# 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:** 12\ **Page:** 5
**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, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/81 "2005-01-15T18:19:57Z")
But **Nietzsche** ’s criticism of your definition is still valid: we cannot judge the legitimacy of the insurgency merely by their professed goals i.e. what they could get away with saying in the public arena. but this: > [@](#): > > _Nietzche said:_ > 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. might not be the best way to judge legitimacy either, at least not in quite such a face-value interpretation anyway. The current insurgency is mostly Sunni, is a poll of the Kurds a valid way to judge their popularity? IOW, what about ethinic minority insurgencies. Also, an insurgencies popularity can be hard to measure when the threat of violence is coming from all sides. For the rest, I pretty much concur with your POV though **Nietzche**. ---
**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 15, 2005, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/82 "2005-01-15T18:47:45Z")
> [@Nietzsche](#): > > 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? But how else do you determine the legitamate gov’t of a country? Do you take a poll? What % of the populace have to agree? Fact is, in this discussion we are talking about legitimacy as defined by international standards. In this case, the onl standard that matters is “other countries” and “the UN”. If **'luc** can get the recognized governing body (my town) to recognize that he owns my house, then he does own it, no matter what I think. Same thing with the gov’t of Iraq. ---
**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, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/83 "2005-01-15T19:50:59Z")
**BrainGlutton** : > [@](#): > > Hold the phone. First of all, I do not want the insurgents to succeed. Of course not. I know better than to ever accuse you of that. But what I did gather from your OP and your subsequent posts was… > [@](#): > > I simply infer their legitimacy from what I perceive to be the existing consensus norms of international relations. Though I agree with what you’re calling legitimate resistance (i.e. resistance to a foreign invasion), I think you go too far if you’re claiming the insurgency, such as it is, is legitimate. Even insurgents have certain criteria they have to meet before they can be recognized as internationally legitimate. Also, as an aside, I agree with you in regards to your view on leave-us-alone nationalism. But if we were to assume legitimacy simply by what the international community tolerates, we may find ourselves legitimizing genocide (Rwanda, Darfur). If we are going to confer legitimacy, then surely the standard must be much higher than simply claiming a legitimate cause. But like I said before, the longer this drags on, the more likely it is that the insurgents will find such legitimacy. > [@](#): > > 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. While lots of things seem to get a free pass internationally, I don’t think that confers legitimacy. For legitimacy to exist, I think we should use a stringent standard (such as written UN rules). To assume legitimacy based on your looser definition raises the possibility of legitimizing any roving band of banditos that claim a legitimate cause. > [@](#): > > “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?) Unfortunately, it seems not as of yet. At least not in regards to historical claims (Israel). **CarnalK** : > [@](#): > > might not be the best way to judge legitimacy either, at least not in quite such a face-value interpretation anyway. The current insurgency is mostly Sunni, is a poll of the Kurds a valid way to judge their popularity? IOW, what about ethinic minority insurgencies. Also, an insurgencies popularity can be hard to measure when the threat of violence is coming from all sides. Good point. What I meant by that was that, as a quick litmus test, “popularity” is a better measure than merely claiming a legitimate cause. Still, the Iraqi insurgency, based on the current numbers, can’t be considered a popular, even as a minority insurgency. From the CIA’s World Factbook, I get a rough estimate of about 7,000,000 to 8,000,000 Sunni Arabs. I think it’s safe to say that if the insurgency had even 40%-50% popularity amongst Sunnis, Iraq would be much more chaotic than it is now. **John Mace** : > [@](#): > > But how else do you determine the legitamate gov’t of a country? Do you take a poll? Yep. > [@](#): > > What % of the populace have to agree? At least a plurality of eligible voters. > [@](#): > > Fact is, in this discussion we are talking about legitimacy as defined by international standards. And therein lies the problem I see. A temporary solution as a matter of political expediency and practicality does _not_ confer legitimacy. The world needs some “head” to call call on the phone in regards to matters of state. In Iraq that person is Allawi and he was chosen by the defacto rulers, the United States. He may be the internationally recognized leader of Iraq, but nowhere near the legitimate leader. ---
**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 15, 2005, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/84 "2005-01-15T21:30:03Z")
> [@Nietzsche](#): > > Yep. > > At least a plurality of eligible voters. While I see where you’re coming from, I still don’t see how this is relavent to the discussion we’re having here. From the OP: > [@](#): > > By the generally accepted standards of the international community… The international community considers many governments to be legitimate that fail your test. ---
**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, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/85 "2005-01-15T21:32:21Z")
> [@](#): > > _Nieztche said:_ > What I meant by that was that, as a quick litmus test, “popularity” is a better measure than merely claiming a legitimate cause. Still, the Iraqi insurgency, based on the current numbers, can’t be considered a popular, even as a minority insurgency. From the CIA’s World Factbook, I get a rough estimate of about 7,000,000 to 8,000,000 Sunni Arabs. I think it’s safe to say that if the insurgency had even 40%-50% popularity amongst Sunnis, Iraq would be much more chaotic than it is now. Well I guess 200 000/8 000 000 is only 2.5%. They wouldn’t get matching funds in Canadian election. 🙂 ---
**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, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/86 "2005-01-15T21:52:55Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > The international community considers many governments to be legitimate that fail your test. Unfortunately you’re correct. But I don’t think anyone could argue that someone that came to power through a military coup or through appointment by a foreign power and has little to no support amongst the population to be legitimate (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia). But again, political expediency and practical necessity do require the international community to at least recognize what’s there. As all this pertains to the discussion at hand and the OP, my point was that it’s wrong to set the bar so low; whether we’re talking about the insurgency or the current Iraqi government. > [@CarnalK](#): > > Well I guess 200 000/8 000 000 is only 2.5%. They wouldn’t get matching funds in Canadian election. Nor any representation in most parliaments, if I’m not mistaken. ---
**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 15, 2005, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/87 "2005-01-15T22:42:51Z")
I’ve recently seen more evidence, and I am changing my position regarding the insurgency. I think, now, that, at least initially, it was mainly elements of the Iraqi army and police going underground. Over time, outsiders came in, and things like Fallujah got citizens involved in between. It would help more if the US Intelligence community would share some data regarding its interrogations of prisoners, but at this point I believe they don’t even want people to know they have prisoners, or how many, or where from, and on what grounds. No Gitmo 2. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2005, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/88 "2005-01-16T10:42:42Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > are you referring to Iraq the model? The very one. It doesn’t _even mention_ the announcement of the end of the WMD search. Which I think says a lot. ---
**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 16, 2005, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/89 "2005-01-16T15:26:58Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > The very one. > > It doesn’t _even mention_ the announcement of the end of the WMD search. Which I think says a lot. Here we go, I knew Juan Cole would try and dismiss Iraq the Model as false and untrue of the Iraqi hearts and minds, but lets look at their side of the story in refuting what he said. [Heres the Defense of the Blog](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5721381&postcount=48) ---
**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 16, 2005, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/90 "2005-01-16T16:02:42Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > Here we go, I knew Juan Cole would try and dismiss Iraq the Model as false and untrue of the Iraqi hearts and minds, but lets look at their side of the story in refuting what he said. > > [Heres the Defense of the Blog](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5721381&postcount=48) Which was basically bullcrap. He still doesn’t have a primary source. He has a secondary source from oral history. Why don’t you specify my “Defense of the Blog” (do Republicans capitalize everything they see? Or does that sound like a bad '50s movie?) ---
**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 16, 2005, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/91 "2005-01-16T23:48:39Z")
> [@](#): > > **Demorian** > > Which was basically bullcrap. He still doesn’t have a primary source. He has a secondary source from oral history. From [http://iraqpundit.blogspot.com/](http://iraqpundit.blogspot.com/) ‘Like many Iraqis, the Fadhil brothers who post to ITM have been enjoying their new post-Baathist freedoms by expressing their opinions publicly and making their case for a liberal Iraq. Sometimes they’ve even challenged Juan Cole’s own pretenses to expertise on what is going on in the country. This phenomenon seems to flummox Cole; the only explanation he seems to be able to come up with is to hint darkly that ITM is part of a nefarious Neocon plot.’ ‘What disgusts me most is Cole’s implication that Iraqis are unable to think and reason for themselves. If Iraqi blogs are supportive of liberalization (and most are), then Cole apparently believes that we must suspect a hidden hand somewhere. Enlightenment and independence of mind are to be defined by whether or not you agree with Juan Cole. If you don’t, you lack integrity and honesty, and you may even be a hoax, a fraud, or an agent provocateur.’ > [@](#): > > Why don’t you specify my “Defense of the Blog” (do Republicans capitalize everything they see? Or does that sound like a bad '50s movie?) Well it wasn’t intentional, jeez. ---
**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 17, 2005, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926/92 "2005-01-17T01:03:56Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > From [http://iraqpundit.blogspot.com/](http://iraqpundit.blogspot.com/) > > ‘Like many Iraqis, the Fadhil brothers who post to ITM have been enjoying their new post-Baathist freedoms by expressing their opinions publicly and making their case for a liberal Iraq. Sometimes they’ve even challenged Juan Cole’s own pretenses to expertise on what is going on in the country. This phenomenon seems to flummox Cole; the only explanation he seems to be able to come up with is to hint darkly that ITM is part of a nefarious Neocon plot.’ > > ‘What disgusts me most is Cole’s implication that Iraqis are unable to think and reason for themselves. If Iraqi blogs are supportive of liberalization (and most are), then Cole apparently believes that we must suspect a hidden hand somewhere. Enlightenment and independence of mind are to be defined by whether or not you agree with Juan Cole. If you don’t, you lack integrity and honesty, and you may even be a hoax, a fraud, or an agent provocateur.’ That’s a lovely editorial. What does it have to do with Juan Cole having primary sources and CMAR II’s sources (the ones doing the smear you so kindly provided above) having a bunch of bullcrap? Or is your only answer more smears? I’m still waiting. > [@](#): > > Well it wasn’t intentional, jeez. Do Republicans capitalize everything like that frequently? Freedom? Terror? Defense? Blog?) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legitimacy-of-the-iraq-invasion-occupation-vs-legitimacy-of-the-insurgency/283926.md?page=4)