Do you consider armed resistance in Iraq as legitimate?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4691865.stm

OK, so the problem seems to me to be that the actual people doing the armed resistance to the U.S. occupation are a ragbag alliance of very unsavoury extremists, whether religious jihadists or former Baathists. That makes me think that pragmatically the best bet for Iraqis is to engage in the political process, even if the rules have been set down by an occupying force. And it obscures the question of whether, in the abstract, armed resistance to U.S. and allied occupation is legitimate or not. After all, the Americans have pointedly not said when they intend leaving the country, and explicitly said that they will probably be there for years to come, and are building military bases for long-term occupation. My gut feeling is that armed resistance under such circumstances is indeed legitimate, if perhaps counter-productive from a pragmatic point of view.

― Robert Manne, Monday, 18 July 2005 09:37 (twenty years ago)

I remain to be convinced that "former Baathists" are carrying out suicide bombings

― Dadaismus (Dada), Monday, 18 July 2005 09:42 (twenty years ago)

dada otm, for what it's worth. it's not really for me to 'judge' the legitimacy, but i would reckon that few iraqis would want the bombers to hold power. what hope to they hold out?
i'm entering murky territory, but rule by a foreign power *can* be better than rule by 'native' psychopaths. the fact that iraq is nowhere near being a nation-state partly explains the civil war.
post-war germany is the example the bush administration would like to use, though they can't. it's not a choice for me to make, but i think the abstract idea of legitimacy is pretty far from the very immediate concerns of the iraqi people.

― N_RQ, Monday, 18 July 2005 09:52 (twenty years ago)

You could argue that resistance to an invading foreign power is always legitimate...The issue of foreign nationals taking part in this is a thorny one, somewhere along the lines of the legitimacy of the International Brigades during the Spanish Civil War.

― Stone Monkey (Stone Monkey), Monday, 18 July 2005 09:56 (twenty years ago)

but Zarqawi = International Brigades?
or US = International Brigades?

to be honest, i am increasingly unpersuaded by appeals to history or "abstract principles" as brought to bear on this war (from the pro OR anti-war perspective), since its solution - the ending of the conflict, the removal of the many many injustices - will have above all to be rooted in the particularity of the various local forces

― mark s (mark s), Monday, 18 July 2005 10:05 (twenty years ago)

That is a falsely 'neutral' stance, and the comparison with the international brigades is just way off unless you mean USSR = Iran or something, but the International Brigades never systematically targeted Spanish civilians, so it's just wrong, sorry.

It really doesn't matter how 'legitimate' these awful bombings are; in fact, I don't know what perspective could really produce this conclusion. You need to set your motherfucker to receive. And also: this is not simple resistance. In any case, the concepts 'foreign' and 'native' are not naturally given, and I don't think it's legitimate to posit them as eternal. If the idea of US empire is unappealing, I guess I'm enough of a conformist to prefer it to the current slaughter. (It's nochoice at all, and again, not one for me to make.)

xpost

― N_RQ, Monday, 18 July 2005 10:06 (twenty years ago)

that was poorly worded.

― N_RQ, Monday, 18 July 2005 10:08 (twenty years ago)

Is there any point in separating legitimate and illegitimate acts of political violence?

― Scream! Scrovula, Scream! (noodle vague), Monday, 18 July 2005 10:13 (twenty years ago)

Is there any point in separating legitimate and illegitimate acts of political violence?

Surely the answer is yes. Wouldn't you agree that rÃ©sistance fighters in German-occupied France were legitimately engaging in an armed struggle? And isn't it important that it was legitimate?

― Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Monday, 18 July 2005 10:17 (twenty years ago)

in bullet-points, though:

- this is more like yugoslavia after the fall of the berlin wall than france after 1942, if you get me.
- this is not 'resistance' as usually contrued.
- even if it were, its tactics are so out of whack i couldn't ever bestow my much-coveted 'legitimacy' on it.
- similarly, its aims are not terribly appetising -- but here one really has to humbly submit to actual iraqis, though i would wager most of them would prefer almostanything to what is happening now.

xpost -- perhaps, bercause we can all agree the italian or french resistance to nazism was right. but this is partly, i think, because of the kernel of a better society these groups contained in themselves, isn't it?

― N_RQ, Monday, 18 July 2005 10:17 (twenty years ago)

i. the kurdish desire not to be dominated by a brutal sunni minority is legitimate
ii. the shia desire not to be ruled by a vicious theocratic minority (which treats shi'ism as an apostasy punishable by death) is legitimate
iii. i could probably list a dozen other relevant legitimacies to further complicate the issue

if this becomes a debate about abstract legitimacy, then it has to be a debate about acute - possibly unresolvable - conflict of abstract legitimacies

― mark s (mark s), Monday, 18 July 2005 10:19 (twenty years ago)

As for Iraq, I don't see how continued violence, whether it's aimed at U.S. troops, Iraqi police or civilians, can further the goal of an independent nation with some semblance of democracy. Such violence delegitimates itself not on principle but on practice.

― Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Monday, 18 July 2005 10:20 (twenty years ago)

My question was mainly about the use of "legitimate". I can't see that it means more than "I personally agree with this use of violence".

― Scream! Scrovula, Scream! (noodle vague), Monday, 18 July 2005 10:22 (twenty years ago)

Also, who is defining which actions as "armed resistance"? Who is claiming that their goal is "an independent nation with some semblance of democracy"?

― Scream! Scrovula, Scream! (noodle vague), Monday, 18 July 2005 10:24 (twenty years ago)

I think a lot of Iraqis would be much happier if the insurgents would concentrate on killing americans instead of iraqi citizens. I just read a quote to that effect somewhere from an Iraqi citizen. They can't understand why the insurgents just can't kill u.s. soldiers and leave the citizens alone.

― scott seward (scott seward), Monday, 18 July 2005 10:39 (twenty years ago)

but it makes sense to me. kill more iraqis and more iraqis turn against the u.s. and the u.s.-backed government.

― scott seward (scott seward), Monday, 18 July 2005 10:40 (twenty years ago)

how does that follow? i think you're assuming an identity of interests among 'iraqis' that doesn't exist. sectarian interests seem to be driving this *far* more than any 'nationalist' reaction. the more likely consequence is: the killings will turn iraqis against each other and against americans.

― N_RQ, Monday, 18 July 2005 10:48 (twenty years ago)

re: the non-comparison with germany: how long did it take to build, and who built, a [usefully occupiable] "germany" out of the various bavarians, prussians, hessians, etc

― demonlolver (gcannon), Monday, 18 July 2005 15:56 (twenty years ago)

There is no one "insurgency" but a loosely-linked group of many insurgenices, which is why you can't really ascribe a singular motive or logical framework to "the insurgency."

― Hurting (Hurting), Monday, 18 July 2005 16:05 (twenty years ago)

also, we're not helped by simple-minded sloganeering that uses "terr'ists" and "insurgents" interchangeably.

the thing is now that it's not so much just the local populace pissed off that we're there, so are shooting at our guys. the thing is horribly complicated & convoluted with folks there blowing each other up, assassinating each other's religous/ethnic leaders, etc.

― kingfish (Kingfish), Monday, 18 July 2005 16:19 (twenty years ago)

I hate the promiscuous use of the word "insurgents." This is not an insurrection: it's a ragtag of deposed Baathists, anti-Israelis, jihadists, Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda wannabes, and Sunni balking at Kurdish and Shia majority rule.

Regardless of how you feel about the war or US occupation, these are terrorists. They target civilians.

― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Monday, 18 July 2005 16:26 (twenty years ago)

And, no, I don't consider armed resistance in Iraq legitimate.

― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Monday, 18 July 2005 16:28 (twenty years ago)

And they're not even "resistance" per se. This is as much or more a civil war than a war against an occupying power. It's going in multiple directions too. Although the worst atrocities are being inflicted by the apparent alliance of Sunnis and Qaida-types, there are plenty of reports of Shia militias kidnapping and killing people (mostly Sunnis, naturally). And as things heat up in Kirkkuk, you're going to get violence from the Arabs and Turkmen against the Kurds, and vice versa.

The only real question of legitimacy is the legitimacy of the government and constitution: To what extent will either be regarded as legitimate by enough of the population to provide a political framework that can withstand the probably inevitable violence?

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Monday, 18 July 2005 16:35 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.