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:
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
Unfortunately, it seems not as of yet. At least not in regards to historical claims (Israel).
CarnalK:
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:
Yep.
At least a plurality of eligible voters.
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.
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.
Nor any representation in most parliaments, if I’m not mistaken.
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.
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.
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?)
‘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.
Do Republicans capitalize everything like that frequently? Freedom? Terror? Defense? Blog?)
