U.S. Covert Action Viewed as Unlikely in Election Year

Senior U.S. officials are growing increasingly frustrated and skeptical about the prospects for major covert action, particularly in the Middle East, during President Bush’s reelection campaign.

The officials say the Administration, concerned about the potential controversy of costly, prolonged or complex operations, is opting for comparatively low-key actions, notably against Iraq and Libya, that would avoid the need for U.S. troops in prominent roles, either directly or as backups.

“There’s all kinds of nervousness and restraints about engaging in actions that might be considered doable in any other year,” one disgruntled senior analyst said.

White House officials denied that political concerns are putting the brakes on otherwise-feasible initiatives. They cite formidable logistic and diplomatic problems, not political factors, as the main obstacles for more forceful action now on Iraq or Libya.

“There’s all kinds of strategies out there and lots of debate on what to do,” said one Administration official. “But I don’t see politics being initiated in any way into the discussion.”

A split is not unusual in an election year. Most complaints come from career specialists who guide top policy-makers. Their perspective on the direction and timing of foreign-policy decisions has clashed in the past with the views of Bush’s tight core of confidants and political appointees who make the final decisions. But the frustration is particularly acute now because of problems left by the Gulf War, Libyan terrorism and other fronts where action might set important precedents for the post-Cold War era.

“No one wants to do anything anywhere, even against Iraq, that might upset the apple cart. It’s a ‘lay low’ attitude driven by the election-year mentality,” said an official familiar with the plans.

Although Bush authorized increased funding late last year for covert operations against Iraq, action now is directed largely at encouraging internal dissent to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, according to U.S. sources.

A U.S. Mideast specialist said the White House considers Hussein’s political survival “a major source of embarrassment.” But, he noted, “at the same time, no one wants to take the risks of an operation that could fall on its face, like Desert One,” a reference to the Carter Administration’s failed hostage rescue attempt in Iran, in which eight U.S. troops were killed six months before the 1980 election.

Other officials said that even the recent leaks about the new presidential authorization and funding for covert U.S. action against the Baghdad regime were aimed more at short-term gains in psychological warfare than at changing U.S. policy.

But White House sources countered that their reservations stem from skepticism that Hussein’s grasp on power could be shaken without extensive U.S. military involvement, now considered risky and unwise.

In the case of Libya’s continued defiance of a U.N. resolution on the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, several U.S. officials said the White House has decided not to seek a U.N. oil embargo, which would require a military blockade to be effective. The next step will, instead, be limited to a resolution calling mainly for an air embargo.

White House officials reportedly fear that a blockade would require a long-term military presence in the waters off the Libyan coast that might in turn force some kind of confrontation if the regime of Col. Moammar Kadafi continued to export oil, Pentagon sources said.

Times staff writer Douglas Jehl contributed to this report.