What Bob said...
I agree, and you even beat me to my second point.
Comparing the situations in Afghanistan and say, Libya or Syria, legitimacy helps clarify the distinction. In Syria the government was seen as legitimate but lost that legitimacy over years as the population's ideas on legitimacy changed from an ethnic monarchy to ... I am not really sure. Something more representative perhaps, but only time will really tell.
In the case of Afghanistan the people's idea of legitimacy probably never changed. A foreign power created a government built on a representative form of legitimacy but that is not really what the people want. In both cases there is a disconnect, but in the case of Syria the people's view changed but the government did not change with it. In the case of Afghanistan the government's form of legitimacy changed but the population's concept did not change with it.
The lesson to be learned is that the people trump the government. You can maintain a government through power but power does not grant legitimacy. Even dictators (or invading armies) endeavor to claim some form of legitimacy.
Bookmarks