# 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:** 4
**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 13, 2005, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/61 "2005-01-13T17:25:18Z")
> [@BG](#): > > Unless they involve unprovoked aggression against another sovereign state. Why the caviot? Insurgencies by their very nature are against sovereign states after all…mostly against LEGITIMATE sovereign states, whatever that means. If all insurgencies are legitimate (your assertion btw not mine) then sovereign states invading one another are also, by this logic, legitmate. Personally I find the whole notion that they are all legitimate ridiculous, but if one is I don’t see how the other isn’t. > [@BG](#): > > The difference is national sovereignty. Insurgencies are purely internal conflicts. Again, I fail to see the distinction. Insurgencies are against INTERNAL sovereign states, invasions between external sovereign states. Why the difference in your mind…I truely don’t see it. > [@BG](#): > > Apart from Korea, I don’t think the UN has sanctioned any invasions or mini-wars – only the deployment of UN peacekeeping troops to patrol an area after combat operations have ended without actually resolving the situation on the ground. And Korea only got sanctioned because the Soviets screwed up and walked out if I’m remembering correctly. There have been numerous dustups by just about every major power on the board…all unsanctioned by the UN. > [@BG](#): > > Until they try to interfere with another state’s sovereignty. That is, unless a government practices genocide or something approaching it on its own people, it is generally accepted that anything it does within its own borders its own business. No other country has a right to interfere. But if the country commits unprovoked military aggression against a foreign country, as Iraq did when it invaded Kuwait, then its actions are not considered legitimate and foreign intervention may be justified. Again, why? Insurgents most certainly try to interfere with another state’s sovereignty. And in cases like Iraq and Afghanistan (both now and when the Soviets invaded)…hell, all the way back to Vietnam and Korea for that matter…foreign fighters, ‘volunteers’, etc, and foreign weapons, money, intellegence, etc etc have played a part in these ‘purely internal’ conflicts. Again, I fail to see why there is any distinction. You assert that ALL insurgencies are legitimate. I don’t agree but playing along, going by that same logic, then all conflicts between foreign powers, including invasions, are also legitimate. I don’t see how you can logically see it any other way BG. As to Iraq’s invasion of Kuait, well, they had their national reasons for that…they badly needed the capital Kuait represented. It was a national imperative, and part of their nation security. So, by the light of ALL insurgencies being legitimate, so was Iraq’s invasion of Kuait. Of course, the US’s and other powers national interests were threatened by this so OUR retaliation was justified as well. North Vietnams interference with South Vietnam and the quasi invasion was legitmate…so was the US’s involvement there. The invastion of Grenada and military action in Panama were justified by this light…and the current invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. The Nazi invasion of Poland, the low countries, France, Russia, etc…all legitimate. The various Soviet invasions…legitimate. Etc etc ad nausium. > [@BG](#): > > It’s a set of unwritten rules which, IMO, can be inferred from looking at what a national leader can say in the international forum and still be taken seriously. Before WWII, the idea of “right of conquest” pure and simple still had some international legitimacy (and even then, Hitler usually felt obliged to announce some kind of arguable pretext for invading his neighbors, e.g., fighting Communism). But now? Look at what happened to Hussein when he annexed Kuwait and publicly announced it was nobody’s business. In 1940 – or at practically any previous time in world history – that might have passed without comment, but not in 1990. I think your Hussein annexation of Kuait is a bad example. SH tried to annex a part of the world that is of vital strategic necessity. No way could that stand. It wasn’t a matter of principal…it was a matter of urgent need to both keep it out of his hands (from a regional/ME perspective) and to get it back (from an industrialized worlds perspective). Had it been, oh I don’t know, some obscure province on the outskirts of China say, no one would do more than weakly protest. Or if it was some nation putting the moves on another in, oh I don’t know, say North Africa, then no one would care. There is not ‘unwritten rules’…the major powers make up rules as they go along and do what they feel is best for their own national interest. Most of the SC has been in violation of the Charter in one way or another since WWII…many of them are repeat offenders. They use the Charter like a club to beat the smaller nations into submission, or to use it to justify actions against them if they step out of line. But the Charter doesn’t really apply to the members of the SC…they don’t respect it at all in fact. Except when its in their best nation interests to respect it or follow it to the letter of the law. If their national interests go against it though they ignore it…or try and twist it to provide them with a fig leaf (like the US did in Iraq). Thats if they bother at all. -XT ---
**Author:** ![scm1001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c4cdca/32.png) [@scm1001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scm1001)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/62 "2005-01-14T11:16:51Z")
> [@Little Nemo](#): > > Maybe we should find the 1% who voted against Saddam and give the country to them. You have to admit they had some balls. I just go and see if I can dig them up (literally) ---
**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 14, 2005, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/63 "2005-01-14T13:06:42Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > It’s a set of unwritten rules which, IMO, can be inferred from looking at what a national leader can say in the international forum and still be taken seriously. Before WWII, the idea of “right of conquest” pure and simple still had some international legitimacy (and even then, Hitler usually felt obliged to announce some kind of arguable pretext for invading his neighbors, e.g., fighting Communism). But now? Look at what happened to Hussein when he annexed Kuwait and publicly announced it was nobody’s business. In 1940 – or at practically any previous time in world history – that might have passed without comment, but not in 1990. Sorry, but I just don’t find this definition useful. It’s too subjective. Besides, to say that the “right of conquest” had some legitimacy prior to WWII only makes sense if we define “some” as “almost none”, or about as much as it does today. Hitler may have thought he had some legitamcy, but so did S.H. I’ll go back again to my earlier question. If the UNSC has passed a resolution condemning the insurgency AND calling on member states to use force to quell it, how on earth can it be called legitimate? All you have said is that it might have been called legitimate 60 years ago, before the UN existed. But how does that inform our decision about its legitimacy **today**? ---
**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 14, 2005, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/64 "2005-01-14T13:50:22Z")
Brainglutton… didn’t Saddam “justify” at the time his invasion due to the fact that Kuwaitis were drilling into Iraqi subsoil ? There is always an excuse… see WMD for example. ---
**Author:** ![Demorian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demorian/32/7273_2.png) [@Demorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Demorian)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/65 "2005-01-14T14:39:57Z")
> [@Rashak Mani](#): > > Brainglutton… didn’t Saddam “justify” at the time his invasion due to the fact that Kuwaitis were drilling into Iraqi subsoil ? There is always an excuse… see WMD for example. As I understand it, the proximate cause for the invasion was because Iraq was nearly bankrupt, and they needed some money. Saddam had previously threatened Egypt and Jordan, I believe, as well as Kuwait, for $30 billion in forgiven debts, and $30 billion in cash. The US was well aware of every second of the impending invasion, but said and did nothing. I believe it was George H.W. Bush’s trap. Why, I dunno. Maybe being a “war president” runs in the family. As for the allegations of slant drilling, I don’t know if they were true or not, but I would easily be convinced that they were. Kuwait is hardly a nation of innocent little angels, and the oil reserves in the region are shared across the border. In any case, looking at it from historical context, it does look rather, er, fishy, for both of the Bushes to launch wars against Iraq, a nation that barely had the resources to keep itself running at both times of invasion. Maybe a deeper, more complex question: Why didn’t we bring democracy to Kuwait? Again, [hardly angels](http://www.sfbg.com/gulfwar/090992.html). > [@](#): > > Reports from human rights monitors detail an ongoing Kuwaiti campaign to punish and expel the 350,000 Palestinians living in Kuwait before the war. Today, all but 60,000 Palestinians have been driven out by a combination of summary executions, torture, detention, forced expulsions, and a variety of other pressures. And according to human rights workers, Kuwait is trying to squeeze those last few out quickly. > > Meanwhile, Middle East Watch reports that the tens of thousands of foreign workers in Kuwait, many of whom were meant to replace the Palestinians, have suffered massive physical and sexual abuse, rape, indentured servitude, and virtual domestic slavery. > > Women’s Rights Project investigators in Kuwait reported that since Kuwait’s liberation in March 1992, more than 2,000 maids î mainly from Sri Lanka, the Philippines, India, and Bangladesh î sought refuge in embassies from the terror. That whole region is screwed up. Iraq wasn’t much worse than any of its neighbors, including the Saudis. ---
**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 14, 2005, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/66 "2005-01-14T18:31:05Z")
hehe… I was talking about justification… not real reasons for Iraq to take Kuwait ! One good historical example was Hitler invading Poland… and he almost forgot to put up an excuse ! He just made up something, after the invasion, about Germans in Poland being persecuted I think. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/67 "2005-01-14T21:55:35Z")
> [@Rashak Mani](#): > > Brainglutton… didn’t Saddam “justify” at the time his invasion due to the fact that Kuwaitis were drilling into Iraqi subsoil ? There is always an excuse… see WMD for example. IIRC, his position was that Kuwait was historically Iraqi territory, or that it should have been incorporated into Iraq when the country was formed out of the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. Kuwait, although ruled by a native dynasty from 1710, had been a sort of tributary state of the Ottoman (but Persian-occupied) _vilayet_ or province of Basra, which was one of the three Ottoman provinces merged together to form Iraq. Iraq claimed it long before the Gulf War. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_Kuwait](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kuwait). ---
**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 14, 2005, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/68 "2005-01-14T22:02:25Z")
I know [this](http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/) is just a blog, no usually a good cite…but I think its interesting and ties into the OP. Take it with a grain of salt and make your own judgements (this is a departure for me…I NEVER use blog cites): > [@Iraq The Model](#): > > Thursday, January 13, 2005 > > The ArabicBBC site put up a forum for the readers to discuss the subject of some of the “militant groups” that distributed leaflets threatening the Iraqis who decide to participate in the elections, whether voters or candidates. > The total number of commentators was 141; the Iraqis were 104 and 37 were Arabs from other countries till the post was prepared. > 89 of the participating Iraqis were strongly with the elections and determined to go to the boxes on the elections day in spite of the threats. > 15 were against the elections, for different reasons. > > 13 of the Arab participants were also against the elections while the rest of them (24) were supportive of the Iraqis in holding the elections on time. > > I will not try to offer my optimistic comments and views about the situation in Iraq, instead I will shut up and let my fellow Iraqis speak for themselves and let you then decide what you think about it. > > “I encourage all the good people in Iraq to vote, it’s the only way to get out of this destruction” > > Jasim Mohammed-Iraq > > “No one can rule Iraqis but Iraqis themselves and the voting box is the only way to achieve a legitimate patriotic government which will be respected by the Iraqi people and the world and it will cut the way for these entire terrorist who come from outside the country and Saddam’s orphans who support them. They are dreaming about the return of the darkness after we felt the sun of freedom” > > Gati’- Iraqi in the UK > > “Iraq should build a strong army and well trained police so that we can reserve the security and stability in our country and get rid of the foreign forces but how we can do that if these groups who call themselves resistance keep killing the Iraqi soldiers and policemen? Is this real resistance??” > > Reyadh Mahdi Salih – Baghdad > > “I am calling all Iraqis who claim to be loyal to Iraq and say that they are patriots: free your minds and head to the boxes” > > Zayed –Kerbala > > “I salute all the brave Iraqis and I wish them all the best on the coming elections” > > Mo’ayed- Bahrain > > “Who say that the results of these elections are already decided is actually insulting the Iraqi people because it means that Iraqis are so naïve and they only follow orders form the occupiers” > > Abdul Rahman – UAE > > “Elections must be done and all the Iraqi people should participate in it > so that we can get out of this mess. As for those Arab who says that we are going to elect an American that only has an Iraqi face, I tell them: what about the Arab leaders who are Americans, only with an Arabic face?” > > Ahmed Hashim –Iraq > > “The people of Mousil will vote and Zarqawee and his gang will not stop us > We will vote even if we have to do it secretly” > > Ahmed – Mousil > > “If those armed groups refuse the elections they should give us some alternatives and I ask them here: what are your alternatives for elections? They just want to rule the country against the will of the people as they did in the past” > > Nawfel M. Ali – Qatar > > “If some Arab think they are not occupied by America they are wrong, whose house is from glass should not through stone at people” > > Ali-Sweden > > “Elections were our demand from the beginning and we will keep working hard to have the elections even if it takes all of our lives the killing and destruction that you see now are the taxes that we should pay to get a better life for us and for the coming generations” > > Hassan Kamil-Iraq- Nasyiriya > > “I want to ask everyone who calls for delaying the election: is the situation now better than it used to be six months ago? > We should all support the democratic process to get rid of both, terrorist and occupiers” > > Zain-Baghdad > > “I consider all these groups out of Islam and they don’t want the best for Iraqis > I’ll go to give my vote in spite of all the threats” > Hussain Taey –Baghdad > > “I want to ask those who say that we can’t hold elections until the troops leave: will they participate in elections if these troops left Iraq? And who will have the right to ask these troops to leave? > Only the legitimate government can do so and this legitimate government comes through elections which you refuse to do” > > Adnan –Baghdad > > “Those who wish to see Iraq unstable and those who commit all these crimes and cause all this destruction are terrorist and nothing but terrorists but they use Islam as a cover. I see that all my fellow citizen want peace and prosperity while these criminals are the remnant of the Ba’ath and the old dictator regime and I will keep saying: down with these terrorist and long live the Iraqi people and the Iraqi police and the Iraqi National Guard who work day and night to protect Iraq” > > Mohammed Saleh – Baghdad > > “I wish to see election happen in its planned date and the sooner the better for my country. Peace and democracy are our dreams that we awaited for a long time. > Those who don’t want elections are the enemies of Iraq. I pray to God every day for the elections to be on time” > > Lamya – Baghdad > > “All Iraqis should enjoy democracy but not under the American guardianship and British colonialism. The genuine Iraqi groups have the right to stop these elections from happening” > > Abu Baker-Mauritania > > “After I read all the above opinions, I would like to ask those who call themselves “Mujahideen” what do you want?! > For God’s sake, read the comments of Iraqis; all of them reject you and call you criminals, stop the killing and the destruction and ask for forgiveness from God you and get out of Iraq. Nobody wants you there and no one wants your jihad” > > Mohammed – Egypt > > “I want to ask all those Arabs: do you have any suggestions that we can use instead of elections?” > > Hayder Hummadi-Baghdad > > “I am against any elections right now because the country is still occupied” > > Saad Hussain-Baghdad > > “The elections are the best way to build the free Iraq” > > Karema-Baquba -Diyala > > “We will not be afraid any more, we will vote for our precious Iraq” > > Mohammed Baghdady – Baghdad > > “I want to ask the Arabs a favor: please leave us alone and let us live in freedom and peace” > > Raysan-Baghdad > > “If those fighters were really Muslims they would not be killing the Iraqi police, army and innocent civilians. We will not submit to their threats and we will vote in spite of them” > > Muosa Al Ruba’ey-Baghdad > > “I’ll shout out loudly and ask all Iraqis to vote and not to listen to the masked terrorists who came from outside, let us be one hand to build a new and free democratic Iraq” > > Mohammed Al Juboury- Iraqi in KSA > > “We will crush the terrorists and crush all those who try to threat the Iraqi nation and we will vote” > > Anwar-Baghdad > > “I’ll go to the voting center even if it means that I risk my life, elections are a historic chance that we cannot afford to waste” > > Ussama Alrussafy-Baghdad > > “All good Iraqis should vote for a better life for our children” > > Mohammed Alsamaray –Samara > > “For sure the resistance will risk the lives of the voters and this will negatively effect the elections which will follow the occupiers’ rules” > > Hassan abdul Mu’iz – Egypt > > “As Iraqis, we will go to vote even if the terrorists planted their bombs inside the boxes, because this is our dream which we paid millions of lives for it and I would like to ask everyone not to exaggerated the size of these terrorist they are only a few Saddam lovers with criminals from outside the country” > > Azhar- Basra > > “I swear to Allah that we will not accept anything but free elections and we will have this right even if the terrorists cut us into pieces” > > Mahdy Hadi-Baghdad > > “I think the upcoming elections will be a disaster for all the dictatorships in the region. > Those who try to intimidate the people are just a gang of criminals who use the name of Islam as a cover. Islam is innocent from what they do and no religion accepts their doings.” > > Mohammed Hayder- Iran > > “They are broke orphans of the Ba’ath regime. We will not be afraid and we will not hesitate and we will vote” > > Adel-Basra > > “I can see that all the above opinions are pro occupation and I think that the BBC is doing this because Britain is America’s partner” > > Mohammed Sudky –Egypt > > “I m from Mosul and I would like to declare to the whole world that I would love to vote but unfortunately it’s impossible for me as my town has been occupied by Ba’athists and and the Salafis for two months now and I put all the responsibility on the Iraqi government and coalition forces. Don’t they know that there’s no sign of the authorities in this city?” > > Jalal Hayder –Mousel > > “I’m Sunni and I will go and vote because this makes me feel alive and I will not allow myself to be afraid of the terrorists because if I listen to them then I’ll be dead” > Mohammed al kurdy- kerkuk > > “Go away cowards. We will go to visit our beloved box!” > > Menjal-Baghdad > > “Wise people will not vote, not because of the threats but because this election is an American play” > > M. Uthman- Sudan > > “I’ll go to vote and I will not fear the terrorist. I will vote on the 30th and I don’t care if I could get killed by the bombs of the killers because my vote will be for my kids’ future” > > Ali Baghdadi-Baghdad > > “It’s hard to convince the Arabs about elections, did we succeed in convincing them that Saddam is a killer?” > > Raeed –Iraqi in Sweden > > “Even If they cut our bodies or burn us we will vote despite the fact that the terrorist still control my city. > My vote will go to Al Yawer and Allawi if they hang the killers who control the streets of my town before the elections’ day” > > Omar Wajih –Mousil > > “We spend thousands of days in Saddam’s needless wars that brought only disasters to my country. > How about a war of our choice for one day to rebuild our country, a war against the terrorist’s threats?” > > Abdullah-Baghdad I make no claims on how representative this all is. What struck me though was the almost universal calls for the Insurgents and especially the foreign fighters (‘arabs’) to get the hell out of Iraq and leave them alone so they can vote. THESE folks anyway seem to just want to vote and then to get on with rebuilding their lives. Many want the US gone…but they want the insurgents gone first. A lot of them (correctly IMO) see the elections as the first step to getting rid of both odious groups from Iraq. Anyway, as I said, its a blog by an Iraqi citizen…so take it with a grain of salt. -XT ---
**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 15, 2005, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/69 "2005-01-15T02:24:43Z")
Salt duly ingested. 🙂 I don’t think it’s a stretch of the imagination to assume that the majority of Iraqis just want to get on with their lives. Most civilians wish combat was not going on (at least not around themselves or relatives). Here’s an interesting [article from the Gaurdian](http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/election/2004/1227sunniposts.htm) discussing a possible electoral/diplomatic end-run around the Sunni insurgents. If implemented properly it might keep the US out of some bad electoral legitamacy press. If they are determined to go through with this election despite unsafe to vote zones - some sort of at least short term (I would suggest long term) ethnic quotas in the legslature need to shore up against the fear/apathy factors in specific regions. Hmm, guess I’m hijacking there a bit. Still, I used the word “legitamacy” ---
**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 15, 2005, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/70 "2005-01-15T02:26:31Z")
Even if i spelled it incorrectly every time, ffs. :wally ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2005, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/71 "2005-01-15T02:47:50Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I know [this](http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/) is just a blog, no usually a good cite…but I think its interesting and ties into the OP. Take it with a grain of salt and make your own judgements (this is a departure for me…I NEVER use blog cites): > > I make no claims on how representative this all is. What struck me though was the almost universal calls for the Insurgents and especially the foreign fighters (‘arabs’) to get the hell out of Iraq and leave them alone so they can vote. THESE folks anyway seem to just want to vote and then to get on with rebuilding their lives. Many want the US gone…but they want the insurgents gone first. A lot of them (correctly IMO) see the elections as the first step to getting rid of both odious groups from Iraq. > > Anyway, as I said, its a blog by an Iraqi citizen…so take it with a grain of salt. > > -XT There have been claims he is a US agent. ---
**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 15, 2005, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/72 "2005-01-15T02:59:11Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > There have been claims he is a US agent. Well, thats why I said take it (as all blogs) with a grain of salt. Myself I have zero idea of how good or bad a source he is. Was the poll I quoted incorrect also? I have to tell you that the responses touched a chord with me…so I’d be interested if it was made up. Do you have any cites for him possibly being a US agent? -XT ---
**Author:** ![Nietzsche](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8dc957/32.png) [@Nietzsche](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nietzsche)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2005, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/73 "2005-01-15T04:37:34Z")
**BrainGlutton** , I am a little surprised to see you’re trying to find legitimacy for the insurgents. In response to **John Mace** ’s question about what constitutes legitimacy, you responded with: > [@](#): > > It’s a set of unwritten rules which, IMO, can be inferred from looking at what a national leader can say in the international forum and still be taken seriously. This must be one of the most relaxed definitions I’ve come across, but even still, what could the insurgent leaders (in the rare cases where any exist) say at The Hague that would be legitimate? “Yes your honour, that whore Margaret Hassan was ruining our country! How dare French reporters set foot on our soil!” I think your OP has a slightly flawed premise. You are absolutely correct that the cause of liberating one’s homeland from foreign invaders is a legitimate cause in the international community. But that in and of itself doesn’t make the insurgents (or at least a majority of them) legitimate. To put it in another example, just because Bin Laden claims certain legitimate causes doesn’t lend any legitimacy internationally to Al Qaeda. By legal definition, for the insurgents to be seen as a legitimate militia, they must at the very least have some sort of defining insignia or uniform and some sort of organizational structure. A prime historical example would be the Free French forces or, to a lesser extent the NVA. Or a modern equivalent (and much to the disagreement of our American and Israeli posters) would be Hezbollah, perhaps even the Tamil Tigers. But none of the current insurgent groups seem to be much more than a grouping of at most several dozen men. The closest thing I could see to an internationally recognizable resistance group were Sadr’s Militia and they seem to have been dealt with diplomatically (and just in time as I think he was starting to run out of young men to martyr). I think a much better measure of legitimacy would be how much support they have amongst the populace. I don’t know if you read a recent reports which put the number of the insurgency at somewhere between 17,000 to 20,000 active fighters and up to 200,000 if you were to include active supporters and sympathizers. But let’s assume that number is extremely conservative. Let’s say it’s ten times higher. That would put the number, all counted, at about 2,000,000. What’s the population of Iraq? 25,000,000 or so? That would make it, at the best estimate, a total of less than 10% of the population. That’s not legitimate by any standard, international or otherwise. But the problem is that the longer the occupation drags on, the more those numbers will swell. The longer folks don’t have electricity and water and fuel, the more frustrated they become and the more they sympathize with the insurgents. As you may have already read, the insurgency is gaining in complexity and tactics. It’s only a matter of time before necessity creates some sort of an organizational structure. If they set out some sort of charter and become unified (with an increase of support amongst the local populace) then I think it could be reasonably argued that the insurgency is legitimate. As it is now, no. The problem with legitimacy doesn’t end there though. If most of the Sunni’s boycott the upcoming election and there aren’t enough international monitors due to security concerns, then Jan 30 is just as much of a diplomatic masturbatory maneuver as June 30th (17th?) was. But that’s another thread. > [@John Mace](#): > > Except that the current government is the internationally recognized government of Iraq. Geez. I think you’re really pushing it with that one. The fact that the rest of the world is willing to let the U.S. have a free pass on that one doesn’t really make the current government legitimate. Have an election that’s at least as fair as the one in Afghanistan and maybe it could be considered a legitimate pre-cursor to a future legitimate government. The U.S. and its allies picked those people that picked these people (with the U.S.'s approval of course). That’s legitimate??? **BrainGlutton** and I both agree that **elucidator** owns your house. Guess it’s tough luck for you, eh? ---
**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 15, 2005, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/74 "2005-01-15T05:24:06Z")
> [@Nietzsche](#): > > The fact that the rest of the world is willing to let the U.S. have a free pass on that one doesn’t really make the current government legitimate. Wasn’t my arguement, but I have to ask…if the international community and the UN recognizing the interrim government as legitimate isn’t good enough, what is in your mind? Or, to ask it a different way…if it means nothing that the UN and the international community recognizing the current Iraqi government as legitimate for the purposes of governing until the elections (which is what you seem to be saying), then what good IS the international community and the UN with reguards to legitimacy…or the converse?? I also have to ask that if the UN and the international community is willing to give the US a free pass, why didn’t they do so BEFORE the invasion? Is it because the US is the defacto ruler of Iraq through force of arms? If so, what does that say about the UN and the international community if they REALLY believe the invasion and continued occupation is illegitimate that they rubber stamp legitimacy on the interrim government?? -XT ---
**Author:** ![Nietzsche](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8dc957/32.png) [@Nietzsche](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nietzsche)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2005, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/75 "2005-01-15T05:43:29Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Wasn’t my arguement, but I have to ask…if the international community and the UN recognizing the interrim government as legitimate isn’t good enough, what is in your mind? Having elections that are seen as legitimate by international standards. Any of this “handing off power” nonsense to people that aren’t democratically elected is simple political posturing. > [@](#): > > Or, to ask it a different way…if it means nothing that the UN and the international community recognizing the current Iraqi government as legitimate for the purposes of governing until the elections (which is what you seem to be saying), then what good IS the international community and the UN with reguards to legitimacy…or the converse?? Its good is derived when its rules and rulings are followed. It’s _legitimate_ when its rules and resolutions are followed. But when used to provide political fig leaves, then I agree, it’s no good (nor legitimate). > [@](#): > > I also have to ask that if the UN and the international community is willing to give the US a free pass, why didn’t they do so BEFORE the invasion? Because the invasion was illegal and they were hoping the U.S. would take note of that. There were many folks across the world who were warning the U.S. about the legality of the proposed invasion (the most forceful ones coming right after the decision to pull Blix before his work was done). > [@](#): > > Is it because the US is the defacto ruler of Iraq through force of arms? If so, what does that say about the UN and the international community if they REALLY believe the invasion and continued occupation is illegitimate that they rubber stamp legitimacy on the interrim government?? Well, this is just a matter of practicality. Can you imagine the rain of hell the U.S. and England would pour down on the U.N. if it didn’t go along with this? Just think what kind a psychological (and propaganda) boost this would give to the insurgency and sympathizers. “The U.N. clearly stated the invasion is illegal… and now they’re saying the occupying government is illegitimate!” I think the rest of the world and the U.N. just want this nightmare to end as quickly as possible and are willing to at least lend some help where they can get away with it. But if I were the U.S., I wouldn’t expecting any International Law/Human Rights awards these days. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2005, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/76 "2005-01-15T10:48:02Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Well, thats why I said take it (as all blogs) with a grain of salt. Myself I have zero idea of how good or bad a source he is. Was the poll I quoted incorrect also? I have to tell you that the responses touched a chord with me…so I’d be interested if it was made up. Do you have any cites for him possibly being a US agent? > > -XT I can not locate the source of the rumour. I came across it on Juan Cole, but his blog isn’t searchable. From recollection it was ultimately unresolved. The picture was not of a cia bod in some quiet office but a US sympathiser receiving support funding. On further recollection JC may have withdrawn the inquiry. Nonetheless there is something smelly about that particular blog. ---
**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 15, 2005, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/77 "2005-01-15T11:14:17Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > I can not locate the source of the rumour. I came across it on Juan Cole, but his blog isn’t searchable. From recollection it was ultimately unresolved. The picture was not of a cia bod in some quiet office but a US sympathiser receiving support funding. > > On further recollection JC may have withdrawn the inquiry. Nonetheless there is something smelly about that particular blog. What blog? ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2005, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/78 "2005-01-15T11:20:43Z")
‘Iraq the blog’ ---
**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 15, 2005, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/79 "2005-01-15T13:04:33Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > ‘Iraq the blog’ are you referring to Iraq the model? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2005, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/80 "2005-01-15T17:29:58Z")
> [@Nietzsche](#): > > **BrainGlutton** , I am a little surprised to see you’re trying to find legitimacy for the insurgents. Hold the phone. First of all, I do not **want** the insurgents to succeed. That might be, as I have argued, the best thing for the American people, but not necessarily for the Iraqi people. What **would** be good for them is hard to see from here. Any outcome that leads to a protracted civil war in Iraq is, obviously, undesirable. So is any outcome that leaves them under the rule of a neo-Hussein. So is any outcome that leaves them under the rule of an Islamic theocracy. So is any outcome that leaves them under the rule of a technically “elected” but effectively U.S.-controlled puppet government for the indefinite future. But the last possibility is probably the best out of the lot. ☹ Furthermore, I am not, except as a strictly forensic exercise, “trying to find legitimacy for the insurgents.” I simply **infer** their legitimacy from what I perceive to be the existing consensus norms of international relations. And, as I said in OP, I don’t even approve of those norm. In particular, I don’t believe in leave-us-alone nationalism. (Not even on **America’s** part!) In this thread – [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5626025](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5626025) – on the prospect of the U.S. invading Syria (a course of action I emphatically do not support), the now-banned **Aldebaran** posted: > [@Aldebaran](#): > > Cold shower time, time of General Question: > > Who are **you** to have the arrogance to “decide” what people in other nations “should” have as government and /or state form? > > I don’t know why you people always, over and over again, fail to see your own disgusting arrogance. > I for one don’t need you to show this disgusting arrogance to even think you could tell **me** in what kind of nation, under what kind of government I SHOULD LIVE. > > And if I decide that I am not happy with my government, it is ME who shall decide wether I want to make an effort to try to change it. > > Understood? Or is that a much to difficult truth to grasp for such deluded war mongering arrogant minds? To which I replied: > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > :dubious: Fuck **that** shit. **All** human political issues are **my business** – not because I’m an American, but because I’m a human being. If I’m entitled to have any opinions at all about politics I see no reason why that right should end at my own country’s borders. American neocons are not, you know, the only people who think they know what form of government or social organization is best for every country. There are international socialists, international communists, and international Islamists. I consider myself an international and international **ist** democratic socialist – I hope to live long enough to see a united world with a democratic government and a socioeconomic system which is in some sense socialist and in every sense highly egalitarian. You got a problem with that, **A?** :mad: Just so we’re clear. But that’s got nothing to do with this. The existing consensus norms are what we’ve got to work with. > [@Nietzsche](#): > > In response to **John Mace** ’s question about what constitutes legitimacy, you responded with: > > > [@](#): > > > > It’s a set of unwritten rules which, IMO, can be inferred from looking at what a national leader can say in the international forum and still be taken seriously. > > This must be one of the most relaxed definitions I’ve come across . . . It’s vague, to be sure . . . but what else could it be, in a world without a global government or other entity with acknowledged authority to pronounce definitive formulations of acceptable norms of international relations? A loosely defined “consensus” is the best we can do – the most that Earth’s 200+ nations, starting from very different cultural assumptions, can more or less agree upon, or at least accept for the time being. The modern, post-WWII, post-European-imperialism consensus, as I said in the OP, is that national sovereignty trumps **almost** everything else and unprovoked military aggression across recognized national borders is unacceptable except in very rare and extreme circumstances. “Historic claims” to territory, for instance, are to be discounted, as the Argentines learned in the Falklands War and Hussein learned in the Gulf War. If that isn’t an ideal set of rules, at least we’ve moved past the old imperial-colonial consensus, that civilized Christian nations had the right to rule over less-advanced peoples and exploit their land. (Haven’t we?) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926.md?page=5)