NEWS ANALYSIS : Anti-Noriega Push: Rhetoric Exceeds Reality

The Bush Administration’s renewed embarrassment at the hands of Panamanian strongman Manuel A. Noriega highlights a dilemma that has dogged the United States for nearly two years: Two successive Presidents have allowed their political rhetoric to surge beyond the power that they were willing to use to oust the drug-tainted dictator.

First President Ronald Reagan and now President Bush--with vociferous support from Congress--have staked American prestige on driving Noriega from office. Both Presidents failed, in part because they shied away from direct military intervention. Yet, their denunciations of Noriega have made backing away from the confrontation nearly impossible.

“We overdid it on the rhetoric, and now we’re trapped,” said Rep. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee. “Both the Administration and Congress spoke a lot of loud words while carrying a little stick.”

Some analysts argue that both the rhetoric and the commitment have been out of proportion to the actual threat Noriega poses to U.S. interests. In the world of international drug traffic, Noriega is not a major factor. And he has been careful to do nothing that might threaten the major U.S. security interest in his country: the Panama Canal.

At the same time, it has become painfully clear that besting Noriega probably would require the use of U.S. military force, something the Administration is unwilling to do.

In the wake of Tuesday’s failed attempt by Panamanian officers to overthrow Noriega, Administration officials acknowledged that they still have no attractive options to pursue. Indeed, some officials and experts outside the government believe that the incident may have made Noriega’s position even more secure, at least in the short run.

“Our policy has been to apply steady, relentless pressure on the Noriega regime across the board,” Secretary of State James A. Baker III said Wednesday, defending Administration actions before the Senate Finance Committee. “. . . As far as we’re concerned, the pressure is going to continue until Noriega is gone.”

Gaping Mismatch

But a growing group of critics--and some officials, speaking on condition that they not be identified--see a gaping mismatch between the Administration’s goals and the tools it has been willing to use.

“The Bush Administration and the President have made an error in repeating the Reagan rhetorical onslaught if they didn’t mean to do anything,” said Elliott Abrams, who led the abortive U.S. charge against Noriega in the Reagan years.

“The Administration hasn’t done what it could be doing even short of military force,” said Robert Kurz, a Democratic expert on Latin America. “I think they really view it more as a domestic political problem than anything else.”

Noriega, a wily veteran of Panama’s ruthless military politics, has now survived two attempted coups with ease. Administration officials argued that this week’s attempt may have weakened his grip by highlighting divisions in the military. Baker called it “a visible sign that the regime is cracking.” But other experts pointed out that the opposite is equally likely.

“When a coup fails, the first thing you see is a purge in the military, to get rid of anyone who might be a dissident,” said Mark Falcoff of the American Enterprise Institute.

Cat With Many Lives

A Pentagon intelligence analyst agreed. “Noriega recovers quickly from setbacks,” he said. “He’s a cat with more than nine lives.”

The Administration’s options are few. One, urged by Abrams and some members of Congress, is to use direct U.S. military force against Noriega. But that choice could cost lives and embroil the United States in a long, unwanted fight.

“The military option is just a non-option . . . it’s not a battle the Defense Department is going to take on,” said the former head of the U.S. military assistance group in Panama, Lt. Col. Erik Kjonnerod, who until his retirement from the military last week was a leading Pentagon specialist on Panama policy.

Pentagon officials consistently have opposed any U.S. military action in Panama, concerned about the policy impact such a move might have in other countries where the U.S. has military bases, particularly the Philippines. In addition, a military move against Noriega might spur the general’s supporters to sabotage the vulnerable canal.

Baker told the Senate panel that military force “has never been ruled out,” but he put his emphasis on non-military pressure.

‘Hope It Will Work Soon’

Thus, the second--and most likely--option is to continue the current course: a combination of diplomatic and economic pressure intended to convince Noriega that he should step down. “It hasn’t worked yet,” a State Department official acknowledged. “We hope it will work soon. But don’t ask me how.”

Ordinarily, policy-makers faced with such an unpalatable set of options might begin looking for a quiet route toward the exit. But for now, backing away seems impossible.

The problem stems from the peculiar history of U.S. involvement with Noriega. Although Noriega probably has been corrupt and brutal during virtually his entire career, he was once considered a friend by U.S defense and intelligence agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Administration, for which he served as an informant.

But the relationship soured in the years after Noriega ousted his last rivals for power in 1985 and reports of his involvement with drug traffickers spread. By 1987, Noriega’s domestic opposition was increasing its protests against him and appealing for U.S. help. At the same time, two U.S. attorneys’ offices were preparing to indict the Panamanian leader on drug charges.

Those events spurred Reagan Administration officials to move away from Noriega, at first in careful steps but then in a series of high-profile presidential denunciations that staked U.S. prestige on getting Noriega out of office.

By now, Administration officials fear, any softening toward Noriega would appear to be a capitulation to drug traffickers--a move that they are unwilling to make. In addition, Noriega’s repeated successes have built frustration and antipathy toward him that have stiffened U.S. resolve to oust him, officials say.