By Vernon Loeb
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 18, 1998; Page A57

Leaders of Iraq's fractured opposition exiles watched Operation Desert Fox unfold yesterday with obvious anticipation. But they expressed concern that President Clinton's recent pledge to give more support to their cause has not produced an opposition role in the administration's assault on Baghdad.

Clinton promised a month ago to support the opposition and implement the Iraqi Liberation Act, a new law authorizing $97 million in U.S. military aid to opposition forces. But opposition leaders here and in London noted yesterday that no one in the Clinton administration has even mentioned the act since the wave of air attacks on Iraq began Wednesday night.

They expressed particular concern with Defense Secretary William S. Cohen's assertion that the airstrikes are not designed "to destabilize the regime." Cohen and other administration figures have said the attacks are designed primarily to diminish the Iraqi government's ability to menace its neighbors in the Persian Gulf or to produce and deliver nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

"If Saddam will stay in power and this is not part of a sustained policy to get rid of him, then it will be bad for Iraq and bad for the neighborhood," said a Kurdish opposition source based in Washington.

He and other opposition leaders said they fear the administration will call off the attacks at the outset of Ramadan, the Muslim holy month beginning this weekend, leaving President Saddam Hussein in power and emboldened by having withstood yet another American assault. The Washington-based Kurdish source urged a sustained series of assaults, so that real damage is done to Saddam Hussein's ability to remain in power.

Most exiled Iraqi opposition activists are grouped under the aegis of the Iraqi National Congress, a coalition headed by Ahmed Chalabi and based in London. Within Iraq, two Kurdish militias control territory, shielded by U.S.-enforced no-fly zones. One group is located in a northern area the size of Austria, and a substantial number of Shiite Muslim opponents to Saddam Hussein live in an area of southern Iraq.

Sharif Hussein, a claimant to the long-abolished Iraqi throne and leader of another Iraqi opposition group – one that wants to see a constitutional monarchy established – said the airstrikes can only help weaken Saddam Hussein's government and lay the groundwork for a resurgent opposition.

"It is up to us to take advantage of this and use it within Iraq as an opportunity to weaken the regime further and then overthrow it," said Hussein, who spent the day meeting with leaders on Capitol Hill.

Clinton's first explicit call for a new government in Iraq came Nov. 15 when he called off planned airstrikes against Baghdad. At the time, he vowed to support the opposition and implement the Iraqi Liberation Act, legislation designed to support insurgents and encourage Iraqi military defectors in rebellious zones in the northern Kurdish mountains and the southern marshlands where the Tigris River flows into the Persian Gulf.

The president reiterated his desire for a new Iraqi government and again pledged to support the opposition in a televised address to the nation Wednesday night. "The best way to end that threat once and for all is with the new Iraqi government," Clinton said. "We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces."

But as top administration officials repeatedly stressed yesterday that they were not out to topple Saddam Hussein's regime, critics inside and outside the opposition said the administration seemed to want it both ways.

Former Army Gen. Wayne Downing, a key military strategist for the Iraqi opposition and a leading proponent of establishing liberated zones within Iraq, said he has seen no linkage between the airstrikes and support for opposition military plans.

"I guess the thing I don't know is, what are we trying to do? What is the objective? What is the end game?" Downing said. "The stated [policy goal] in general is to topple the regime. I don't think you do it through this kind of [attack]. They may have other things that they're planning on doing. But I don't see airstrikes or cruise missiles toppling the regime."

But Kenneth M. Pollack, a senior fellow at the National Defense University, said he believes the Iraqi opposition benefits from the current airstrikes, one way or the other.

"I think there are going to be tangible benefits and diplomatic benefits," he said. "Tangibly, it's going to demonstrate to the Iraqi people that we really do want Saddam gone. The diplomatic benefit is, the opposition groups – particularly the expatriates – are going to be able to portray the results of this as a reason to support them. If it works, they'll be able to say, 'Saddam is vulnerable, now is the time to strike.' And if the operation is a total failure, they're going to come to us and say, 'Containment has failed.'"