Germany, Japan, Austria, and Italy vs Iraq and Afganistan

Submitted by Ludvikus (United States), Jan 21, 2022 at 19:02

I agree with your analysis. However, I think it's incomplete and insufficient (historically) regarding the six (6) countries that you specifically cite and do not examine individually regarding their history:

Germany, Japan, Austria, and Italy vs Iraq and Afghanistan

1. Germany evolved by war and conquest and was the successor to the "Holy Roman Empire (of the German Nation)", HREGN. The "German Nation" part is general omitted by scholars of the United Kingdom and the United States. And Chancellor Bismark "created" modern Germany out of Prussia by conquest of states and defeating the Austrian Empire which claimed to be "German" but was multi-ethnic in fact. And after WWI, Germany naturally produced the Wiemar Republic, which extremely democratic and progressive - until its constitutional weakness that resulted in the aberration of the NAZI REGIME under Hitler. But it took more generations to united East and West Germany after it's Communist (not Capitalist) vs. Democratic) (not Totalitarian) Split. So modern Germany is a natural historical evolution Democratic Greek and Republican (Rome) past. One also needs to be reminded her that the title Kaiser was the German version of Caesar, the name of the first Roman Emperor.

2. Japan had two historical traditions, its own Emperor, and its admiration of the Americans. When Japan was defeated, General MacArthur kept the Emperor, and the Emperor agreed to the terms of peace with the American. In addition, it was an American, Jacob Schiff, a major New York ("short term loans" to Wall Street) Banker, second only to JP Morgan, who financed Japan during the 1905 Victory over the Russian Empire. Finally, since the 1850's, after American Commodore Perry and Japan (1853-1854), arrival in Japan, that Japan commenced its Modernization, and was the first Asian country to be successfully industrialized and modern. And, like the United Kingdom, maintains its Soverign and Royal House, Reining bot not Ruling.

3. Austria is merely a state-let that was already a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire while annexed temporarily into the Third Reich of Hitler. So its Sovereignty and subsequent independence was natural as the former German part (ethnically) of the Austro-Hungarian Empire which also subsequently resulted in an (ethnically) independent Hungary.

4. Italy (geographically), by the 19th century, was a collection of states under the Soverign Secular authority of the Roman Catholic Pope (Western Archbishop). It was the remaining part of the HREGN that was established when the Pope anointed Charlemagne as the 1st new Christian Emperor and protector of "Rome"; when modern Italy was former, the Popes secular jurisdiction was restricted to the Vatican "city." And when the Kingdom of Italy was created "naturally" by war and peace, that Kingdom continued even through the "leadership" Benito Mussolini (a.k.a Il Douche). From 1861—when King Victor Emmanuel II of Sardinia was proclaimed King of Italy—existed until 1946; it is to be noted that the King of Italy abdicated a year after WWII end in 1945. Here, Italy resembles Japan with a Constitutional (legal) transfer of Soverign power. More particularly, as Wikipedia "says": Victor Emmanuel III nominally remained King until shortly before a 1946 referendum on whether to remain a monarchy or become a republic. On 9 May 1946, he abdicated in favor of the Crown Prince, who then ascended as King Umberto II. However, on 2 June 1946, the republican side won 54% of the vote and Italy officially became a republic."

5. Iraq was a Baath Party republic and Arab Muslim dictatorship. But the majority was Shia while under the rule of their Sunni minority. When the US invaded it artificially expected a peaceful transition of power with the "haves" (Sunni) peacefully submitting to the "have-nots" (Shia). This, while Saddam's Army disbanded and destroyed. Even the United States took 100 years to make the former slaves full citizens of the USA. Constitutionally speaking, for this reason alone, the USA should have left the fate of the Iraqis to themselves once Saddam was dead. That would have allowed the Iraqis to deal with the Iranians with each other fighting their religious war and maintaining the balance of power. Instead we did the work of the Iranians for them without even gratitude. We empowered our 1979 ideological "Enemy" Iran by destroyed Iraq as Iran's "natural" enemy. Metternich, Bismark, and Kissinger would have understood that - but no one in our State depart, for 20 years, did.

6. The case of Afghanistan is amazing. And it appears that we have not learned from the fiasco of Vietnam, and even Korea. North Korea was Communist, while South Korea was Democratic (the 1st is an Economic system, the 2nd is a political system; we should therefore also include the underlying distinctions of Capitalistic and Dictatorial). As it turns out, with external support from China for North Korea and the USA for South Korea, it appears that the Failed State of North Korea with Nuclear Bombs and Ballistic Missiles will remain for generations, even though North Korea may be a threat to China. However, Vietnam is a better example of what lessons the USA has not learned - that we could not, externally, defeat the Constructional system of Communism in Vietnam no matter how much we tried when the Vietnamese themselves wanted that system, and still has it, after our defeat and exit, So now we have to examine the history of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Here it was the Soviet Union (USSR) which first fought in Afghanistan in its effort to impose Communism on it. And when the USSR was defeated, we stepped it to defeat the Taliban Islamist regime in an effort to impose Democracy (and our Capitalism). But after 20 years the we are out and the Taliban is back in. However, now the whole world is against the Taliban - not a single state has recognized it, not even the UN. It is unfortunate that may will die in that country now by freezing or starving. But was this "Victory" worth it? Not only in lives, but the Trillions of Dollars of the American Taxpayer?

However, there is another major factor at play, which only you, Dr. Daniel Pipes, are in a position to explain. It is Islamism, or what is better called "Political Islam." I can only give here one aspect of it. By reverting to the religion of Islam as expressed in its primary and secondary scriptures, we see rules for internal conduct, known as Sharia (Law). This we cannot militarily or with social engineering by foreigners aka nonbelievers. However, regarding politics, it is necessary to appreciate the historical role of the Three Major Profits: Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad; in brief, Moses gave the Western World the Rule of Law as exemplified by the 15 Commandments (Mel Brooks literally "broke" 5 of them). Jesus gave the World Love and Peace; he was only violent on the steps of the Jewish Temple overturning the money-changers tables, or something to that effect. However, the Prophet Muhammad was Warrior by the Sword, and imposed his Divine will through Violence by Conquest, and only tolerated the other 3 Monotheistic Religions, Judaism and Christianity. It therefore appears that each Muslim majority country must come to terms according to its own revolution. Political Islam actually emerged in the West when the Ottoman Empire was first exposed to the West when Napoleon Bonaparte "traveled" and arrived in Egypt in the early part of the 19th Century; so we are only one century (100 years) away from that historical encounter; that only a bit over one lifetime, if one assumes 60 or 70 years as a human lifespan average- the 20th century only ended in the year 2,000.

Perhaps I can speculate here on some other countries. With Iran, we may not need Regime Change, and getting out quickly. Or maybe it just takes the current Ayatollah to die naturally. There is a chance that the Iranian people themselves will have a Color Revolution. Maybe the USA should simply invade Iran, destroy all its Nuclear facilities, and get out, humiliating the Theocratic regime of the ruling Ayatollah. Ukraine, we should recall, was a part of Poland until Russia severed it in two stages, by 1st subjugating Poland, and then creating the first State under the Soviet Union system. But the Ukrainians, since 1648, struggled for their independence; under Hitler, in WWII, they hoped Hitler would be the one to give it to them. Therefore, if the West arms the Ukrainians, that may be the end of Putin when Russian body bags arrive back home; it was in part, the defeat in Afghanistan which contributed allegedly to the collapse of the Soviet Union; Russia today, is an Oligarchy, ruled by 100 or 150 Billionaires who, as Capitalists, acquired by buying state industries; what will they do when their Wealth is threatened by Putin's failed adventure in the Ukraine? Intrinsically Orthodox Christian, with a strong secular Muslim minority, it appears that eventually the Russian Federation is in a position to integrate with Europe; that partial happened before under 3 Tsars: Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, and the 1st Nicholas, who helped defeat Napoleon Bonaparte and restored the old European system engineered by (Austrian) Metternich and which lasted until 1848, when Marx's Communist Manifesto was published and distributed; as we know the Soviet Union was the first embodiment of that alternate (Communist) system that emerged in Germany, and the same is currently still true of (mainland) China; however, to understand China, one must also understand its own Confucianism, as well as Buddhism out of which it emerged; how China evolves, however, also depends on the (Autocratic) Paramount Leader Xi who "answers" to the Communist Party of China and its ruling committees (Politburo, etc.). Of course, there are many other important countries, who's constitutional histories require close examination. I leave that out here because of space limitations.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".