Insurgency Defined and COIN Principles

[Jones_RE]

It seems like we've been viewing legitimacy in a moderately simplistic fashion - "only one side can have it" and "you either have it or you don't" - is that a correct statement? Or perhaps, should it be?

In fact, legitimacy is neither zero sum, nor binary in at least one important respect - different people may view either the insurgents or the government as legitimate.

So which is more important in your views- that people view the government as legitimate, or that they fail to view insurgents as legitimate?

(Tangent: as for what to call various groups in Iraq, I nominate the term "guerrilla" which I think is less inflamatory while remaining accurate)

[Stratiotes]

I think you may be hitting on one part of the problem too - legitimacy itself is difficult to define. Major S. mentioned international law as a possible definer but guerrillas (and I like that term too) will never likely agree to the same law we do. We are appealing for a common ground where there may be no real common ground. And, when it comes right down to it, I don't think legitimacy can be defined in legal terms - it can only be defined in practical terms...legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder as it were. Legitimacy rests with whoever the people see as the authority worthy or capable of ruling.

I think Bill Lind (actually John Boyd) touches on this too when he talks about isolating the guerrilla so that he is the one who appears to have no legitimacy. The guerrilla attempts to isolate the current authority by raising questions about its legitimacy and using public opinion to make the authority look harsh or incapable of ruling. They have an easier job to do in a sense. Perhaps we need to figure out how to play that game in reverse - find ways to make their claim on legitimacy suspect.