Iraq: truth or consequences

0 Comments | Insight on the News, May 13, 1996 | by Paul M. Rodriguez, | Jamie Dettmer

Senior U.S. officials report that President Clinton has given the go-ahead in the past six months for U.S. intelligence agencies and "black-operations" units to assist Iraqi exile groups in efforts to topple Saddam Hussein. Lying and failure to inform invite congressional investigation.

Amidst news reports that President Clinton tacitly approved of covert Iranian arms shipments to Bosnian Muslims and the Croats comes surprising information that, as part of a complicated White House policy in the Middle East, a presidential "finding" may have been signed authorizing covert U.S. assistance in a coup aimed at Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

In the event such a finding exists--details are sketchy--it officially would confirm that the president has ordered a far more muscular and proactive policy toward the Iraqi dictator, according to senior U.S. government officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.

"Without confirming or denying [the finding's] existence, it would be safe to say that we are working very closely with our allies and others in that part of the world to get rid of this guy," says a high-ranking U.S. intelligence official. Translation: Get Saddam by any means possible.

If Clinton signed such a finding, and there are conflicting reports that he has, congressional sources say he did so as part of a "misguided" and "wrong-headed" policy born partly out of frustration and partly out of politics. But senior U.S. intelligence and foreign-policy officials cite administration fears that, despite being weakened by defections from his inner circle and the crippling U.N. trade embargo, Saddam still possesses the potential to wreck the troubled Mideast peace process--and with it the ability to embarrass the White House in the days just before the fall elections.

Warnings that someone still may be assisting the Iraqi military leader to obtain nuclear capabilities also concern the Clinton administration and, according to U.S. sources, may have helped to move forward any efforts to get rid of Saddam.

Details about any covert operations approved by the president are difficult to ascertain, especially when it comes to a presidential finding--a super top-secret document in which a president authorizes direct covert operations in the interests of U.S. national security. Congress is supposed to be informed of such "findings" within 48 hours of a determination. Bipartisan congressional sources have told Insight that, while something is up, they would neither confirm nor deny initial reports from U.S. intelligence sources that Clinton indeed has signed a finding concerning Iraq.

At the same time, varied high-level sources say there are specific contingencies in the "black" portion of the intelligence budget involving Iraq, as well as other countries in the Middle East, and that such plans were hotly debated late last year on Capitol Hill behind closed doors.

"This administration is conducting American foreign policy in a very dangerous and unsafe way," says one of more than a dozen congressional, administration, intelligence and foreign-policy officials contacted by Insight. "Take for example the Iranian arms pipelines matter," says another official. "It's schizoid. On the one hand, the administration tells our allies not to deal with the Iranians, but on the other hand, we're allowing [the Iranians] to sell guns and ammunition to the Bosnians. While that may be a good thing because the Muslims are the good guys, it borders on illegal actions by a U.S. president because of various laws and U.N. actions that prohibit us from doing such a thing."

The official continues, "If it was illegal to do this with the Contras, then it stands to reason that it's illegal or damn close to it with the Bosnians." And, noted another concerned intelligence official, "what we're hearing about in Iraq (as in, U.S.-assisted covert operations), could be similar" to the Contra fiasco.

One of the major problems in evaluating what President Clinton is doing, say several congressional and foreign-policy sources, is determining the truth about what the White House says it is or isn't doing. "They lie to the Congress about what they're doing and, when called on the carpet for it, they say it's not happening, say they've told the senior congressional leadership or, when pressed, they claim `executive privilege' on the details."

Officials, both on Capitol Hill and in the administration, who are familiar with details contained in the intelligence budget will say little about exactly what Clinton has endorsed -- whether involving Iran or Iraq. Few even are prepared to acknowledge that the president has authorized covert operations, let alone signed a finding authorizing U.S. aid to Saddam's rivals.

Senior White House officials, many of whom have just returned from extended travels with the president in Asia and Russia or are on other missions in the Mideast at press time, had no comment on a possible Iraq finding. A spokesman for the National Security Council, or NSC, said he could neither confirm nor deny existence of the Iraqi finding. He added: "For us to talk about it would be breaking the law. We cannot break the law." A spokesman for the Central Intelligence Agency, or CIA, said that he could not comment on any Iraqi initiatives. When pressed about a finding, he said, "You'll have to go talk to the NSC. We're just not going to comment about it. It's up to the big boys over at the White House."