Ralph Nader came through Syracuse on Friday for the second time this school year. And true to his leftist stand, he implored the government to ‘Bring Our Troops Home, End The Iraq War and Rebuild Our Communities,’ which also happens to be the title of his speech.

This is what has become of the left’s anti-war movement. Known historically as the political wing for peace, love and sex, the left has abandoned that first principle. Bring our troops home? How many more Iraqi people will die if we do that?

On this, the left has made a wrong turn. It’s protesting just to protest, and in the process resembled the right, selfishly insisting that (ITALICS)our(ITALICS) troops come home, at the expense of what would surely be Iraqi lives.

The right is usually associated with selfishness – lower taxes, fewer social programs, no affirmative action, no living wage, etc. But for once it is willing to sacrifice American lives for the benefit of others, and the leftists, who seem to be swept up with nothing more than blind anti-President Bush rage, object.

The right has stolen the left’s issue. Remember, leftists? Remember John F. Kennedy? The Democrat, in his in inaugural address in 1961, said, ‘Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.’

Remember Jimmy Carter? ‘Human rights is the soul of our foreign policy, because human rights is the very soul of our sense of nationhood.’

Remember liberals, you’re supposed to be in favor of peace, liberty and human rights. Right now, Iraq is working on getting there. Why now are you protesting the ideals for which you have historically stood?

And, let me be clear. Understanding the U.S. needs to keep its troops in Iraq is perfectly compatible with understanding this was an unjust war, that President Bush lied, manipulated and fabricated facts in order to bring about this war. You can still believe this is a war for oil, that Bush and Co. ubiquitously failed in their post-war plan at winning the peace and that Bush used the war as a diversion to domestic problems.

But this is 2005, not 2003. Things have changed. Iraq actually might become a democracy. At this point, it’s clear the United States needs to keep its troops in Iraq.

It’s baffling that the left wants to pull troops when a Middle East country is actually on the brink of democracy. Democratic reforms in Egypt and Saudi Arabia were tiny, probably insignificant, since they were mostly window-dressing. But they’re steps, and if in 10 years this works, and two or three democracies pop up in the Middle East (Lebanon and Palestine look like countries on the brink of democracy), history will show Bush, in all his stupidity, in a far different light.

A lot of liberals complain about how life must be for Iraqis now. Hundreds of thousands have died. But, had Saddam stayed in power, the same number would have likely perished in time. It’s the same argument comedian Bill Maher, a staunch liberal, has made recently on his show, ‘Real Time with Bill Maher.’ It makes sense.

No, things aren’t perfect now. But liberals are supposed to be the ones to look long term. How long should it take for a dictatorship to transform into a democracy? A month? The truth is, if this works out, it would have been worth it, considering how many total lives would ultimately be saved.

The anti-war movement disagrees. It also disagrees that, in spite of all the progress, it’s still a plan worth abandoning. Nader said as much Friday.

After his speech, Nader was asked what if it works?

He responded poetically, professionally.

‘What if turtles fly?’

Touch. But although Nader remains pessimistic, things appear to be improving. The Iraqi government, whether it is a pawn of the United States, is forming. Especially after the elections, the insurgents just look like bitter, powerless losers.

I don’t know if Nader truly believes what he says or if he’s only acting to put pressure on the Democrats to stand up to Bush. But he suggests replacing U.S. troops with a U.N. peacekeeping force and Arab troops from neighboring countries, what he calls a ‘responsible withdrawal,’ when withdrawing now would be irresponsible. In fact, the crux of Nader’s plan sounds a lot like Bush’s budget plan: Make a mess, let someone else clean it up.

Liberals, if you’re clamoring for ways to attack Bush, there are plenty. There’s the budget that will destroy the economy as students here graduate and look for jobs. There’s the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which Bush recently opened up with very limited criticism. There’s the fact that Bush recently signed a bill making it harder for citizens to file lawsuits against corporations. In fact, there’s (ITALICS)everything(ITALICS) else to hate him for.

But, on Iraq, as time goes on, things really are looking more optimistic. So liberals, support peace, like you’re supposed to, and understand it really could emerge in Iraq. And if it works, bite your lip. Maybe Bush deserves some of the credit.

Scott Lieber is a junior magazine major. E-mail him at smlieber@syr.edu.

Published on April 18, 2005 at 12:00 pm