Do you regard the Iraqi government as legitimate?

[muriel_volestrangler]

There was a heated thread in LBN about comments George Galloway has made in the Middle East about Iraq, and whether the actions of insurgents are justfied, either in attacking US and UK troops, Iraqi government troops, police, or government members. Everyone condemns the violence aimed at Iraqi civilians (menaing those who aren't members of any of the groups listed above), but some made comments that characterised some of what the insurgents are doing as 'legitimate resistance to occupation'.

I'd ask those who would call it that whether they regard the government led by Jaafari as legitimate. While the elections were held under rules highly influenced, if not wholy written by, the US, I believe the people elected are roughly what any democratic election in Iraq would produce. They say they want the US troops out soon, but don't want a surprise withdrawal (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4720083.stm). Now, I know they're not able to chuck the US out, so you might say they're forced to say that. But I think any analysis of Iraq would show that there would be serious problems for the Jaafari government if there was an immediate US withdrawal (because there are many attacks aimed at Iraqis rather than US troops, and I don't believe the attacks against Iraqi troops and police would stop the moment the US troops went). So their stance of "we want the US troops gone, but when things are slightly more stable" may be a genuine one.

So, do people think the Jaafari government is a true government of Iraq? If not, and you want him out of power, and the coalition troops gone, what would you like to see happen - can you see any other way of setting up an Iraqi government without a civil war?

Bold to get people to answer the effing question. If you think they're puppets, who do you want in charge on Iraq? Who do you think would be voted in by a fair election?

[Vincardog]

1. Do you think the DLC is legitimate?

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. I don't give a toss about the DLC

[wli]

2. not really, it's mostly a puppet govt.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. So what would you like to see happen?

Realistically, not "everyone lays down their arms and realises how to implement the ideal society in Iraq".

[wli]

6. the CPA not bullying them mostly

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. Be specific

Since it doesn't officially exist, you'll have to say what the bullying by the 'CPA' is. But do you mean that if the USA and UK left Iraq immediately, you think the attacks against Iraqi police and troops would stop?

[wli]

21. CPA = Coalition Provisional Authority

Basically, the CPA has been said to call the shots even above the native government, where I think the native government should have more autonomy (e.g. equal votes in a committee or joint legislature).

It's rather independent of troop withdrawal, apart from the Iraq govt. being able to say "go home" if it wants it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. And CPA = disbanded

http://www.cpa-iraq.org/

which is why is asked for specifics of what you think it is still doing. But does that mean you do think Jafaari would count as the valid Iraqi leader, if the Americans all went home?

[wli]

28. not necessarily

Not sure what else one could do, though, apart from e.g. fair elections and so on.

[Soup Bean]

3. Are they governing anything at all?

It sure doesn't seem so.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. They're trying to get a constitution

at least, the parliament is, and the government is in charge. They're trying to build up an Iraqi military and police force, which the country will need, whoever's in charge. They're talking to Iran, which is probably a good idea, because the war between the 2 countries harmed both.

[in_cog_ni_to]

8. Nope. They were hand picked by the BFEE.

Puppet government.

[Kraklen]

9. Of course not.

[ThomWV]

10. Nope .... Pupets

Installed and exsistant because of us. Left to its own there would be no Iraq.

[K-W]

12. It is obviously illegitimate.

Not only was this government formed under occupation in a political atmosphere created by the occupier, but the election was a complete sham. And it is still and will for the foreseeable future remain occupied.

There isnt he faintest wiff of legitimacy.

[Ignoramus]

13. A democracy does not install governments

America does not rule the world. It has no say at all in what the Iraqis do.

Define the problem: An aggressor committed a massacre and is occupying the country of it's victims. The solution to that problem, by definition, does not involve the aggressor continuing to occupy their victim's country.

The logic of people who are anti-invasion/pro-occupation is like:

I'm opposed to rape, until I rape someone in which case I must continue to rape the person until they like me and feel better about themselves.

The other question, of what Iraqis should do, is of course the business of Iraqis. They can ask for whatever help they want. It would be immoral for the US to participate, other than by paying reparations.

If you rape someone and they decide half way through that they should appeal to you to console them about the rape you are committing, it is not ethical to oblige. You should instead stop the rape, and take responsibility for your actions.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. But the question is: who speaks for the Iraqis?

Realistically, the only countries (their governments, anyway) who appear willing to put troops in Iraq are the US and UK. You say "they can ask for whatever help they want", but rule out those troops being there. If you don't think Jaafari can speak for the Iraqis, then who can?

[Ignoramus]

23. Ask an Iraqi

I don't know the answer.

Who speaks for the Americans? Not Bush.

Like many things, there is probably not an easy answer. The invasion caused a mess from which there is not an easy eszcape.

However, it is not the occupier that speaks for Iraqis.

[Minstrel Boy]

31. The only answer that matters is

not the British and the Americans.

[Canuckistanian]

14. NOT legitimate

Not with 1/3 of the population unrepresented (the Sunni's).
And becuase of the obvious. If Iraqis had a really free election system, then there would be a party that was totally anti-American.

And they would win.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. al Sadr?

While he's collecting a petition for the American troops to leave, he's also a current ally of Chalabi, who is in the government. I'm not sure there are any viable leaders who would be totally anti-American. And I'm not convinced that would be a policy to win an election - you'd have to define what happens instead of the American plan, such as it is.

[Canuckistanian]

35. I'm not sure al-Sadr has the popular support

He's popular among his followers, but as a national leader? Nuh-Uh.
And I'm not sure the Iraqi people will follow Chalabi, definitely a US plant.

[Deja Q]

15. Life is illegitimate.

We claim to cherish life and that our world supports making it easier.

A claim I no longer agree with by far.

[Kagemusha]

16. People like forget this is an interim Iraqi government.

But well, whatever.

[sweetheart]

18. Only as legitimate as its sponsors

And that be 2 administrations that should be in the dock for war
crimes. All government activities of war criminals are criminal.
It is not legitimate, and were i iraqi, i would have left forever ago.

[Cleita]

20. Agreed.

This government isn't legitimate and I don't think history will judge it as legitimate, so I can't see how any puppet government set up by them can be legitimate either.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. So who should be governing Iraq?

al Sadr? He didn't actually object to the elections. Who do you think would win a free election?

[Cleita]

24. Whoever the Iraqis can agree on and I

don't think it would be anyone that BushCo wants.

[sweetheart]

25. Is it our business at all, how other people govern themselves?

To frame it as "who should" implies we have an undemocratic choice in
the matter from 1000's of miles away without any vote in iraq.

The question itself is imperialist... Maybe iraq should cease to
exist as the sovereign state we're attempting to prop up, and let the
kurds, shiites and sunnis work out their own solutions.

One day, long ago, the roman army decided to not bother defending
hadrians wall anymore, they were unpaid, and they decided to either
bugger off or go native... and geez, it seems britain has done alright
without some foreign dictator calling the shots. Similary the iraqi
solution must come from within, and as well intentioned as meddlers can
be, it is imperialist, and doomed to fail.

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. A valid point

If the 'solution from within' means a civil war, is that the best the Iraqis can hope for? I think an immediate withdrawal by US troops would mean a civil war - there's already a lot of Iraqis killed by non-coalition troops.

So, if Jafaari doesn't head a legitimate government, are the Iraqi troops and police a fair target for any Iraqi? I'd have thought most people here want a election that is 'fair and free' - how would the Iraqis achieve that? My personal feeling is that the UIA would win it anyway - which is why I think Jafaari is actually legitimate.

According to British tradition, the Romans leaving started an age of violence, when other foreigners were invited in help keep the peace, and the foreigners liked it so much the took the place over. And that's why we're speaking English now. So I'm not sure that's the outcome desired here.

[sweetheart]

33. Self determination

Some say that Woodrow wilson exacerbated world war 1, by calling for
self determination in europe.

And similarly, to call for self determination in iraq, is that not a
call to war? As you point out, would the violence not continue?

I see the problem, is that the moral authority to govern has been lost.
The "rebels" who won the american revolution had moral authority. They
were right to fight for self determination, and surely ever dead
person from that war, would be said a death of worthy cause.

So the question calls back to your original point, that the legitimacy
just does not seem to be there. That the iraqi government is no more
legitimate than the Afganistan one was during the soviet occupation.

Yet someting is going on, beneath this appearance of random violence that
the media presents. The fact is that the american empire is crumbling
by the day. Its moral authority is weaker and weaker every day that
bush stays in power, and much like yetlsin presided over a grand theft
of the oligarchs, this american wanker presides over a similar theft
and crumbling of empire.

Iraq was a bridge too far, and the iraqi insurgency is fighting on the
coalface of a global civil war against war criminals. Until we
depose the war criminals, there will be no change at the coal face,
and to discuss it as a matter within iraqi borders misleads.

The solution is for the US to join the International Criminal Court
and to bring its criminals to global justice or (G_j) ;-)
How can there be any legitimacy to a nazi puppet state, no matter
how well they've convinced the suckers of the german/american/british
public's of their lack of criminality.

[K-W]

26. That isnt something we get to decide.

We can discuss the issue academically, but it has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the government or the occupation.

[leftchick]

30. How we see them is not the issue

It is how the average Iraqi sees them that matters the most. From what I have read, mostly in UK sources, they are viewed as nothing more that puppets or extensions of US policymakers in Iraq. Not good for any future prospect of "Democracy".

In answer to your Bold Question....We, Us Any Westerners have no choice in who the Iraqis pick to be in charge. We warned the neo-cons not to open this pandora's box and they did not listen.

:(

[Arkana]

32. Iraqi what now?

Iraq has a government? This is news to me--you can't exactly tell that, considering that it's as bad (if not worse) there as it was before we did our chickenshit "handover" in the dead of night.

[applegrove]

34. If they come up with a true parliamentary constitution - how can you

complain? The Neocons were already 100% wrong on why & how they did the war. Give these folk a break.

A very respected former politician from Canada - semi-socialist - is giving advice on the constitution. He would not be there if he thought it was useless.

[evermind]

36. As soon as the US set up their governing bodies, back in the

days of Paul Bremer, they immediately signed up Iraq to a whole bunch of financial contracts, acting unilaterally on behalf of the now occupied nation, committing large parts of Iraq's resources and assets in a way that they (the invaders) chose.

Any legitimate government of Iraq would at least be able to call into question the validity of those contracts, and consider whether they were obliged to honour them. There is no sign I've seen that the present "Green Zone government", with Chalabi as oil minister, has any chance of doing that. That is just one of many reasons to regard them as a US client government.

The best way to set up a legitimate government is, imho, for the US and UK, etc., to formally apologise and withdraw, for control of peace-keeping and security functions to be handed over to the UN, and for an independent body to be set up to investigate fully the behaviour of the invaders, including prosecutions for war and other crimes where appropriate, and auditing all major financial transactions involving Iraqi assets. Once these measures were underway, there might be some chance of reasonably free elections taking place. A great deal of the case for armed resistance would have been undermined.