Demosophia

The underlying problem is that, at the end of the day, there is no strong distinction between ideology and religion, insofar as both are significant factors in shaping one's worldview.

To put the spin on a bit differently is Maosim a religion or ideology? How about the Juche Idea?

Ultimately, this is why I have some measure of faith. Eradicating a religion is ferociously difficult, but we've wiped out ideologies before.

That book has the strong whiff of propaganda about it. Frankly, claiming that Qutbist Islamists aren't Wahhabi is a line of argument strongly reminiscent of the old saw that Stalinists weren't true Marxists, for this, that, and the other doctrinal reasons. It's a distancing tactic, in order to protect fellow-travellers and "moderates" from the taint of their associations.

I can accept that there are Islamists that aren't Wahhabis or Salafists - the current prime minister of Turkey springs immediately to mind. After all - not all socialists are Marxists. Likewise, not all, and possibly very few, Wahhabis or Salafists are al Queda, or terror-supports. For, indeed, very few Marxists are Stalinists, at least in this day and age.

But it's still the way to bet when you're dealing with "beta" situations, isn't it?

Eradicating a religion is ferociously difficult, but we've wiped out ideologies before.

Great observation! Yup, I'll grant that ideologies seem less entrenched that religions. Repudiate the diagnosis and there's not much left to hang your hat on. The same can't be said of a religion, because it's based on essentially nonfalsifiable assertions. But what concerns me is that I can't seem to find an example of what you're saying. There are still true believers in both Marxism and Naziism, although they are decidedly marginalized.

That book has the strong whiff of propaganda about it.

I agree it gives that impression. And Sayyid Qutb's brother happens to be a Wahhabi cleric. Still, I think it is true that what makes Islamo/Fascism dangerous is not its orthodoxy, but the introduction of a few very very bad western ideas that trace their roots to the French Revolution and the Counter-enlightenment. That at least leave a door ajar that could see an orthodox rebellion from Qutbism, and I'm frankly not above using that wedge if it presents itself.

Actually, now that you mention it, one might be able to view the "eradication" of Nazism and Marxism as the more-or-less elimination of the Copts, Nestorians, Druze, and other would-be contenders that have fallen by the wayside.

Hmm - it definitely appears, at least at first blush, that the primacy of faith in religions (v. ideologies) may contribute significantly to the difficulty in their eradication.

P.S. I've still not forgotten about your response on asymmetries in terrorism v. war, but it turns out that the response is predicated (and will involve) at least two screed installments. So it'll take a while.

A.R.:

Actually, now that you mention it, one might be able to view the "eradication" of Nazism and Marxism as the more-or-less elimination of the Copts, Nestorians, Druze, and other would-be contenders that have fallen by the wayside.

I'm still pretty sure that Islamism isn't Islam, and it's more appropriately an ideology than a religion. But it might be eradicable either as an ideology or as a sect of Islam that "falls by the wayside." That's our best shot.

What concerns me, however, is that we thought we'd defeated Totalitarianism and we now discover it was simply endemic. And most westerners, including Steven Den Beste in his uber-essay on a three-way war, are still confused about the exact nature of the movement.

Do'h!!! I've been wrestling with the 3-way sluggin' match but never quite got to it - fortune favors the brave.

I guess the other thing I've been noodling on is what, exactly, are the differences between ideology and religion.

Qutbism is, as other commenters have noted, best described as an ideology rather than a religious sect because of the political beliefs that it entails. Ideofact has some fairly lengthy posts on the topic if you desire to read about the ins and outs of the ideology. Another term used for it (mainly by its Wahhabi adherents) is Salafism with their connection back to the companions (Salafi) of Mohammed and their role as a vanguard-style force in reestablishing purity within Islam.

The Wahhabi religious establishment over the last 30-60 years has more or less embraced Salafism/Qutbism on a political level as a means to accomplish their objectives. A far better parallel than Nazism might be drawn between the way that many Shintos embraced Japanese militarism during World War 2. It's basically a revolutionary movement, and Wahhabism had nascent revolutionary impulses impended in it from its founding in the early 1800s with Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's alliance with the al-Saud to take Mecca, thereby posing a direct challenge to the supremacy of the Ottoman sultan.

Whether or not it's possible for Wahhabism to develop a theology apart from the revolutionary tendencies is ultimately going to be up to its adherents, but I honestly don't see that happening so long as the current religious establishment (the Saudi ulema) is dependent on the subsidies of House Saud. They have just too much interest invested in the status quo.

I have yet to investigate the specific beliefs of the Qutbists, and probably am not qualified to comment on their religious bona fides. But if Saudi Arabia is one of the most religious societies on the planet, Japan is one of the least. It's impossible for me to imagine that Shinto had much religious appeal, at least in the classical sense of a "spiritual" religion. What it had was some powerful symbols that appealed to ultra-nationalism. And in a religious society, such as that of Arabia, it's difficult to imagine a movement analogous to Shinto remaining indistinguishable from genuinely religious institutionns indefinitely. In other words, there could very well be considerable appeal for a movement that casts Qutbism as an apostasy (which it probably is).

But I'm not really certain the "World of Islam" is really all that religious. It's really difficult to tell, when dissent is almost unthinkable. My computer was built by an Iranian friend who simply doesn't have a single good word for religion, and least of all Islam.

I am increasingly taken with the notion of an "iron curtain" descending on those regimes that fail to liberalize and open, of the sort that's advocated now by Victor Davis Hanson. A cold war is vastly preferable to a hot war, even if the latter is a slow-motion terrorist-dominated aggression. And it's not so much what the terrorists are capable of that worries me. It's what we'd have to do to retaliate effectively to preserve our own way of life. Launching a "cold war" would effectively communicate the gravity of that sitution to the appropriate populations.