[extropy-chat] GWOT: Out of focus

[Russell Evermore]

Declare War on Wahhabism
Ray Pierce

The salient aspect of a successful war strategy is correct threat
analysis. A leader who correctly interprets the threat enables the
institutions of society to form a zeitgeist, which allows the common
man to understand the rationale and goals of the war. This is
especially important in a democracy, where broad support is essential
for a war of extended duration.

Our current war on terror lacks this clarity. The term "terrorist"
means different things to different people, as does therefore the term
"states that sponsor terror." Pedestrian thinkers concentrate mainly
on bin Laden, who is a product or symptom of the threat in the big
picture. Others from the elite media and academia focus on the lack of
an Islamic Reformation or else blame America, while some on the right
condemn Islam itself.

In philosophy, there is the concept of corresponding truths, which
simply stated is the idea that people see what they expect or want to
see, as opposed to what is actual or real. An example of this is our
government's view of Wahhabite Saudi Arabia within the war on terror
parameter.

It was not by accident that 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 murders were Wahhabi
from Saudi Arabia. Or that the Taliban was the ideal form of Wahhabite
government. Or that bin Laden himself is a Wahhabite Saudi.

Wahhabism, masquerading as a religion, has a network of Mosques and
schools worldwide which are poisoning the young and sowing hatred. Our
own PC military is seeking additional Wahhabite clergy. Wahhabite
clergy teach in our prisons.

A religion is an ideology coupled with a metaphysical belief, which
forms a theology. The world's five major religions all have aspects of
tolerance. Can an ideology that is xenophobic to all that are
different be considered a religion?

Can Wahhabism, which seeks either the conversion or death of all other
Muslim sects, plus all Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists,
secularists and pagans, be considered acceptable in our modern and
pluralistic world?

If the answer is no, the Western Achilles' heel of religious tolerance
is not exposed. But if Wahhabism is considered a religion, we will be
defeated in this war, as we will be powerless to stop its spread.

The reason we are losing our war is that our government lacks veracity
in its actions. When Prince Bandar is allowed to visit the president's
ranch, when the State Department continues to issue express visas, an
impression of duplicity is created. This is fortified when we are told
that Saudi Arabia is a staunch ally.

How can a country which does not allow Christian worship or even
Christian burial on its scared soil be our ally? A greater incongruity
occurs when we learn about Saudi funding of terrorism.

Some may point to oil as the main ingredient in our alliance with
Saudi Arabia. But our new ally Russia has vast deposits of petroleum
and natural gas. During World War II, Germany made synthetic petroleum
from coal, which we have in great abundance. And, with our technology,
we should start to transfer to a hydrogen economy if we intend to
remain a world power throughout the 21st century.

The correct and honest course is to declare war on all Wahhabite
states and peoples. By doing this, our goal would be concentric to the
facts as they exist in reality.

By declaring war on the Wahhabi, a more refined debate could occur
which would allow Wahhabism to be viewed as a cult of hate. This would
allow for mainstream adherents of Islam to explain the differences
between tolerant Islam and Wahhabism. This discussion may lead to an
Islamic Reformation of sorts, which could embrace modernity and
pluralism, as it once did before Wahhabism became widespread.

The singular advantage to declaring war on the Wahhabi is that they
hate all that are not Wahhabite. From this, many natural alliances
will occur. Iran, a Shiite county, had five ambassadors killed by the
Taliban, for example. Iran was the chief sponsor of the Northern
Alliance in Afghanistan.

The focus of our foreign policy must change, where a reasoned threat
analysis and prioritization takes place. Iraq is a secular Stalinist
state. The Wahhabi also threaten it. It is purported that bin Laden
said that Saddam is a "bad Muslim." Rather than have a policy which
aligns these enemies of the Wahhabi such as Iraq and Iran against us,
our policy should be to align them against their Wahhabite enemy.

A precedent for this may be found in our policy during World War II.
FDR did not declare war on Stalin while we were fighting Hitler, but
rather used Stalin to defeat Hitler. By going to war with Iraq, we
strengthen Wahhabite Saudi Arabia.

Added to this is the fact that Iraq has no ethos, and therefore is not
a nation-state. With Kurds in the north, Shiites in the south, Sunni
and secularists in the center, Iraq is analogous to Yugoslavia in that
violence will result after Saddam is gone. In actuality, the only way
to hold such a disparate place together is through a strongman like a
Tito or Saddam. And if Iraq splinters, Turkey will be threatened.

The worldwide spread from Saudi Arabia of Wahhabism must be stopped.
Their "religious" schools must be closed. Their worldwide political
intrigue, which has infested many states to include Pakistan and
Indonesia, must be halted. Their followers must be taught to feel
secure in Islam, while accepting modernity and pluralism. We need to
promote a mainstream brand of Islam.

Our government needs to become honest about this war, which is nothing
less than a threat to our civilization. We need to seek allies where
they exist. By declaring war on Wahhabism, all of the world's peoples
and religions currently under threat will benefit, and our war will
become an honest fight against evil.

________
Russell Evermore