where and how this ideology came about is debatable and as far as l,m concerned not very important. Even the salafis (wahabis) can be split into two.
Of which the saudi salafis are of concern. You see who brought these people to the realms of power. You have to look back to the times of how the turkish caliphate and Islam as a one ummah was destroyed by arab nationalism (l,m talking about the middle east).
A famous man called Lawerence "of arabia" was sent by the british to cause un uprising among the arabs so that the middle east could be divided. The saud tribe which was a bedouin goat herding tribe was the first to sell it,s soul to the british master, they were also known to rob hajis (pilgrims) on the way to the holy lands. This tribe and their version of salafi ideology was promoted above all others in Arabia, they became kings from goat herders and even went on to name the country after themselves Saud e arabia which in fact was called hijaz.
The salafi ideology was suited initially to the west as a passive docile form of islam. The tables turned mainly around the Afghan soviet war era, where the saudi salafis declared a jihad on the communists in conjunction with the endorsement of the jihad by uncle sam himself. It was thought by uncle SAM that once these radicalised young jihadis finished with the soviets they would return home and over throw their Arab leaders and democracy would prevail in the muslim world. Well how wrong they were.
You now have one big sh.t sandwich which was well funded by the yanks, created by the british and now used by rich deviant arabs. Well it,s now time for the masters to take a bite of this sandwich.
Note one thing, it was the Islamic revolution carried out by House of Saud in alliance with Abdul Wahab which started the Arab-Ottoman Split in 18th century...this started the collapse of the Ottomans.
As per the rebel Arabs in the 18th Century, the Turkish Sultanate was not following the correct Islamic principles...I guess the actors are different but this story is repeating itself now....
Nationalism is not such a threat to Islam as some scholars and militant groups want us to believe, the threat is the abuse of Islam to claim political power and the abuse of Islam to label a Muslim as Kafir...
Military Jihad is for self defense or to fight those nations which do not allow the Muslims to live their lives according to Islam and instead persecute them... by virtue of this, in a Muslim majority country it is quite retarded to start an anti State civil war and name it Jihad, a country which is majority Muslim clearly does not stop anyone from following Islam...
The abuse of Islam to be used as purely political tool instead of focusing on Islamic reform and peaceful projection of Islamic values has caused a severe crisis in the Muslim countries...
It is the political mistrust and the difference in Islamic interpretation and the dislike that results from these aspects which always hinders the much demanded alliance of Muslim nations in any useful capacity...it is not nationalism alone which is the real cause of the split...
This dislike has only increased by the stance of certain sects to blame others as non Muslims over small things...
As long as a Muslim believes in the very basic tenets of Islam, he cannot be labeled a non Muslim.
I do not think Americans thought anything beyond the defeat of Soviet Union, does not seem to be the case...it certainly was not in overwhelming US interest to deal with democratic Arab countries since democracies are not easily swayed...so i really think there was no deliberate intent on part of US to promote democracy in Arab world via Afghan Jihad...