James Woolsey Makes Distinctions among Islam

James Woolsey writes that there are two virulent strains of Islam: al Qaeda and Wahhabis:

Within Sunni Islam, along with several more moderate schools, there are two varieties of theocratic totalitarianism. Both of these are Salafists, believing that only a literal version of the model of rule implemented in the seventh century in Islam has ultimate legitimacy. Both have the objective of rule by a unified mosque and state; for some this theocracy is personified by the caliph. Different individuals in these movements emphasize different aspects, but generally the common objective is to unify first the Arab world under theocratic rule, then the Muslim world, then those regions that were once Muslim (e.g. Spain), then the rest of the world.

He explains that the two varieties are Al Qaeda who attack even in Saudi Arabia and the Wahhabis who are loyal to the Saudi throne. He compares them to Trotskyites and Stalinists. He explains how the Saudis appear to cooperate in the war on terror:

Similarly, al Qaeda launches attacks in Saudi Arabia and the Saudis work with us to capture and kill al Qaeda members who threaten them. In this sense both Saudi government officials and probably even Wahhabi clerics are willing to "cooperate with the U.S. on counter-terrorism." But this cooperation does not negate the fact that al Qaeda and the Wahhabis share essentially the same underlying totalitarian theocratic ideology. It is this common Salafist ideology that the Wahhabis have been spreading widely — financed by $3-4 billion/year from the Saudi government and wealthy individuals in the Middle East over the last quarter century — to the madrassas of Pakistan, the textbooks of Turkish children in Germany, and the mosques of Europe and the U.S. Alex Alexiev, senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy, testified before Congress on June 26, 2003, that this is approximately three-four times what the Soviets were spending on external propaganda and similar "active measures" at the peak of Moscow's power in the 1970s.

This underlying Salafist ideology being spread by the Wahhabis is fanatical and murderous, indeed explicitly genocidal.

This is how Woolsey suggests we defeat them:

How might we undertake to fight this Wahhabi ideology? Again, we should recall some Cold War lessons. By the 1950s, after a congressional attempt to outlaw Communism was struck down by the Supreme Court, and after Joseph McCarthy's attempt to spread guilt by association was defeated, we hit upon several ways to deal with our domestic Communists. We made them register. We infiltrated them with large numbers of FBI agents. We essentially made their lives miserable. It was legal for them and their front groups to exist — indeed they perennially ran Gus Hall for President — and they even recruited some spies for the Soviets. But despite their best efforts they were not a serious force in American life, nor did they succeed in undermining our ability to fight the Cold War. At the same time we made common cause with Democratic socialists around the world, just as we must make common cause today with the hundreds of millions of decent Muslims with whom we have no quarrel.

We should have a frank national discussion about how we may learn from this history and deal with Sunni theocratic totalitarianism — so that we may help it join its secular cousins, Nazism and Communism (and its predecessor totalitarian religious movements such as Torquemada's Inquisition) where they all rightly belong: on the ash-heap of history.

Mr. Woolsey has made a nice argument that there are distinctions to be made amongst the various sects of Islam but his recommendations strike me as weak. They could certainly be incorporated into an overall strategy but this is not the same country as post WWII. Look at our gyrations over the Patriot Act. We absolutely need to keep tabs on what is said and taught in the Mosques and over the Ramadan dinners but it's really the 3 to 4 billion petro dollars per year the Saudis are funding that concern me. How do we dry that up?

Woolsey writes that we are under no obligation to accept that the Wahhabis represent true Islam. I hope not, but then where does that leave the other Muslims in regard to the teachings of the Koran? Do they reject the calls for jihad by the sword as irrelevant to modern Islam? I'm not sure they do. If they believe Mohammed was the true prophet of Alllah then how do they not believe the words of Mohammed are as relevant today as they have ever been?

Oh and let's not forget the Iranian Shiites who have been funding terror attacks on Israel, shaking their fists at us and appear to be feverishly working on a bomb and collecting weapons of war.