U.S. Dispute Holds Up Covert Iraq Operation

An escalating dispute between the Senate and White House over U.S. intelligence strategy in Iraq has blocked a major covert operation designed to destabilize the regime of President Saddam Hussein, according to congressional and administration officials.

The delays in the clandestine plan, which has been on hold since mid-1998, have undermined America’s ability to cultivate members of the regime and encourage other Iraqis inside the country to challenge Hussein, and potentially even oust him, according to sources familiar with the proposal.

Administration, congressional and intelligence community officials all declined to discuss details of the covert plan, but it was described as an ambitious effort involving CIA operations inside the country.

The dispute between the Clinton administration and Congress boils down to an argument over whether the most effective strategy to unseat Hussein is to work within Iraq, or to aid opposition groups headquartered mainly outside the country.

Since the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991, both the Bush and Clinton administrations have based most U.S. intelligence operations on the belief that Hussein ultimately could be replaced by people with a major presence inside Iraq--either dissidents or, more likely, disillusioned officials close to the Iraqi leader.

But after a 1996 debacle in northern Iraq, when Hussein’s military intervention closed down the CIA-backed opposition headquarters, Senate Republicans have increasingly questioned and refused to fund new internal operations.

Key senators instead want greater U.S. support for opposition groups whose leaders are largely outside the country--including, ironically, the very group that was forced out of northern Iraq and is now headquartered in London.

In a recent letter to President Clinton, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and the chairmen of the Senate Intelligence and Foreign Relations committees warned of a “perceived drift in U.S. policy on Iraq.”

They called on the administration to end its “foot-dragging” on U.S. aid to opposition groups such as the Iraqi National Congress, a coalition of Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish groups that operated in Iraq’s northern Kurdish region and now proposes setting up an enclave to launch military operations in the south.

Leading Senate Republicans are also pressuring the White House to develop a more comprehensive policy to overthrow Hussein. In the meantime, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, chaired by Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.), is blocking funding for the clandestine program inside Iraq.

Frustrated U.S. officials say the dispute has paralyzed a major intelligence operation, and allowed Congress to commandeer strategy on Iraq.

Increasing congressional involvement was reflected in passage of the Iraq Liberation Act, which allocates $97 million for efforts to destabilize Hussein, basically in military materiel drawn from Pentagon surpluses.

Both the administration and the intelligence community believe that the congressionally mandated program is an empty gesture and waste of tax dollars. Because the opposition does not have a front line within Iraq or along any of Iraq’s six borders, there is no viable site for deployment of the military equipment, U.S. officials contend.

“Where are we supposed to deliver the military equipment--Bayswater?” a senior U.S. official asked ruefully, referring to the London suburb where key Iraqi opposition officials live.

The administration believes that the plan advanced by the Iraqi National Congress to create a southern enclave that would attract defectors from Hussein’s military is “dreaming,” as one U.S. official put it.

When the Iraqi National Congress ran the northern enclave, with U.S. help, the response from Iraqi dissidents was minimal.

“The theory is simple: Create another enclave and they will come. But it didn’t work very well before, and isn’t likely to now either,” said a former intelligence official. “Most of those who showed up had little food or shelter.”

Although initial resistance within the Senate Intelligence Committee included both Democrats and Republicans, Shelby has been the most outspoken in challenging the CIA plan, congressional and administration officials say.

Clinton has personally intervened in the dispute in an effort to convince committee members of the proposal’s merits, noting that it would cost significantly less than the $97 million mandated by the Iraq Liberation Act. Clinton met with Shelby at one point to discuss the issue.

But the president has had limited success so far, and his pending impeachment trial in the Senate may have hurt his ability to influence Republicans on the intelligence panel, congressional and other U.S. officials say.

“Without Shelby, the chances of getting the required funding are small,” said one well-placed U.S. official.

Shelby has been “very disturbed” with the administration over what he considers to be a “reactive” policy toward Iraq, according to sources close to him.

“We react to events that Hussein controls rather than formulating and executing a strategy that would remove him from power. And until the chairman sees that policy, which includes the Iraq Liberation Act implemented at its fullest, then he’s skeptical of any single piece being able to do the job by itself,” the source said.

In the letter signed by Lott, Shelby, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) and two other senators, the Republicans accuse the State Department and Pentagon of refusing to implement the new Iraq Liberation Act.

“Neither the Office of the Secretary of Defense nor the Joint Staff have even begun work on plans for drawdown, equipping or training the opposition,” the letter complains. “Your commitment to support the political opposition to Saddam Hussein has not trickled down through the administration.”

When he aborted a planned airstrike on Iraq in mid-November, Clinton pledged to work with Congress to implement the new law and “to make the opposition a more effective voice for the aspirations of the Iraqi people.” That language was part of a White House effort to appease Senate concerns, despite its serious ongoing reservations about the Iraq Liberation Act, U.S. officials say.

The administration thought its commitment to engage in a dual-track approach would persuade Shelby and other Republican holdouts to approve funding for the CIA program. But it has not been forthcoming, heightening frustration within the administration and the intelligence community.

Representatives of the intelligence community have tried to convince key intelligence committee members that they learned important lessons from the fiasco of 1996, when a spat between the two main Kurdish factions offered Hussein a pretext to intervene militarily in the north. The CIA station based in the Kurdish region was hastily forced to dismantle, its operatives fled, and the effort crumbled.

U.S. officials say they can’t have an effective policy without a program that includes covert operations inside Iraq. The stalled program is necessary to collect intelligence inside Iraq as well as to try to destabilize the regime, they say.