# Legitimacy of the Iraq invasion/occupation vs. legitimacy of the insurgency **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 9, 2005, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926 "2005-01-09T20:58:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2005, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/21 "2005-01-10T13:35:24Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > By those standards, I suppose, yes, if the UN had voted for the invasion it would be legitimate – because even the principle of national sovereignty has acknowledged exceptions, situations where it is legitimate to violate it, and the UN is the body with the most perceived authority when it comes to making that kind of determination. Second question: but UN Security Council Resolutions 1483 and 1511 designated the Coalition Provisional Authority as the occupation authority (during the time it existed) and asked all member states to contribute to the stabilization of Iraq. Why the double standard when it comes to the occupation? > [@HailAnts](#): > > With all due respect to our UK dopers (screw the French) if the US had gone it totally alone in the first Gulf War absolutely, positively nothing whatsoever would have been different. All the other military powers of the world combined do not equal a tenth of the US’s. This is exactly the kind of thinking that brought about the insurgency in Iraq. Military power may be the power of last resort, but that does not mean that it is the only source of power in the world. Egpyt and other Arab countries contributed several divisions’ worth of troops to Desert Shield. You may not care about it, but the fact that the Arab world – with the exception of Jordan, and perhaps Syria, IRRC – were actively united against Saddam Hussein was extremely important. If we had gone to war in 2003 with such a coaltion, it would likely have much much harder for insurgents to gain international support. At the very least, our relations with Arab countries would not have been ruined by the war. ---
**Author:** ![sinical\_brit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/48db29/32.png) [@sinical\_brit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sinical_brit)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2005, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/22 "2005-01-10T14:42:28Z")
Hail ANts: I’m sure that most UK dopers dont really want respect from you of all people ( except Ryan\_liam obviously ). Just remind me what 11/9/01 has to do with invading Iraq again. Sin ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2005, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/23 "2005-01-10T15:14:21Z")
> [@sinical brit](#): > > Hail ANts: > > I’m sure that most UK dopers dont really want respect from you of all people ( except Ryan\_liam obviously ). > > Just remind me what 11/9/01 has to do with invading Iraq again. > Sin Not really. I stand by my convictions though that what we’re doing in Iraq now, is right. ---
**Author:** ![sinical\_brit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/48db29/32.png) [@sinical\_brit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sinical_brit)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2005, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/24 "2005-01-10T15:32:18Z")
So, what do you think of Hail Ants grandstanding Ryan? It seems to be a reasonablely well established stance from the threads i have read over that past couple of years, and for that reason cant really be labled extreme. Too much testosterone ? Sin ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2005, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/25 "2005-01-10T17:27:57Z")
> [@sinical brit](#): > > So, what do you think of Hail Ants grandstanding Ryan? > > It seems to be a reasonablely well established stance from the threads i have read over that past couple of years, and for that reason cant really be labled extreme. > > Too much testosterone ? > > Sin I support the Iraqi government against the insurgents, I don’t see any romantizised appeal for the ‘resistance’ or any of its associates, they’re criminal butchers who offer no alternative to the Iraqi people, and thats it. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/26 "2005-01-11T18:33:55Z")
> [@](#): > > _Ryan\_Liam said:_ > I don’t see any romantizised appeal for the ‘resistance’ or any of its associates, they’re criminal butchers who offer no alternative to the Iraqi people Well I won’t speak to the alternatives they may offer but it should be noted that the commander of the US led coalition ground forces has stated that about two thirds of recent attacks have been on military targets. (I am kind of reposting this quote, but it really is more properly discussed in this thread.) From [CNN article](http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/06/iraq.main/) > [@](#): > > While acknowledging that “we have seen an ever increasing focus of the enemy on Iraqi security forces and an intimidation of or murder of senior leaders,” Metz said most of the strikes in the past seven days have targeted U.S.-led coalition forces. > > There have been an average of 70 attacks each day, and nearly 50 are against the coalition, he said. He goes on to note that, of course, the non-military targets yield more casualties. I am unsure if that 50 includes attacks on civilian Iraqi police. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/27 "2005-01-11T19:06:22Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Second question: but UN Security Council Resolutions 1483 and 1511 designated the Coalition Provisional Authority as the occupation authority (during the time it existed) and asked all member states to contribute to the stabilization of Iraq. Why the double standard when it comes to the occupation? My opinion? By the standards of the international community, the occupation **still** is not legitimate. The Security Council was merely putting its imprimatur on a fait accompli, making the best of a bad situation. The Coalition forces **had** invaded, conquered and occupied Iraq; they were going to rule it regardless of whether the UN gave them a bit of added authority or not. Also: The resolutions to which you refer deal only with the CPA’s governing authority while it existed – which it does no longer, but the **occupation** continues, despite the existence of a nominally sovereign interim government. ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/28 "2005-01-11T19:07:25Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Well I won’t speak to the alternatives they may offer but it should be noted that the commander of the US led coalition ground forces has stated that about two thirds of recent attacks have been on military targets. (I am kind of reposting this quote, but it really is more properly discussed in this thread.) > > From [CNN article](http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/06/iraq.main/) > > He goes on to note that, of course, the non-military targets yield more casualties. I am unsure if that 50 includes attacks on civilian Iraqi police. And what point are you making? That they primarily target the coalition rather than the government, so in effect are not against the Iraqis governing themselves? Frankly if that is the insinuation you’re making then its wrong, they’re aganst anyone who tries to show alternatives to gaining power other than that of the barrel of a gun. ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/29 "2005-01-11T19:08:59Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > Not really. I stand by my convictions though that what we’re doing in Iraq now, is right. Ok… you think its right… but what has it got to do with 9/11 ? Darn those minutemen going against the mighty and epitome of civilization: The British Empire. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/30 "2005-01-11T19:26:33Z")
> [@](#): > > The American revolution was an organized effort to expell the British and create a new government. There was a provisional government (Continental Congress)set up right after the Declaration of Independence. I would say the minutemen new exaclty what they were fighting for. Are you seriously comparing the insurgents in Iraq to the American revolutionary fighters? To say that the existence of a provisional government (with veyr minimal power and few specifics and how to enforce it) made the American fighters superior ot the Sunnis is not entirely fair, is it? If a group of Sunnis gathered to form a provisional government for the Sunni region, they would be arrested and killed, so we can hardly fault them for not doing so. There’s no evidence to back up the claim that the insurgents are oposed to any civil government. They’re opposed to any civil government not run by themselves, which is why I’ve always said that our best bet is to split the country. As for my claim about the Shi’ites, if they reach power, it’s based on: 1.) Knowing what other governments in the Middle East, under Shi’ite control, have done. 2.) Observing that many powerful Shi’ite clerics have said that they want Islamic Law to be the official law of the land. 3.) Knowing the long, unpleasant history of relationships between Shi’ites and Sunnis, particularly in Iraq. Of course my predictions are “speculation”. All predictions are. But casting aside modesty for a minute, I think I know more about the religious beliefs and practices of the vairous branches of Islam, and the history of the Arab world, than most people on this board do. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/31 "2005-01-11T20:08:19Z")
From a standpoint of international law how is the American occupation of Iraq different from the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan? In both cases there were insurgents who were seeking to drive out the foreign power that was occupying their country and to oppose the formation of what they saw as a collborationist regime. Neither insurgency was united, neither insurgency claimed to be seeking to establish a plural democracy, and both sought help from foreign powers. ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/32 "2005-01-11T20:27:28Z")
> [@Rashak Mani](#): > > Ok… you think its right… but what has it got to do with 9/11 ? > > Darn those minutemen going against the mighty and epitome of civilization: The British Empire. Who says I’m talking about 9/11? I never supported the invasion, I knew it was B.S evidence, but I’m absolutely against the notion that if we leave things get immediately better, and that the insurgents should be pitied, they deserve our scorn more than anything else. > [@](#): > > Darn those minutemen going against the mighty and epitome of civilization: The British Empire Oh please, your notions are completely out of date. Are you trying to compare the Iraqis ‘resistance’ to the American one? How insulting can one get! ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/33 "2005-01-11T20:44:54Z")
Here’s a take on the situation from the latest installment of James Howard Kunstler’s online column, “Clusterfuck Nation.” He does not deal with questions of international “legitimacy” as defined in this thread, only with necessity and expediency from the POV of the United States, but it’s still interesting. [http://www.kunstler.com/mags\_diary12.htm:](http://www.kunstler.com/mags_diary12.htm:) > [@](#): > > Monday January 10, 2005 > Six of the seven soldiers killed Thursday in an attack on an armored vehicle in Iraq were members of the Louisiana National Guard, three from the same town, Houma. Tragic events like this will “bring the war home,” as the saying goes, to a nervous American public, especially to the subset that resides in the NASCAR belt, where the love of military adventure traditionally runs high. > Here are some of the questions that we should be asking ourselves, along with some of the answers: > > 1. What’s our purpose being in Iraq? > Answer: The original purpose was to depose a ruler who was in a position to lend support to, and even orchestrate on his own, a great deal of Jihadist mischief in a region that contains two-thirds of the world’s remaining oil: the Persian Gulf, which includes a half-dozen sovereign nations. Saddam was deposed and captured. Mission accomplished. That was then, this is now. A parallel purpose was to secure and defend the oil infrastructure of Iraq so its substantial production would continue to reach world markets. Note: we were not there to “steal” it. **A third parallel purpose was the strategic project to establish a long-term military presence in Iraq in order to influence and moderate the behavior of its oil-producing neigbors, Iran and Saudi Arabia.** > > 2. What do we mean when we say we want to bring democracy to Iraq? > Answer: In the first flush of victory it meant design a set of basic institutions for an orderly pluralistic society to function in, starting with police and courts of law to ensure basic order, then moving on to an apparatus for public administration, and finally a framework for the fair election of leaders and representatives to run those institutions. The Sunni-Baathist insurgency has pretty much put the schnitz on that ambitious agenda. The way things have turned out, anyone cooperating with the occupiers (i.e. us) in any of these endeavors is being targeted for assassination or summary execution, sometimes by decapitation. The election still scheduled a few weeks hence promises to be both a political fiasco and an extraordinay bloodbath. The results of the election – if there are any – will not produce a leadership that enjoys legitimacy. The whole sorry affair is disappointing to nation-building idealists, but it raises another interesting question. > > 3.) Was there any alternative? > Answer: Realistically no. The US was not about to set up shop in Iraq as an overt colony and run the place ourselves as, say, the French ran Algeria in 1905. Outright colonialism would have played abysmally in the theater of world opinion. It would have invited international sanctions against the US, wrecking our globalist trade relations (Goodbye OPEC oil imports. Goodbye WalMart, Volvo, and cabernets from Chile). Anyway, attempting to run the place ourselves would have even more effectively aroused an insurgency. The key to the insurgency is not just the jihadi emotion, but the sheer fact that there are so many small arms loose in that part of the world – machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades, stinger-type shoulder-launched missiles, and Semtech plastic explosive used in conjunction with cell-phones. So-called “asymetrical warfare” can (and obviously does) confound and immobilize the most powerful conventional armies. The potential for lethal mischief with all that weaponry is endless. A middle stratgey between colonizing the joint and democratizing it would have been to just appoint a bunch of leaders and not bother with elections. But such appointed stooges would have automatically lacked legitimacy and become targets for assassination. Elections had to be at least attempted, for PR purposes. > > 4.) Now what? > Answer: The US is faced with some unappetizing options. We could increase the numbers of our forces there and attempt to do the policing ourselves, but the bounty of small arms available to an insurgant opposition pretty much guarantees only more mayhem and slaughter. We can withdraw from the population centers, especially Baghdad, and establish more secure bases out in the desert areas, while attempting to secure the oil production, leaving the Iraqis to settle their own political hash. This still might preserve one of America’s initial objectives of maintaining an armed presence in the region in order to moderate and influence Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iraq may be in turmoil for a long time to come, ultimately splitting up into three smaller entities: one Sunni, one Shi’ite and one Kurdish. The prospect that we could secure the oil infrastructure is still poor, especially when it comes to pipelines, which traverse vast, desolate distances. We would also, of course, have to replace Iraqi oil workers with Americans, which would once again put us in the position of acting as overt colonialists, and inviting international sanctions. > > Bottom line: Uncle Sam really has got his tit in a wringer on this one. Yet another possible consequence of all this is that we will exhaust our military and bankrupt our treasury pursuing any of these options over the long haul. The grand strategic purpose here was an attempt to pacify the Persian Gulf region so we could continue buying their oil at a reasonable price and enjoy an extraordinary high-energy way of life back home. No American leader has advanced the idea that we had better prepare for a far less energy-intensive way of life. But we have our own crazy religious conviction that God intended for us to live in a drive-in Utopia, and the rest of the world can go to hell if they don’t like it. > > ``` > Geology, not politics, will determine where this is all going. No matter what we want to do, the global oil production peak event is bearing down on is with the same inexorable force that the tsunami carried to the shores of South Asia. The global peak will only intensify our desperation and the hatred of the Jihadists, and soon other actors will enter the stage desperately attempting to secure some of the world's declining oil supply for themselves. > > Ultimately, in this writer's opinion, the US will find itself withdrawing into our own hemisphere, unable to control the people, states, and events that play out on the other side of the world. > > ``` Note the sentence I bolded under “1. What’s our purpose being in Iraq?” Refreshingly honest. PNAC policy papers might discuss this situation in terms of the need for a permanent U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf, but so far as I recall, the Bush Admin never mentioned that in its public statements, before the invasion or after. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/34 "2005-01-11T21:08:29Z")
**BG** : You seem intent on ignoring the more controvercial thesis in your OP: that the insurgency in Iraq is legitimate. I made a series of arguments against that claim in post #10 that you haven’t answered. Should I assume you concede my points? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/35 "2005-01-11T21:30:48Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I don’t see any reason to debate the legitmacy of the Iraq invasion again in this forum. It’s been done to death in dozens of threads. > > As to the insurvency, I see several problems with the OP’s thesis: > > 1. There is no single insurgency, so talking about it as though it is a unified effort makes no sense. It **is** unified with respect to those efforts which **define** it as an insurgency. That is, all the insurgent factions have two common enemies: The Coalition nations and their occupying forces; and the Coalition-installed interim government. Of course, if they ever succeed in getting rid of both of those, they’ll start fighting each other. But that would be merely yet another internal civil war – something the international community generally tolerates. > [@John Mace](#): > > 1. In order to determine if any group is legitimate, it would be necessary to evaluate both their stated goals and whether their actions substantiate adherence to those goals. I’m not familiar with even the stated goals of any of the groups involved, and the OP hasn’t given any references to those goals, so I don’t see how this evalutation can be made. See above. Their “stated goals,” the only ones they share in common, are to drive out the occupation troops and destroy the puppet government – both aims which are perfectly legitimate by standards of the international community. It makes no difference whether they are Communists, Islamic radicals, Arab nationalists, or – as happens to be the case – an uneasy alliance of several different factions with otherwise irreconcileable aims. > [@John Mace](#): > > 1. In as much as we can infer the goals of some of the groups, they appear to go well beyond “kicking the Americans out” and into disprupting any and all civil order. This makes them not legitmate, by any reasonable standard of legitimacy. By standards of the international community, “disrupting any and all civil order” **is** a perfectly legtimate tactic if it helps bring about the insurgency’s goals. > [@John Mace](#): > > 1. I disagree that the (terror) tactics are irrelavent, as the OP has suggested. If that were true, then the same should apply to the US-- the goals were legitimage, it was just the tactics that were not. But our goals were **not** legitimate; while our tactics have been mild and gentle, if not by American standards then definitely by the standards of the Middle East. I repeat Kunstler’s assessment of why we’re there: > [@](#): > > 1. What’s our purpose being in Iraq? > Answer: The original purpose was to depose a ruler who was in a position to lend support to, and even orchestrate on his own, a great deal of Jihadist mischief in a region that contains two-thirds of the world’s remaining oil: the Persian Gulf, which includes a half-dozen sovereign nations. Saddam was deposed and captured. Mission accomplished. That was then, this is now. A parallel purpose was to secure and defend the oil infrastructure of Iraq so its substantial production would continue to reach world markets. Note: we were not there to “steal” it. A third parallel purpose was the strategic project to establish a long-term military presence in Iraq in order to influence and moderate the behavior of its oil-producing neigbors, Iran and Saudi Arabia. By the contemporary standards of the international community, **none** of those are things an independent sovereign state has a right to do, however urgently it needs to, if doing so involves interference with another state’s sovereignty. ---
**Author:** ![Cornelius\_Tuggerson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Cornelius\_Tuggerson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cornelius_Tuggerson)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/36 "2005-01-11T22:02:35Z")
## I was against the war in Iraq from the start (no one asked me though), but I’d like to ask the people who believe the insurgency is legitimate a question that has been bugging me - If the insurgency is legitimate And the US presence is not And insurgents are clearly doing very well (just check yahoo any time of day) What are we complaining about? Isn’t everything going as well as we could have hoped for? Would we rather the rebels were crushed and the pseudo-democratic puppet was able to do its job? If anyone knows an answer that doesn’t make an anti-war liberal look like an evil psycopath lemme know. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/37 "2005-01-11T22:08:29Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > It **is** unified with respect to those efforts which **define** it as an insurgency. That is, all the insurgent factions have two common enemies: The Coalition nations and their occupying forces; and the Coalition-installed interim government. Of course, if they ever succeed in getting rid of both of those, they’ll start fighting each other. But that would be merely yet another internal civil war – something the international community generally tolerates. OK. Let’s define the insurgents as any group fighting to get the US out and to overthrow the provisional government, regardless of any other goals they might have. > [@](#): > > See above. Their “stated goals,” the only ones they share in common, are to drive out the occupation troops and destroy the puppet government – both aims which are perfectly legitimate by standards of the international community. It makes no difference whether they are Communists, Islamic radicals, Arab nationalists, or – as happens to be the case – an uneasy alliance of several different factions with otherwise irreconcileable aims. By this reasoning, any and every insurgency throughout the world is ‘legitimate". The Iraq insurgents’ goal is to overthrow the legitimate government of Iraq-- ie, the provisional government, which is recognized by the UN as the legitimate government of Iraq. Is a neo-Nazi group in Idaho working to overthrow the US government"legitimate" If not, why is it different from the Iraqi insurgency? If it is legitimate, then that term has no meaning in this context since it adds no information to the term “insurgency”-- they’re ALL legitimate. > [@](#): > > By standards of the international community, “disrupting any and all civil order” **is** a perfectly legtimate tactic if it helps bring about the insurgency’s goals. Really? Then what does [UN Security Council Resolution 1511](http://www.mideastweb.org/1511.htm) mean when it: > [@](#): > > 1. DETERMINES that the provision of security and stability is essential to the successful completion of the political process as outlined in paragraph 7 above and to the ability of the United Nations to contribute effectively to that process and the implementation of resolution 1483 (2003), and AUTHORIZES a multinational force under unified command to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq, including for the purpose of ensuring necessary conditions for the implementation of the timetable and program as well as to contribute to the security of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, the Governing Council of Iraq and other institutions of the Iraqi interim administration, and key humanitarian and economic infrastructure; > > 2. URGES Member States to contribute assistance under this United Nations mandate, including military forces, to the multinational force referred to in paragraph 13 above; How do the actions of the insurgents remain legitimate when the UNSC not only condemns them, but authorizes the use of force to stop them? > [@BG](#): > > But our goals were **not** legitimate; while our tactics have been mild and gentle, if not by American standards then definitely by the standards of the Middle East. > > I repeat Kunstler’s assessment of why we’re there: > > By the contemporary standards of the international community, **none** of those are things an independent sovereign state has a right to do, however urgently it needs to, if doing so involves interference with another state’s sovereignty. I don’t see the relavence of the quote. The international community, as a whole, had no allegience to the Hussein regime. If an internal uprsing had errupted to overthrow Hussein, the UN would NEVER have authorized military action by other countries to keep Hussein in power. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/38 "2005-01-11T22:33:19Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > By this reasoning, any and every insurgency throughout the world is 'legitimate". **Exactly!** By those international standards which have been more or less acknowledged since WWII, **every** insurgency is legitimate regardless of its politics or goals. Nor even its tactics, provided those tactics stop well short of genocide. Otherwise, there are, as yet, no internationally recognized criteria for drawing distinctions between them. > [@John Mace](#): > > Is a neo-Nazi group in Idaho working to overthrow the US government"legitimate" Yes, in the sense that no other country would have any business interfering – on either side – if such interference would be to the detriment of American national sovereignty. > [@John Mace](#): > > Really? Then what does [UN Security Council Resolution 1511](http://www.mideastweb.org/1511.htm) mean when it: > > How do the actions of the insurgents remain legitimate when the UNSC not only condemns them, but authorizes the use of force to stop them? I have been discussing this question in terms of the international consensus that has prevailed, with some notable case-specific exceptions (e.g., Korea), ever since WWII. It may be that a new international consensus is now in the process of emerging and these UNSC resolutions are the first glimmerings of that; or it may be that, as with the resolution authorizing UN intervention in Korea, this is merely a case-specific exception that will have no lasting effect on the understood rules of acceptable conduct in international relations. > [@John Mace](#): > > I don’t see the relavence of the quote. The international community, as a whole, had no allegience to the Hussein regime. The international community has no allegiance to **any** national regime. Every country’s existing government is equally dispensable. Just don’t cross the all-important national borders. > [@John Mace](#): > > If an internal uprsing had errupted to overthrow Hussein, the UN would NEVER have authorized military action by other countries to keep Hussein in power. My point exactly. And there are no internationally accepted criteria by which the international community might make a values-based choice as between Hussein’s regime or whatever might replace it. Because – as I said above – there is much broader international agreement on the principle of respecting national boundaries than there is on what is a “just” or “unjust” political system. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/39 "2005-01-11T22:48:29Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Exactly! By those international standards which have been more or less acknowledged since WWII, every insurgency is legitimate regardless of its politics or goals. Nor even its tactics, provided those tactics stop well short of genocide. Otherwise, there are, as yet, no internationally recognized criteria for drawing distinctions between them. Well then, by this logic I’d say that any nation states actions are also legitimate. Great!! So, the US’s invasion of Iraq was perfectly legitimate, and the insurgents fighting it out are also legitimate. Wonderful…everything is neat and legal. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Yes, in the sense that no other country would have any business interfering – on either side – if such interference would be to the detriment of American national sovereignty. Why? If insurgents, reguardless of goals and tactics are legitimate, why wouldn’t other nation states be legitimate to interfere in American or any other national sovereignty?? Whats the difference? Insurgents have MORE legitimacy than nation states?? > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I have been discussing this question in terms of the international consensus that has prevailed, with some notable case-specific exceptions (e.g., Korea), ever since WWII. It may be that a new international consensus is now in the process of emerging and these UNSC resolutions are the first glimmerings of that; or it may be that, as with the resolution authorizing UN intervention in Korea, this is merely a case-specific exception that will have no lasting effect on the understood rules of acceptable conduct in international relations. International consensus has prevailed since WWII? Funny…I haven’t noticed. Seems to me that US/Iraqi style invasions are more the norm than UN sponsored actions. The ONLY exception you can think of is Korea?? Hell, off the top of my head I can’t think of when this International Consensus thing has prevailed with reguards to the UN. There were plenty of invasions and mini-wars since WWII…which ones were UN sanctioned? The core here though is that if insurgents are alway legitimate reguardless of their goals or tactics I fail to see why nation states are different. Using your own logic, if insurgents are always legitimate, then nation states actions should be the same. -XT ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/40 "2005-01-11T23:08:50Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > **Exactly!** By those international standards which have been more or less acknowledged since WWII, **every** insurgency is legitimate regardless of its politics or goals. Nor even its tactics, provided those tactics stop well short of genocide. Otherwise, there are, as yet, no internationally recognized criteria for drawing distinctions between them. Where are you finding these international standards? The UN has often authorized peacekeeping missions. I have to assume that you would agree that, in all those instances, the insurgencies lost their legitimacy. No? > [@](#): > > I have been discussing this question in terms of the international consensus that has prevailed, with some notable case-specific exceptions (e.g., Korea), ever since WWII. It may be that a new international consensus is now in the process of emerging and these UNSC resolutions are the first glimmerings of that; or it may be that, as with the resolution authorizing UN intervention in Korea, this is merely a case-specific exception that will have no lasting effect on the understood rules of acceptable conduct in international relations. You lost me. Glimmerings? How much \*\*more \*\*explicit does the UN have to be than condemning the insurgency and authorizing member states to fight against it? You keep talking about this “international concensus”, as if it were something other than the UN. If so, what exactly does it consist of, and how do we know what it is other than you saying so? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926.md?page=3)