offered to support the allegation that the Iraqi government possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) was inaccurate.

A Senate report on intelligence failures would later detail the intense debate that went on behind the scenes on what to include in Powell's speech. State Department analysts had found dozens of factual problems in drafts of the speech. Some of the claims were taken out, but others were left in, such as claims based on the yellowcake forgery.^[43] The administration came under fire for having acted on faulty intelligence, particularly what was single-sourced to the informant known as Curveball. Powell later recounted how Vice President Dick Cheney had joked with him before he gave the speech, telling him, "You've got high poll ratings; you can afford to lose a few points." Powell's longtime aide-de-camp and Chief of Staff from 1989–2003, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, later characterized Cheney's view of Powell's mission as to "go up there and sell it, and we'll have moved forward a peg or two. Fall on your damn sword and kill yourself, and I'll be happy, too."^[44]

In September 2005, Powell was asked about the speech during an interview with Barbara Walters and responded that it was a "blot" on his record. He went on to say, "It will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now."^[45]

Wilkerson said that he inadvertently participated in a hoax on the American people in preparing Powell's erroneous testimony before the United Nations Security Council.^[46]

Because Powell was seen as more moderate than most figures in the administration, he was spared many of the attacks that have been leveled at more controversial advocates of the invasion, such as Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. At times, infighting among the Powell-led State Department, the Rumsfeld-led Defense Department, and Cheney's office had the effect of polarizing the administration on crucial issues, such as what actions to take regarding Iran and North Korea.

Secretary Powell with NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer

After Saddam Hussein had been deposed, Powell's new role was to once again establish a working international coalition, this time to assist in the rebuilding of post-war Iraq. On September 13, 2004, Powell testified before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee,^[47] acknowledging that the sources who provided much of the information in his February 2003 UN presentation were "wrong" and that it was "unlikely" that any stockpiles of WMDs would be found. Claiming that he was unaware that some intelligence officials questioned the information prior to his presentation, Powell pushed for reform in the intelligence community, including the creation of a national intelligence director who would assure that "what one person knew, everyone else knew."

Powell announced his resignation as Secretary of State on November 15, 2004. According to The Washington Post, he had been asked to resign by the president's chief of staff, Andrew Card.^[44] Powell announced that he would stay on until the end of Bush's first term or until his replacement's confirmation by Congress. The following day, Bush nominated National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice as Powell's successor. News of Powell's leaving the Administration spurred mixed reactions from politicians around the world — some upset at the loss of a statesman seen as a moderating factor within the Bush administration, but others hoping for Powell's successor to wield more influence within the cabinet.

In mid-November, Powell stated that he had seen new evidence suggesting that Iran was adapting missiles for a nuclear delivery system.^[48] The accusation came at the same time as the settlement of an agreement between Iran, the IAEA, and the European Union.

On December 31, 2004, Powell rang in the New Year by pressing a button in Times Square with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to initiate the ball drop and 60 second countdown, ushering in the year 2005. He appeared on the networks that were broadcasting New Year's Eve specials and talked about this honor, as well as being a native of New York City.^[49]

Life after diplomatic service[link]

After retiring from the role of Secretary of State, Powell returned to private life. In April 2005, he was privately telephoned by Republican senators Lincoln Chafee and Chuck Hagel,^[50] at which time Powell expressed reservations and mixed reviews about the nomination of John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations, but refrained from advising the senators to oppose Bolton (Powell had clashed with Bolton during Bush's first term).^[51] The decision was viewed as potentially dealing significant damage to Bolton's chances of confirmation. Bolton was put into the position via a recess appointment because of the strong opposition in the Senate.

Powell with United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

On April 28, 2005, an opinion piece in The Guardian by Sidney Blumenthal (a former top aide to President Bill Clinton) claimed that Powell was in fact "conducting a campaign" against Bolton because of the acrimonious battles they had had while working together, which among other things had resulted in Powell cutting Bolton out of talks with Iran and Libya after complaints about Bolton's involvement from the British. Blumenthal added that "The foreign relations committee has discovered that Bolton made a highly unusual request and gained access to 10 intercepts by the National Security Agency. Staff members on the committee believe that Bolton was probably spying on Powell, his senior advisors and other officials reporting to him on diplomatic initiatives that Bolton opposed."^[52]

In July 2005, Powell joined Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers, a well-known Silicon Valley venture capital firm, with the title of "strategic limited partner."

In September 2005, Powell criticized the response to Hurricane Katrina.^[53] Powell said that thousands of people were not properly protected, but because they were poor rather than because they were black.

Powell walks with newly crowned King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Vice President Dick Cheney, and former President George H.W. Bush, Saudi Arabia, August, 2005.

On January 5, 2006, he participated in a meeting at the White House of former Secretaries of Defense and State to discuss United States foreign policy with Bush administration officials. In September 2006, Powell sided with more moderate Senate Republicans in supporting more rights for detainees and opposing President Bush's terrorism bill. He backed Senators John Warner, John McCain and Lindsey Graham in their statement that U.S. military and intelligence personnel in future wars will suffer for abuses committed in 2006 by the U.S. in the name of fighting terrorism. Powell stated that "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of [America's] fight against terrorism."^[54]

Also in 2006, Powell began appearing as a speaker at a series of motivational events called Get Motivated, along with former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. In his speeches for the tour, he openly criticized the Bush Administration on a number of issues. Powell has been the recipient of mild criticism for his role with Get Motivated which has been called a "get-rich-quick-without-much-effort, feel-good schemology."^[55]

Most recently he joined the Board of Directors of Steve Case's new company Revolution Health. Powell also serves on the Council on Foreign Relations Board of directors.^[56]

Powell, in honor of Martin Luther King Day, dropped the ceremonial first puck at a New York Islanders hockey game at Nassau Coliseum on January 21, 2008. On November 11, 2008, Powell again dropped the puck in recognition of Military Appreciation Day and Veterans Day.^[57][58]

Recently, Powell has encouraged young people to continue to use new technologies to their advantage in the future. In a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies to a room of young professionals, he said, "That's your generation...a generation that is hard-wired digital, a generation that understands the power of the information revolution and how it is transforming the world. A generation that you represent, and you're coming together to share; to debate; to decide; to connect with each other."^[59] At this event, he encouraged the next generation to involve themselves politically on the upcoming Next America Project, which uses online debate to provide policy recommendations for the upcoming administration.

In 2008, Powell served as a spokesperson for National Mentoring Month, a campaign held each January to recruit volunteer mentors for at-risk youth.^[60]

Soon after Barack Obama's 2008 election, Powell began being mentioned as a possible cabinet member.^[61] He was not nominated.

In September 2009, Powell advised President Obama against surging US forces in Afghanistan.^[62] The president announced the surge the following December.

Political views[link]

A moderate Republican, Powell is well known for his willingness to support liberal or centrist causes.^[63] He is pro-choice regarding abortion, and in favor of "reasonable" gun control.^{[63][clarification needed]} He stated in his autobiography that he supports affirmative action that levels the playing field, without giving a leg up to undeserving persons because of racial issues. Powell was also instrumental in the 1993 implementation of the military's don't ask, don't tell policy,^[63] though he later supported its repeal as proposed by Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen in January 2010, saying "circumstances had changed".^[64]

The Vietnam War had a profound effect on Powell's views of the proper use of military force. These views are described in detail in the autobiography My American Journey. The Powell Doctrine, as the views became known, was a central component of US policy in the Gulf War (the first U.S. war in Iraq) and U.S. invasion of Afghanistan (the overthrow of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan following the September 11 attacks). The hallmark of both operations was strong international cooperation, and the use of overwhelming military force.

Powell was the subject of controversy in 2004 when, in a conversation with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, he reportedly referred to neoconservatives within the Bush administration as "fucking crazies."^[65] In addition to being reported in the press (though generally, the expletive was censored in the U.S. press), the quote was used by James Naughtie in his book, The Accidental American: Tony Blair and the Presidency, and by Chris Patten in his book, Cousins and Strangers: America, Britain, and Europe in a New Century.

In a September 2006 letter to Sen. John McCain, General Powell expressed opposition to President Bush's push for military tribunals of those formerly and currently classified as enemy combatants. Specifically, he objected to the effort in Congress to "redefine Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention." He also asserted: "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism."^[66]

View of the U.S. war in Iraq[link]

While Powell was wary of a military solution, he supported the decision to invade Iraq after the administration concluded the diplomatic track had failed. After his departure from the State Department, Powell repeatedly emphasized his continued support for the war.

At the 2007 Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado,^[67] Powell revealed that he had spent two and a half hours explaining to President Bush "the consequences of going into an Arab country and becoming the occupiers." During this discussion, he insisted that the US appeal to the United Nations first, but if diplomacy failed, he would support the invasion: "I also had to say to him that you are the President, you will have to make the ultimate judgment, and if the judgment is this isn't working and we don't think it is going to solve the problem, then if military action is undertaken I'm with you, I support you."^[68]

In a 2008 interview on CNN, Powell reiterated his support for the 2003 decision to invade Iraq in the context of his endorsement of Barack Obama, stating: "My role has been very, very straightforward. I wanted to avoid a war. The president [Bush] agreed with me. We tried to do that. We couldn't get it through the U.N. and when the president made the decision, I supported that decision. And I've never blinked from that. I've never said I didn't support a decision to go to war."^[69]

Powell's position on the Iraq War troop surge of 2007 has been less clear. In December 2006, he expressed skepticism that the strategy would work and whether the US had enough troops to carry it out successfully. He stated: "I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for the purposes of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work."^[70] Following his endorsement of Barack Obama in October 2008, however, Powell praised General David Petraeus and US troops, as well as the Iraqi government, concluding that "it's starting to turn around."^[69] By mid-2009, he had concluded a surge of US forces in Iraq should have come sooner, perhaps in late 2003.^[71] Throughout this period, Powell consistently argued that Iraqi political progress was essential, not just military force.

Role in presidential election of 2008[link]

Powell donated the maximum allowable amount to John McCain's campaign in the summer of 2007^[72] and in early 2008, his name was listed as a possible running mate for Republican nominee McCain's bid during the 2008 U.S. presidential election.^[73] However, on October 19, 2008, Powell announced his endorsement of Barack Obama during a Meet the Press interview, citing "his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities," in addition to his "style and substance." He additionally referred to Obama as a "transformational figure".^[74][75] Powell further questioned McCain's judgment in appointing Sarah Palin as the vice presidential candidate, stating that despite the fact that she is admired, "now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don't believe she's ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president." He said that Obama's choice for vice-president, Joe Biden, was ready to be president. He also added that he was "troubled" by the "false intimations that Obama was Muslim." Powell stated that "[Obama] is a Christian — he's always been a Christian... But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America." Powell then referenced Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, a Muslim American soldier in the U.S. Army who served and died in the Iraq War. He later stated, "Over the last seven weeks, the approach of the Republican Party has become narrower and narrower [...] I look at these kind of approaches to the campaign, and they trouble me."^[74][75] Powell concluded his Sunday morning talk show comments, "It isn't easy for me to disappoint Sen. McCain in the way that I have this morning, and I regret that [...] I think we need a transformational figure. I think we need a president who is a generational change and that's why I'm supporting Barack Obama, not out of any lack of respect or admiration for Sen. John McCain."^[76] Later in a December 12, 2008, CNN interview with Fareed Zakaria, Powell reiterated his belief that during the last few months of the campaign, Palin pushed the Republican party further to the right and had a polarizing impact on it.^[77]

Views on the Obama administration[link]

In a July 2009 CNN interview with John King, Powell expressed concern over President Obama growing the size of the federal government and the size of the federal budget deficit.^[78] In September 2010, he criticized the Obama administration for not focusing "like a razor blade" on the economy and job creation. Powell reiterated that Obama was a "transformational figure."^[79] In a video that aired on CNN.com in November 2011, Colin Powell said in reference to Barack Obama, " . . . many of his decisions have been quite sound. The financial system was put back on a stable basis."^[80]

Views on LGBT issues[link]

In late May 2012 he expressed support for the legalization of same-sex marriage. He had earlier supported the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.^[81]

Personal life[link]

Powell married Alma Johnson on August 25, 1962. Their son, Michael Powell, was the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from 2001 to 2005. His daughters are Linda Powell, an actress and Annemarie Powell. As a hobby, Powell restores old Volvo and Saab cars.^[82][83]

Civilian awards and honors[link]

Powell's civilian awards include two Presidential Medals of Freedom, the President's Citizens Medal, the Congressional Gold Medal, the Secretary of State Distinguished Service Medal, the Secretary of Energy Distinguished Service Medal, and the Ronald Reagan Freedom Award. Several schools and other institutions have been named in his honor and he holds honorary degrees from universities and colleges across the country.

• In 1988, Powell received the Academy of Achievement's Golden Plate Award.
• In 1991, Powell was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President George H. W. Bush.
• In 1991, Powell was inducted into the Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans,^[84] which "honors the achievements of outstanding individuals in U.S. society who have succeeded in spite of adversity and of encouraging young people to pursue their dreams through higher education."
• On September 30, 1993, Powell was awarded his second Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Bill Clinton.
• On November 9, 1993, Powell was awarded the second Ronald Reagan Freedom Award, by President Ronald Reagan. Powell served as Reagan's National Security Advisor from 1987–1989.^[85]
• On December 15, 1993, Colin Powell was created an honorary Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath by Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.
• In 1998, he was awarded the prestigious Sylvanus Thayer Award by the United States Military Academy for his commitment to the ideals of "Duty, Honor, Country."
• The 2002 Liberty Medal was awarded to Colin Powell on July 4 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In his acceptance speech, Powell reminded Americans that "It is for America, the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, to help freedom ring across the globe, unto all the peoples thereof. That is our solemn obligation, and we will not fail."^[86]
• The Coat of Arms of Colin Powell was granted by the Lord Lyon in Edinburgh on February 4, 2004. Technically the grant was to Powell's father (a British subject) to be passed on by descent. Scotland's King of Arms is traditionally responsible for granting arms to Commonwealth citizens of Scottish descent. Blazoned as:

  Azure, two swords in saltire points downwards between four mullets Argent, on a chief of the Second a lion passant Gules. On a wreath of the Liveries is set for Crest the head of an American bald-headed eagle erased Proper. And in an escrol over the same this motto, "DEVOTED TO PUBLIC SERVICE."

  The swords and stars refer to the former general's career, as does the crest, which is the badge of the 101st Airborne (which he served as a brigade commander in the mid-1970s). The lion may be an allusion to Scotland. The shield can be shown surrounded by the insignia of an honorary Knight Commander of the Most Honorable Order of the Bath (KCB), an award the General received after the first Gulf War.
• In 2005 Powell received the Bishop John T. Walker Distinguished Humanitarian Service Award for his contributions to Africa.
• AARP honored Powell with the 2006 AARP Andrus Award, the Association's highest honor. This award, named in honor of AARP's founder, Dr. Ethel Percy Andrus, is presented biennially to distinguished individuals who have generated positive social change in the world, and whose work and achievements reflect AARP's vision of bringing lifetimes of experience and leadership to serve all generations.
• In 2005 Colin and Alma Powell were awarded the Woodrow Wilson Award for Public Service by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars of the Smithsonian Institution.
• Colin Powell was initiated as an honorary brother in Sigma Phi Epsilon.
• Powell is a recipient of the Silver Buffalo Award, the highest adult award given by the Boy Scouts of America.
• A street in Gelnhausen, Germany was named after him: "General-Colin-Powell-Straße".^[87]
• In 2002, scholar Molefi Kete Asante listed Colin Powell on his list of 100 Greatest African Americans.^[88]
• In 2009, an elementary school named for Colin Powell opened in El Paso. It is in the El Paso Independent School District, located on Fort Bliss property, and serves a portion of Fort Bliss. There is also a street in El Paso named for Powell, Colin Powell Drive.
• Powell is an Honorary Board Member of the humanitarian organization Wings of Hope^[89]
• Since 2006, he is the chairman of the Board of Trustees for Eisenhower Fellowships^[90]
• In 2006, The Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem awarded Colin Powell with the Truman Peace Prize for his efforts to conduct the "war against terrorism," through diplomatic as well as military means, and to avert regional and civil conflicts in many parts of the world.^[91]

See also[link]

	Biography portal
	United States Army portal
	Military of the United States portal

• Plame affair
• Pottery Barn rule
• Republican and conservative support for Barack Obama in 2008

References[link]

Further reading[link]

• LaFeber, Walter, "The Rise and Fall of Colin Powell and the Powell Doctrine," Political Science Quarterly, 124 (Spring 2009), 71–93.
• Powell, Colin A. and Joseph Persico, My American Journey, Ballantine Books, 1995. ISBN 0-345-40728-8
  • Excerpts from My American Journey, TIME, September 18, 1995
• DeYoung, Karen, Soldier: The Life of Colin Powell, Alfred A. Knopf, 2006. ISBN 1-4000-4170-8
• "Alex Haley's Other Roots: African-Americans with Irish Ancestors". February 25, 2006. http://web.mac.com/jamesdwithrow/iWeb/Site/Blog/0C7FF890-B6D6-4BB1-82B6-A6273F647B88.html. Retrieved February 22, 2008. 

External links[link]

Find more about Colin Powell on Wikipedia's sister projects:
	Definitions and translations from Wiktionary
	Images and media from Commons
	Learning resources from Wikiversity
	News stories from Wikinews
	Quotations from Wikiquote
	Source texts from Wikisource
	Textbooks from Wikibooks

• Appearances on C-SPAN
  • Booknotes interview with Powell on My American Journey, January 7, 1996.
• Colin Powell on Charlie Rose
• Colin Powell at the Internet Movie Database
• Colin Powell collected news and commentary at The New York Times
• Colin Powell collected news and commentary at The Guardian
• Works by or about Colin Powell in libraries (WorldCat catalog)
• Colin Powell: America's Best Leaders from US News & World Report
• Issue positions and quotes at On the Issues
• Colin Powell Quotes
• African Americans in the U.S. Army
• The American Presidency Project: Remarks on the Retirement of General Colin Powell in Arlington, Virginia, September 30, 1993
• Address to the National Summit on Africa, Washington, DC, February 2000
• Remarks to the United Nations Security Council, February 5, 2003
• Complete text, audio, video of Colin Powell's Remarks to the UN Security Council AmericanRhetoric.com
• "Curveball" Revelations Indicate falsified info used to start Iraq war and esp used for Powell's UN presentation on Iraq WMDs, November 5, 2007
• Colin Powell demands answers over Curveball's WMD lies, Ed Pikington, Helen Pidd and Martin Chulov, The Guardian, February 16, 2011

v t e State Secretaries of the United States Secretary of Foreign Affairs 1781–1789 R. Livingston Jay Secretary of State 1789–present Jefferson Randolph Pickering J. Marshall Madison Smith Monroe Adams Clay Van Buren E. Livingston McLane Forsyth Webster Upshur Calhoun Buchanan Clayton Webster Everett Marcy Cass Black Seward Washburne Fish Evarts Blaine Frelinghuysen Bayard Blaine Foster Gresham Olney Sherman Day Hay Root Bacon Knox Bryan Lansing Colby Hughes Kellogg Stimson Hull Stettinius Byrnes G Marshall Acheson Dulles Herter Rusk Rogers Kissinger Vance Muskie Haig Shultz Baker Eagleburger Christopher Albright Powell Rice Clinton

v t e Cabinet of President George W. Bush (2001–2009)   Cabinet Secretary of State Colin Powell (2001–2005) Condoleezza Rice (2005–2009) Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill (2001–2002) John W. Snow (2003–2006) Henry Paulson (2006–2009) Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (2001–2006) Robert Gates (2006–2009) Attorney General John Ashcroft (2001–2005) Alberto Gonzales (2005–2007) Michael Mukasey (2007–2009) Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton (2001–2006) Dirk Kempthorne (2006–2009) Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman (2001–2005) Mike Johanns (2005–2007) Ed Schafer (2008–2009) Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans (2001–2005) Carlos Gutierrez (2005–2009) Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao (2001–2009) Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson (2001–2005) Mike Leavitt (2005–2009) Secretary of Education Rod Paige (2001–2005) Margaret Spellings (2005–2009) Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Mel Martinez (2001–2003) Alphonso Jackson (2003–2008) Steve Preston (2008–2009) Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta (2001–2006) Mary Peters (2006–2009) Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham (2001–2005) Samuel Bodman (2005–2009) Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony Principi (2001–2005) Jim Nicholson (2005–2007) James Peake (2007–2009) Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge (2003–2005) Michael Chertoff (2005–2009)   Cabinet-level Vice President Dick Cheney (2001–2009) White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card (2001–2006) Joshua Bolten (2006–2009) Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency Christine Todd Whitman (2001–2003) Mike Leavitt (2003–2005) Stephen L. Johnson (2005–2009) Director of the Office of Management and Budget Mitch Daniels (2001–2003) Joshua Bolten (2003–2006) Rob Portman (2006–2007) Jim Nussle (2007–2009) Director of National Drug Control Policy John P. Walters (2001–2009) Trade Representative Robert Zoellick (2001–2005) Rob Portman (2005–2006) Susan Schwab (2006–2009)

v t e Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Bradley Radford Twining Lemnitzer Taylor Wheeler Moorer Brown Jones Vessey Crowe Powell Jeremiah (acting) Shalikashvili Shelton Myers Pace Mullen Dempsey

v t e National Security Advisors of the United States Cutler • Anderson • Jackson • Cutler • Gray • Bundy • Rostow • Kissinger • Scowcroft • Brzezinski • Allen • Clark • McFarlane • Poindexter • Carlucci • Powell • Scowcroft • Lake • Berger • Rice • Hadley • Jones • Donilon