Covert no more?

COVERT NO MORE?

THE FIRST civilian director of the peacetime Central Intelligence Agency, Allen Dulles, once observed, echoing Alexis de Tocqueville, that Americans make poor spies for the same reason that they make good republicans: their democratic cast of character. Now, for the second time in little more than a decade, the U.S. passion for open government has yielded harsh investigation into how the U.S. operates in the shadowy world of intelligence. Other democracies, notably those which better insulate their leaders from their elected representatives, would find this scrutiny intolerable.

"The Iran-Contra hearings tell our enemies on national television how covert operations work, how paper flows, how decisions are made and executed,' laments a former senior congressional intelligence aide. Israel and Portugal helped with the airlift of arms to Iran, and Saudi Arabia brokered the early contact between the U.S. and the Iranians. Non-government agents like Major General Second were brought in to cover the Administration's involvement in the deal. Such friendly countries and friendly middlemen will almost certainly cold-shoulder U.S. spymasters in the future, declining to reveal contacts, initiatives, data. Intelligence assets are like virginity: Once lost, they're gone forever.

Yet many in Congress and in the intelligence community disagree. They argue that the CIA's virtue vanished long ago, when the Church and Pike committees released voluminous reports on CIA abuses in 1975. The CIA's relationship with Congress soured, weakening the Agency and encouraging intelligence leaks. America became a laughing-stock among our allies, who began to withhold information for fear of media exposure. After the Soviets caught us unawares with their 1979 invasion of Afghanistan, Congress tried to unleash the CIA somewhat, but, according to intelligence insiders, the earlier damage could not be undone.

There has been one crucial difference between the Church-Pike inquiries and the hearing just ended. During and after the Church hearings, Americans doubted whether the U.S. should even be engaging in "immoral' (some said "amoral') spy operations. "This time, Congress and the Amercian people are focusing on the real need for covert operations,' notes Republican House Intelligence Committee member Dan Lungren. "Now the people know how much we need them, so in some ways the CIA is actually strengthened.'

There are other reasons why observers here think the CIA, paradoxically, emerges stronger from the Iran-Contra hearings. First, the Agency appears more bureaucratic than it is generally thought to be, a condition that, for once, is felicitious. It pleases institutionally minded legislators. Although the Iran-Contra affair showed former CIA Director Casey helping the National Security Council to carry out secret operations, and deceiving Congress about it, the only person in the Company acting possibly outside or above the law appears to have been Casey himself. It was the NSC, remember, that diverted money to the Contras. The CIA was specifically barred from doing so, and that prohibition was obeyed. "In fact, the hearings have served to emphasize to Congress the controls that exist within the CIA,' says a senior Democratic intelligence aide. "The Agency's leadership clearly worries when it doesn't have written authority.'

Secondly, the CIA has a better chance of keeping secret operations under wraps now, because Congress has been stung by Oliver North's accusations that it cannot keep covert operations secret. North's charge was implicitly confirmed by the resignation of Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy from the vice chairmanship of the Intelligence Committee (Leahy leaked copiously to NBC early this year and, to his credit, admitted it). Now, as a point of honor, Congress will work to stop any leaks--for a while, anyway. Legislators who yearn to leak intelligence information in order to sabotage a policy they disapprove of will be expected to hold their tongues, at least for now.

Thirdly, CIA Director-designate William Webster will doubtless strengthen the image of the organization, since he has the wholehearted approval of the committees. Lawmakers believe Webster will scrupulously adhere to all the rules and regulations governing covert actions, and not, like Casey, try to make end-runs around Congress. "No CIA director has ever looked Congress in the eyes and said, "The hell with you,'' says a former top CIA official. "But Casey came closest.'

SO, WHAT DOES a stronger CIA-- albeit one more tied to Congress --portend in the aftermath of the Iran-Contra hearings? Contrary to the popular alarmism, covert operations will not become an endangered species. President Reagan, of course, can ill afford another potentially explosive operation and will certainly refrain from undertaking one without congressional concurrence. But Mr. Reagan's successor, notwithstanding the Iran-Contra affair--indeed perhaps because of it--stands an excellent chance of seeing his intelligence proposals readily approved by Congress and implemented. Finally, the executor of covert actions will be the CIA, not the NSC or any ad hoc band of the President's men. As former CIA Director William Colby rightly says, "The lesson of the whole Iran affair is, "For God's sake, let CIA professionals handle the covert stuff.'' Not bad for a hearing that might have enfeebled our primary intelligence organ.