ASHINGTON, June 18 The Bush administration has concluded that options short of an all-out military assault against Iraq, including military support to opposition forces or fomenting a coup, should be tried over the next few months to dislodge President Saddam Hussein from power.

But many in the administration expect those attempts to fail, and there is disagreement over how to proceed with a more robust military strategy.

Advertisement

The more limited plan using American Special Forces working with opposition forces on the ground, along the Afghanistan model has strong proponents on the civilian side of the Pentagon and within the president's National Security Council, administration and Congressional officials say.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff, however, say privately that the differences between Iraq and Afghanistan are vast and call that approach nave. If ordered to commit forces, they favor a decisive, overwhelming use of troops, the officials said.

The chiefs have said that an invasion would require at least 200,000 troops and have expressed deep concerns that Mr. Hussein might use biological or chemical weapons. They also worry about a prolonged occupation in a post-Hussein Iraq.

While Bush administration officials agree on the need to oust the Iraqi leader, they are providing the president with differing assessments of Mr. Hussein's strength and the ability of the United States to force him out through limited means.

Three approaches to removing Mr. Hussein have been discussed, the officials said: providing logistical and intelligence help to his enemies in hopes of inciting a mutiny within his military circle; providing air and limited ground support for an assault by opposition groups; or an outright American invasion.

The options are not mutually exclusive, and some administration officials say that the more limited options should be tried before resorting to an all-out invasion.

Gen. Tommy R. Franks, who as commander of the Central Command would oversee any military action against Iraq, presented Defense Department officials today with a strategy paper that laid out his military requirements for toppling Mr. Hussein. General Franks is to brief President Bush on the paper on Wednesday.

Mr. Bush, who has insisted that a change of leadership in Iraq is a core goal, has yet to decide on a course of action, officials say.

There are some indications that Mr. Bush may not feel compelled to decide right away on a single approach, but that he may give the covert strategy and international sanctions time to run their course.

Pentagon planners say they would in any case need at least three to five months to position forces for an invasion, which officials said would not be likely before early next year.

Provoking a military coup may be the most desirable option, but the Central Intelligence Agency's efforts for more than a decade to weaken and sabotage Mr. Hussein have been thwarted by his control over his own security. Even within the C.I.A., officials give a coup little chance.

The second approach is inspired by the American campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan. The United States would insert Special Forces troops into southern Iraq and declare a liberated zone there. Working with opposition forces, the United States would provide air cover for an attack on Baghdad, providing intelligence and logistical support.

The strongest advocates of this strategy are Pentagon civilians, led by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz and Gen. Wayne A. Downing, the White House's deputy national security adviser for fighting terrorism, officials said.

In this view, Mr. Hussein is far weaker than he was during the Persian Gulf war, and opposition forces could count on large-scale defections from Iraqi forces. But skeptics say it is wishful thinking to try to replicate the campaign in Afghanistan, where the American-backed Northern Alliance was more evenly matched against the Taliban forces.

Even in a limited role, critics say, American forces would have to contend with threats never posed in Afghanistan, including ground-based air defenses and the possibility that Mr. Hussein would unleash weapons of mass destruction.

The last option, which officials say is most likely, would involve a full-scale invasion by American and possibly British troops. Some officials refer to this possibility as "Persian Gulf War Lite," because it would involve fewer than half the 540,000 troops deployed in the 1991 conflict.

Everybody agrees that a plan is incomplete without an endgame. The Joint Chiefs emphasize the need to set a definition for victory in Iraq, to determine who or what would replace Mr. Hussein's government, and to assess the impact of such action on the complicated mix of Persian Gulf and Middle Eastern politics.