Surprising Talk

Recent conversations with the Republican candidates for the U. S. House and Senate made it clear that President Bush's Iraq policy worries them as much as it does Democrats. Perhaps this is a demonstration that Vermont Republicans are a breed apart, but the views of Senate candidate Rich Tarrant and House candidate Martha Rainville can't help but stir unease in the White House.

Vermonters appalled, as we are, by the Iraq invasion and subsequent turmoil may well conclude that in this election for national office, it's important not to elect Republicans of any stripe; but Vermonters ought also to be aware of how far the views of Rainville and Tarrant diverge from the President's "stay the course" rhetoric.

• Here's Tarrant on Iraq—

"It's time for us to start getting out. I'd rather that they fight each other than us."

As to the President's argument that fighting in Iraq will keep terrorism from moving to our shores, Tarrant responded, "I believe just the opposite. When they're fighting each other, they're not fighting us.

"I've said right along that the civil war was inevitable. We have no right being in the middle of it."

• And here's the startling comment you hear from Martha Rainville, who is not only a Republican but a self-described "Navy brat" with deep respect for the military ethos:

"I will never use the word 'victory' for our goal in Iraq," she told The Herald last week. "A peaceful Iraq is unlikely."

Is there a military solution for terrorism? she was asked. "I don't think so," she replied. Far more effective is international collaboration and better intelligence, she suggested.

A first step in Iraq, Rainville said, is to "acknowledge our mistakes—the concept was unrealistic, there was no post-conflict planning. The Secretary of Defense didn't clearly see the need or did not listen. This allowed the insurgency …"

Rainville was reminded that her opponent, Democrat Peter Welch, has long called for Rumsfeld to be fired. She argued that such a call was "a waste of time" since only the President can do that, but she repeatedly referred to frustration with Rumsfeld.

"The secretary of defense must listen," she said.

As for their thinking on what to do now, both Republicans stress disengagement, and the sooner the better. Tarrant suggests moving American forces out of Iraq to an outside position where air power can be offered when needed.

Rainville said she reluctantly sees a necessity for continuing the engagement for a year, more or less. However, she sees more danger in staying too long than in pulling out too soon.

"A certain amount of work won't be done until we're out of the picture," she said. "The danger is in wanting to stay more, and then a little more. We will need to pull back before all the task is completed."

Asked if the U. S. is safer because of the invasion, Senate candidate Tarrant put on a decidedly pained expression.

"For some reason, we haven't been attacked again," he offered. Then: "But human intelligence and technology are the #1 defenses, not the war." World opinion of the U.S. "has clearly dropped" because of the Iraq engagement, he admitted.

That's a point that Rainville makes about the discussion over the treatment of prisoners.

"The government needs appropriate tools to keep us safe," she said. "But I condemn torture. When we are strong it's because we've done what's right."