Ray Pierce
Thursday, Dec. 5, 2002

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.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Al-Qaeda
Middle East
Saddam Hussein/Iraq
War on Terrorism

Editor's note:
Revealed: The Terrorists Living Among Us