Donald Trump

Trump's 'Muslim Ban' Hurts the Fight Against ISIS, Say U.S. Diplomats in Iraq

U.S. Embassy in Baghdad warns President Trump against betraying Iraqi allies in the fight against the Islamic State.


We can't go it alone, Trump.
Ssgt Dallas Edwards/ZUMA Press/Newscom

President Trump's sweeping ban on travelers from seven majority Muslim countries (including Iraq) from entering the United States was intended to protect the homeland from a vanishingly small threat of terrorism. But U.S. diplomats stationed on the front lines in the battle against arguably the world's most notoriously violent and sadistic group of Islamist extremists—ISIS—say the president's plan is both morally and strategically misguided.

According to a memo sent by the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad to the State Department, the travel ban risks the U.S. losing critical support from the Iraqi government, military, and the militias which the U.S. continues to support as they collectively try to retake territory occupied by ISIS for the past three years. The Wall Street Journal reports the memo reveals the diplomats in Baghdad were "blindsided" by Trump's executive order and are worried that the fallout could irreparably damage relations between the two countries, which are nominally "close allies."

The memo cited examples of unforeseen consequences of Trump's order, including an Iraqi army general who has worked closely with U.S. forces now being unable to visit his family in the U.S., a scheduled meeting in the U.S. between Iraqi officials and General Electric over a multi-billion-dollar energy investment now may not take place, and perhaps most crucially, the fate of approximately 60,000 Iraqis who risked their lives to aid the U.S. in Iraq now hangs in the balance. These Iraqis had applied for Special Immigrant Visas and if they were to be abandoned by the U.S., securing the cooperation of the locals in any U.S. military theater could be imperiled, but especially in Iraq, which has been war-torn since the U.S.-led war to depose Saddam Hussein began in 2003.

Iraqi officials have already called for reciprocity in the form of banning U.S. citizens from entering Iraq, and a spokesman for The Popular Mobilization Forces, a coalition of Iranian-backed Shiite militias fighting the Sunni extremists of ISIS said Trump's action insulted "the dignity of Iraqis who have suffered thousands of martyrs fighting terrorism on the behalf of the world," according to the Journal.

President Trump campaigned on being "the toughest guy" when it came to projecting U.S. military strength around the world, but his clumsy and cruel edict is a threat to U.S. military interests at a crucial time in Iraq, where ISIS loses more territory by the day, but where "winning the peace" has always been the unattainable victory for almost a decade-and-a-half.

NEXT: Is Trump's #MuslimBan a Muslim Ban?

Donald Trump Iraq ISIS Refugees

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

208 responses to “Trump's 'Muslim Ban' Hurts the Fight Against ISIS, Say U.S. Diplomats in Iraq

  1. There is no Muslim ban, so problem solved. I wonder if anyone asked if President Obama’s ban in 2011 was also detrimental or would that just ruin the narrative?

    1. Why is helping Iraqis stand up for themselves and stay in Iraq suddenly horrible when they cannot flee to the USA?

      1. “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. . . .”

        Well, unless they’re Cubans. For some reason no one on the left batted an eye when Obama terminated the “wet foot, dry foot” policy for Cuban refugees. Yes, its rescission puts Cubans on the same level as other immigrant-refugees, but it still stranded some Cubans who are at risk of deportation to Cuba and certain imprisonment or death.

        Principals over principles.

    2. The press should stop conflating nationality with Islam. The ban doesn’t affect travelers from several other majority-Muslim countries such as Indonesia.

      This is not an endorsement of Trump’s EO. While it may largely be a continuation of prior-administration policy, it is debatable whether it is good policy and whether this administration has competently executed it.

      1. *cough * Obama’s enabling law * cough *

  2. Cue next story of pants-shitting prog posing as security expert to tell us the D-day played right into Hitler’s hands as it was exactly what he wanted us to do….

  3. I’m sure a flood of articles on Trump’s movement on regulations will be coming in just a minute. It’ll be as overwhelming as the flood on his movement toward school choice and the O-care rollback.

    ::moves back to avoid avalanche of articles::

    1. ::moves back to avoid avalanche of articles::

      No sloopy! Move perpendicular to the path!

      *covers eyes*

      1. Give him a break. He was raised by Ridley Scott.

    2. “New at Reason – Trump supports deregulation, so we won’t.”

      1. “Something something, for every job lost to regulation, something, something, ten are created.”

        1. Yep. Because to the writers at Reason nothing says ‘libertarian principles’ quite like a Utilitarian argument.

    3. If you’re willing to count the AM links, which starts with a Muslim Ban paragraph longer than the other 5 links, we’re at 5 in a row. What’s the record? The mosque thing got pretty far up there, IIRC.

      1. My bad. I didn’t realize that the one about Fred Korematsu’s birthday was just another reason to talk about the ban. So it’s actually 6 in a row.

        1. I’m still trying to figure out how locking somebody up in the US is the same as not letting someone into the US.

          1. He’s just locking them up in a prison that’s the rest of the world.

            1. We’re not locked up in here with them, they’re locked up in here with us.

          2. I think there are several distinct issues here:

            1) Green Card holders. These are people who, though not citizens, are largely well established residents. People like my dad prior to becoming a U.S. citizen, who was a senior manager at a large company, had lived in the US for more than a decade, and has never gotten a speeding ticket.

            These guys are getting fucked (OK, not my dad because he was from Turkey, and he’s a U.S. citizen now, but there are Iranians in the U.S. who have green cards and are opposed to the ayatollahs). They will have booked trips lawfully, and I mean not only to visit the relatives back home, but to places like Mexico or Aruba. Imagine going on a pleasant holiday to the Caribean and suddenly discovering you aren’t allowed home. That is not only a serious inconvenience, it can cost people their jobs, subject them to severe economic losses.

            2) Similarly, people who are here on business or educational visas. They can suffer severe economic losses as well. Students may find that they miss classes, can lose a semester, could even be out the tuition that they paid etc. There is little functional difference to those people than if they were permitted into the U.S. and the government seized their tuition money, for example.

            3) OTOH, the moratorium on processing visas, is a very different animal, since the affected people were aware that their applications could be turned down.

            1. Those still aren’t the same as being locked up. They’re all bad, yes, but not in the same way.

    4. Why don’t you brag some more about how all your relationships end badly and you’re not sure how many illegitimate kids you have running around? It’s a good reminder of why you admire Trump so much.

      1. Dude. The fuck? We know his wife, she’s adorable. Fucking fail, and don’t you look like a low-life loser for trying to bring his family into it.


        1. Pay no attention to the bragging. Because that’s not screaming for it.

          1. LOL, look at this little tit.

            Sloopy’s a friend. I know him. You’re a stranger, and a douche, and I have no respect for you. There’s nothing you could tell me about Sloopy that would have any effect but for me to think less of you.

            Learn how to make friends, poorly socialized human, it works better than this middle school bullshit.

            1. No, fuck him. He wants to personally insult me, he can drive his stupid ass to Houston and I’ll be happy to bash his fucking head in for insulting my honor.

          2. Um, you don’t know me. I was speaking of my ability to impregnate my wife so quickly after we met (and were married a few weeks later), so quickly after our first child and the bastard kid I got when I was either duped or my sperm overcame 1/100000 odds so many years ago.

            Also, go fuck yourself.

            1. Pay it no mind, Sloopy. We’re your friends. We’ve got this.

              1. This seems similar to the Bo troll who used to insult Playa about his family.

            2. Why are you and Hamster feeding the troll? That just gets ’em more active.

              1. I’m feeding him so he has the energy to come to a Houston, where I will bash his head in for insulting my honor.

                I don’t want him having any excuses.

          3. Are you referring to this:
            Jesus, are you serious? You’re one lucky, or one relatively celibate, man. I’ve had more than a few. And it’s always terrifying when they show up with a kid whose age you immediately start trying to calculate. It’s one of the downsides of having super-sperm.

            Yeah, I’m the first person in the history of the internet that’s made an “I’m potent” joke before.

            The Houston offer still stands, by the way.

            1. “I’m potent”


              /runs to safe space.

      2. Project much?

      3. All but one have ended badly. Not all, you dick.

        And I know I have one illegitemate kid. Just the one. Because I’m the guy dumb enough to trust a woman I was in a relationship (that later ended badly) with to be honest with me about her ability to get pregnant.

        I don’t admire Trump. But I’m respecting him for some of the things he’s doing, like standing up to the cumbersome and anti-liberty regulatory apparatus, standing up for school choice and neutering of the immoral and thieving PPACA.

        Also, go fuck yourself.

        1. Sorry you feel so bad when confronted with your own words.

      4. He’s been married twice and has six kids. Half of his children are with me, only one was illegitimate (due to either being lied to or having highly potent sperm which I can attest to), and two are from his first marriage. We just passed our 5th year wedding anniversary and could not have a happier, stronger marriage. Thanks for your input, Captain Fuckhead.

        1. +1 vaginal tightness

          1. Cesarean Sections FTW!!!!!!

                1. I think he was askiing for recent pics of Reason, Liberty, and… and… and… “Lou Reed is not dead” Spicer.

                  (oops!,,, I think I just lost “honorary uncle” status there)

    5. They talked favorably about Trump, DeVos and school choice last week and have mentioned favorably his stance with respect to regulations.

      Mind you nothing has actually been done since it’s week 2 of the Trump administration so I don’t fault Reason for not having much more to say about things other than what’s actually happened.

      1. “…I don’t fault Reason for not having much more to say about things other than what’s actually happened.”

        A “Muslim ban”, quotes or not, is something that did not happen.

      2. Virtually every bit of praise has been couched by how horrible he is on something else. Yet I’ve yet to see mention of his positive accomplishments, from a libertarian perspective, in one of these critical articles.

        You can’t honestly say the difference in coverage between Trump and Obama isn’t glaringly obvious. I mean, come on.

        1. You can’t honestly say the difference in coverage between Trump and Obama isn’t glaringly obvious. I mean, come on.

          The most obvious part of this for me is the fact that many of the writers feel the need to psychoanalyze Trump and use the term narcissist and what not. I’m not even saying that they’re incorrect in that assessment, but this habit is in stark contrast to avoiding doing so with pretty much any other career politician. Again, I wasn’t here eight years ago, but did any Reason writer feel the need to deconstruct Obama’s pathological, textbook personality disorder early in his administration? Or at all over those eight years? If they want to hold politicians to that standard and break down their personality dysfunctions, I’m fine with that, but I’d like to see that actually applied consistently, not “oh Trump’s boorish and not a career politician, so here’s his psychological issues.”

          1. but did any Reason writer feel the need to deconstruct Obama’s pathological, textbook personality disorder early in his administration?


            1. The writers here didn’t even mention it when the rise of the oceans continued apace and the earth never healed. And when he never ended a war or restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.

              Jesus, I don’t think trump could ever approach that level of narcissism if he made it his life’s mission.

              1. You guys are acting like this is a surprise. Reason is more of a left-wing Reform Party publication (kind of like Gary Johnson) than an actual ‘libertarian’ publication. Remember, most of the writers supported President Obama in 2008 and 2012. And four of them supported Hillary in 2016, versus one who had lukewarm support for Trump.

                If you want a real libertarian publication read Liberty Hangout.

          2. It wasn’t done as much, but then Obama looked like a pretty run-of-the-mill Democrat until the massive fuckery surrounding Obamacare.

            Trump has been hyperbolic from the start, ran a carnival clown campaign, lies about every little thing and goes out of his way to be as thin-skinned and petty and preeningly narcissistic as possible.

            He’s a troll who delights in pissing people off, by the admission of many people who like him and voted for him. This is what it looks like when someone who pisses people off as a political virtue runs a country.

            I’m mean, if they really wanted to hurt Trump irreparably, the media should just ignore him. That would be like salting a slug.

            1. Obama looked like a pretty run-of-the-mill Democrat until the massive fuckery surrounding Obamacare.

              Meh, I didn’t really see that. I thought he was going to be mediocre, maybe tone down some of the Bush era’s abuses, but I could clearly see from his campaign that he thought very highly of himself and his oratory just annoyed me, because it was entirely focused on simplistic emotional manipulation that treated voters like they were morons (not exactly an uncommon trait). I get that Americans had rose-tinted glasses over the ‘historic moment’ but I think his personality issues were present from day one.

              I get that Trump is inflammatory, and that drives people into hysterics of their own choosing, but there’s a double standard here that’s largely only because he’s boorish.

              1. I thought he was going to be mediocre

                That’s what I mean by “run-of-the-mill Democrat.”

                And, for a lot of us, Obama was the “at least he’s not Hillary” of that campaign. I didn’t vote for him, of course, I wrote in “Batman” and went LP for everything else.

            2. “This is what it looks like when someone who pisses people off as a political virtue runs a country.”

              It’s impossible to make profound changes to the US government without pissing people off, so Trump owns the pissing-off and gets on with the job.

              1. Yes, Trump only says stupid shit at 3am on Twitter because he loves America just so darn much.

                1. Anything a Republican president would do now, regardless of how insignificant, would rile the Left. Do you honestly believe that there wouldn’t be protests over President Kasich? This is what the Left is now: a non-stop grievance factory. Reason is very much of the Left and explicitly seeks to please the Left, therefore, they’ll engage in the same pants shitting. No matter how stupid

          3. …but did any Reason writer feel the need to deconstruct Obama’s pathological, textbook personality disorder early in his administration?

            Are you kidding? They all voted for him.


            1. Let’s be fair: the LP candidate was Bob Fucking Eats Ttitty Cheese Barr. Obama would always be preferable to that little slug.

              1. So naturally they go en masse for the biggest statist of the bunch.

    6. All of a sudden, executive orders are great? When the power of the presidency is being used for something you like, you cheer? Just another version of Top Men. Just another type of slaver.

      1. Trying to find the comment this was in response to. I think it’s mine so I’ll address it:

        I am very happy when EOs are used to ether roll back executive overreach or to limit the scope of an executive department congress have abdicated their role in overseeing.

        When they are used to strengthen a department, to diminish individual rights or override a separate but equal branch of government, I will voice my displeasure in a full-throated manner.

        1. I understand your position. But I believe all this does is strengthen the power of the presidency and the next order, and the next guy’s order, will be that much more readily accepted. And it might be something terrible. Yes, by all means, let us roll back the regulations, but let us do it the right way, through Congress.

          Also, this order means jackshit for reducing the size of government unless there is a cut in spending. If Trump actually cuts spending, I will cheer.

          1. I see a different possibility.

            Here we see open conflict between politicians in the different branches as well as the judiciary. These battles could cause the rusted gears of the system of checks and balances to break free of their impediments and start turning again.

          2. I’m pretty sure it was a first step in cutting the budgets of those departments. I fully expect him to fail royally when it comes to overall spending since he’s been pretty vocal in calling for increases in defense spending. But making our nation freer IRT government regulation has absolutely got to be applauded, as does expanding school options at the expense of the DoEd and neutering the IRS when it comes to enforcing O-care penaltaxes.

            I remember not too long ago when the writers here were cheering like crazy every time incremental changes in pot policy at the state level increased individual liberty, if only for a few people. That shut is peanuts compared to these moves against the mission creep of executive agencies that has been going on for decades. It bears more than the occasional mention relative to the myriad articles decrying the same thing over and over and over.

        2. The executive orders are being made to set executive policy. That is the purpose of executive orders. What President Obama did in some of his executive orders was to disregard existing law or create new law. The distinction is pretty easy to identify when you aren’t blinded by partisanship.

  4. My problem still isn’t the substance of what this EO did. It’s the absolute slipshod, non-sensical, idiotic manner in which it was done that was fucked up. And it’s indicative of the absolute clueleness the administration has shown in its first week.

    Yeah, this was based on Obama’s list and Obama’s halt on Iraqi refugees. But at least that had some thought into it and it wasn’t sprung on DHS with a few minutes notice.

    1. Yeah this was just a clusterfuck. Nobody had any idea what was happening. The whole green card issue, the most valid criticism and the only part that is arguably unprecedented, could have been avoided with just a little more in-house consultation.

      1. Shorter narrative: The Deep State needs advance warning because that will make everything go much smoother.

        Sure, whatevs.

        1. I’m not sure that random schmoes working for DHS chapters in LA or NYC qualify as “deep state” bureaucrats. Say what you will about the legitimacy or scariness of this undertaking, I think the response has been wholly overblown, but it was incompetently undertaken.

          1. To the extent they are the people who will willfully misconstrue, slow walk, or otherwise seek to gum up the works, they are very much the deep state.

    2. I suspect that the rushed & chaotic implementation was the product of him moving very quickly to prevent the civil service from being able to mount an effective opposition.

      Everyone should bear in mind that Trump is fighting the ‘deep state’, the civil service beurocracy and the management that had it pretty good during the Obama years. If he submits plans for review and consultation, then his opponents get to see them, can leak them to generate outrage, can organize opposition to either prevent them from coming into force or to sabotage their implementation.

      In order to deny them these opportunities, Trump is adopting one of the doctrines recommended by Machiavelli.

      Therefore a wise prince ought to hold a third course by choosing the wise men in his state, and giving to them only the liberty of speaking the truth to him, and then only of those things of which he inquires, and of none others; but he ought to question them upon everything, and listen to their opinions, and afterwards form his own conclusions. With these councillors, separately and collectively, he ought to carry himself in such a way that each of them should know that, the more freely he shall speak, the more he shall be preferred; outside of these, he should listen to no one, pursue the thing resolved on, and be steadfast in his resolutions. He who does otherwise is either overthrown by flatterers, or is so often changed by varying opinions that he falls into contempt.

      1. ^^This^^*

        *And expect more of it as he battles an adversarial executive apparatus used to acting with unchecked power.

        1. He is also going against a judiciary that, by and large, will impugn his every motive or justification.

        2. You mean unchecked executive agencies like CBP agents who refuse to allow detainees access to attorneys?

          1. Was that included in the EO? Or did agents act outside the scope of their authority? Because if they did, they should be prosecuted for violating established due process for people in that stage of the immigration process.

      2. I suspect that the rushed & chaotic implementation was the product of him moving very quickly to prevent the civil service from being able to mount an effective opposition.

        Or, Trump’s inner circle is either incompetent or naive.

        If he submits plans for review and consultation, then his opponents get to see them, can leak them to generate outrage, can organize opposition to either prevent them from coming into force or to sabotage their implementation.

        That still happened.

        1. Moving quickly also prevented a rush of potential bad actors from the subject countries trying to get in before the deadline.

          1. This was his stated reason for doing it this way. As far as I’m concerned, that in no way, shape or form justifies any of it, but that’s the reason he said he did it that way.

        2. Personally, I am still on the fence regarding the question of whether Trump’s team is collectively really stupid or subtly brilliant.

          The argument that this was an episode of incompetence is so obvious as to not need me to repeat it.

          But, aside from the green card thing, the order is being implemented. The ban on green card holders was never going to fly. It’s conceivable they threw that in there knowing that there was going to be outrage no matter what they did, and by giving their opponents a target to attack and destroy ensured the other stuff, which was what they really wanted, was put in force.

          Moreover, by giving orders and watching how people react, they can gauge better who in their chains of command are reliable and who bear watching.

          I used to think Trump was a moronic blowhard, but I keep predicting he is imminently going to step on a rake and burst into fire, and yet when he steps on the rake, he emerges stronger than before. I’m starting to suspect that I might be completely misunderestimating him.

          1. aside from the green card thing

            Including this in the Executive Order either without consulting homeland security – or ignoring the advice of homeland security – is what makes them both incompetent, and either na?ve or cruel, because either they did not understand what they were doing, or they did understand, and they just didn’t give a shit.

            You can’t miss underestimate him, because modern political culture is absolutely insane. There are no trusted news sources, everyone plays on one team, and hates the other team. There are no mainstream ideologies anymore.

            I also think his team is very arrogant, which I understand because they just won the presidency, but now everything they do and say impacts others, and the more callous they are, the less likely they will succeed in the future. That’s why the president should stop tweeting, because there is so much potential for his tweeting buffoonery to backfire.

            1. It was callous and cruel.

              I think it wasn’t an inadvertent cruelty, either. I think they knew they were hurting people and didn’t care. In fact, I think they wanted their adversaries to understand that they weren’t afraid of being cruel in a way that generates opprobrium.

              1. Either way, I think their cruelty will soon negatively impact the likelihood of achieving their political goals.

      3. I hear you, tarran. The Deep State will try to sabotage Trump at every turn. If he “consults” with them, his initiatives will be strangled in the crib. If he doesn’t, they will botch the implementation.

        This is the real struggle over the next four years.

        1. I don’t think anyone should undeestimate Trump’s all in commitment to this.

          I believe he realized somewhere in the primaries that he might just actually win

          I think the historical aspect of this is meaningful to him.

          During the race against Herself I heard him call out Soros several times in very unflattering ways.

          At his level of business that is a very powerful enemy to make if he wasn’t all in on truly turning this country around and his historical place in it.

    3. Do it any other way, and the extra time is used against you to gin up opposition. Now, normally somebody in Trump’s position would have a network of longtime supporters and donors calling in favors to get the process slowed down. For good or ill, Trump doesn’t carry all that baggage.

  5. This argument is one of the few legitimate ones. We should be rewarding those who help us at great risk to themselves. We should go out of our way to help them.

    The similar argument that gets confused with this, however, is that our actions are driving people to become terrorists. This is absolutely ridiculous and idiotic, since it implies that these people could easily become terrorists at any second, which sounds like a pretty good argument to ban them.

    1. Well, shyeah. The one thing we know for sure here is that none of this can possibly be our fault. Nothing to do with us. They hate us for our freedom.

      1. I didn’t mean our wars, I meant these recent developments of outrage. Yes, our bombs and wars drive people to become terrorists. I should have said rhetoric. I was trying to call out all of the stupid people who claim that saying mean things about Muslims turns them into terrorists. If I call a group of Jews terrorists, I have no fear of those Jews becoming actual terrorists as retaliation.

        1. Oh, yeah the left is full of shit if they think refugees bomb people because they don’t get enough free government munnies. Measuring the refugee corn in their own bushel basket and shortchanging everyone thereby, I think that’s called.

    2. The plan was that they were suppose to be helping themselves “nation build” in Iraq.

      If you bring all the “nation builders” to the US to drive taxis then why have any troops in Iraq in the first place.

      End the whole things, bring US troops back and stop trying to “nation build’ around the world an you won’t need any help in these countries and they can sort out their own problems

      1. “If you bring all the ‘nation builders’ to the US to drive taxis then why have any troops in Iraq in the first place.”

        Amen to that.

    3. We should be rewarding those who help us at great risk to themselves.

      Prior to 9/11 I’d say we were doing pretty well by the Bin Laden family. Not that we shouldn’t be rewarding people who help us, but the doors shouldn’t be open to anyone who can hold and AK-47 and pass whatever purity test we put in place.

  6. Aren’t these memos supposed to be classified?

    I got an idea, we bring all US troops home and we ban US State Department officials in Iraq from entering the US.

  7. The Wall Street Journal reports the memo reveals the diplomats in Baghdad were “blindsided” by Trump’s executive order and are worried that the fallout could irreparably damage relations between the two countries, which are nominally “close allies.”

    Given this nation’s track record of maintaining relations with “close allies” in the ME, good.

  8. According to a memo sent by the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad to the State Department, the travel ban risks the U.S. losing critical support from the Iraqi government, military, and the militias which the U.S. continues to support as they collectively try to retake territory occupied by ISIS for the past three years.

    Wait a minute. We need Iraqi support? It’s their country, right? If our immigration policies put these people in such a snit that they no longer cooperate with us in cleaning ISIS out of their own region, then let’s go home and let ISIS have the lot of them.

    1. How can we have foreign policy overreach and misadventure if we fail to support those who assist us in overreach and misadventure?

    2. No, no, man. Another 15 years of heavily-expensive military action in seven different countries, and we got this, brah. C’mon, it’ll be a walk in the park with no downsides whatsoever.

    3. I’m all in favor of letting Afghanistan deal with the terrorists on their own. As well as every other country in the middle east.

  9. Is the repeated and false use of ‘muslim ban’ propaganda tactics or ‘propaganda tactics?’

    Hard to tell.

  10. Isn’t there a section in the EO that says specific cases are subject to review?

    1. Nobody is talking about any actual specifics. And there will be no corrections to any prior misreporting of facts.

      All we are doing now is arguing over the revised details of the last argument over the initial misreporting.

    2. Yes, there is. But why let facts get in the way of some good virtue signaling.

    3. Shut up! You’re shitting all over our narrative!

    4. I am in a state of agitation over the incompetence of people and organizations in their attempts to oppose Trump. They are making him look good by their stupidity and half-truths.

      Stop being so freaking hysterical about everything, unless re-election Trump in 2020 is the secret goal. His supporters aren’t going to say, “Oh! I never thought about the issue from your perspective. Maybe I should rethink my support of Trump.”

      They will, instead, dig in their heels. Why shouldn’t they? Half-truths are double lies, and all that jazz. Every time there is a media freak out (which seems to be the case no matter what Trump does), it provides further evidence to his supporters that Trump’s opponents are not rational or serious. He is doing what he said he will do–not “ban Muslims” (as his opponents think), but “make America safe” (as his supporters think).

  11. Iraqi officials have already called for reciprocity in the form of banning U.S. citizens from entering Iraq,

    God I hope they do. I wish U.S. citizens (soldiers included) were permanently banned from Iraq.

    1. Right? Reason has now sunk to arguing that the so-called Muslim ban is not allowing us to prosecute a war against them hard enough. Unf—–gbelievable.

  12. Monte’s comment concerning D-Day reminded me of a certain anecdote.

    “In 1966 upon being told that President Charles DeGaulle had taken France out of NATO and that all U.S. troops must be evacuated off of French soil President Lyndon Johnson mentioned to Secretary of State Dean Rusk that he should ask DeGaulle about the Americans buried in France. Dean implied in his answer that that DeGaulle should not really be asked that in the meeting at which point President Johnson then told Secretary of State Dean Rusk:

    “Ask him about the cemeteries Dean!”

    That made it into a Presidential Order so he had to ask President DeGaulle.

    So at end of the meeting Dean did ask DeGaulle if his order to remove all U.S. troops from French soil also included the 60,000+ soldiers buried in France from World War I and World War II.

    DeGaulle, embarrassed, got up and left and never answered.”

  13. I’m at the point that I can’t tell if all of this pushback is breathless and kneejerk overreaction to the first major (and abrupt) Trump machination or if these things are legitimate concerns. I have a feeling that’s going to be the case for the next four years.

    1. Level heads will not prevail.

      1. What level heads? All I see is pants shitters all the way around.

    2. My impression: there are legitimate concerns about the decision. As a practical matter, the whole thing does reek of a clusterfuck in implementation. But, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the tantrums.

      1. Would you say we are looking at the same concerns as with the abrupt end to the wet-foot, dry-foot policy for Cubans?

        1. I suspect. With the addition of some very weak execution from a new administration (and possibly some sabotage from the bureaucracy).

          But, Trump could have found some magical policy that strictly forbid foreign terrorists and let all the good refugees come here and build lives on their own without any government assistance and we’d still be hearing about how Donald Trump was a racist, Nazi, totalitarian who just wanted to make sure that the poor terrorists never had the opportunity to change their ways because he’s just so bloodthirsty and wants to see brown people die.

          If Hillary Clinton had passed the same EO, every one of the protesters and most of the major media would be dismissing anyone who questioned the wisdom her enlightened leadership and “not able to handle a strong woman keeping us safe”.

  14. Trump’s ‘Muslim Ban’ Hurts the Fight Against ISIS, Say U.S. Diplomats in Iraq Obama Political Appointees

    Mentioned yesterday with great amusement =

    Shock and indifference to Trump ban on Mosul frontline

    …while many Iraqi soldiers said they were shocked by the news, others brushed it aside, explaining that in the long run it may be better for their country to prevent the highly educated from immigrating abroad.

    Meanwhile, the foreign relations committee of Iraq’s parliament is asking the government to impose a similar visa ban on Americans trying to enter Iraq,….

    Influential Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has also spoken out against the ban, suggesting all Americans should be forced out of Iraq in retaliation…

    Deeper inside Mosul a unit of Iraqi soldiers admitted they hadn’t heard the news.

    “Honestly I love Trump!” said another Iraqi special forces solider, Sgt. Maj. Diar Al-Khair.

    “We don’t want our doctors and professors to keep going to another country and make it greater than our own,” he said.

    I think the “Iraqi Troops React”-story should be a daily thing. Like “This Kim Kardashian, she seems a bad wife”, or “Indians stopping a pipeline? Didnt’ you kill them all already?”

    1. Good point about doctors and professors, and great idea for an “Iraqi Troops React” daily feature.

    2. Also, Wyatt Gutman down on Blank Pike road smoking trees in a barn built in 1842 with a collapsing ivy-covered silo on the west side… he also doesn’t give a shit- mainly because he finally got a president that does.

      1. Agile, you are a deep mothefucker. Much love, brother.

        1. Perpetual streams backatcha.

  15. Binary ink flustered and misted with misdirection and lost lard. Evidently someone unchained the paper dragon in the basement at Reason home base.

    Stampeding lizard cum blown deep in the ear canal lubricates the goddamn amygdala.

    1. Medulla oblongata!

  16. “Muslim ban” is horseshit, and it’s really hard to get past that obvious error.

    1. It’s designful misdirection.

    2. Not an error. It is intentional.

      Repeated use creates a meme.

      They think by putting it in quotes it makes their usage somehow honest. That they are merely acknowledging the meme, rather than purposefully reinforcing it.

    3. At least he put it in quotes, unlike CNN et al.

  17. OT: Trump signs executive order aiming to slash regulations

    President Donald Trump is set to sign an executive order Monday aiming to kickstart campaign pledges to slash regulations.

    The measure will expand regulatory review with the goal of revoking two regulations for every new regulation put forward, according to a senior administration official. Under the order, federal agencies will propose rules they want to drop and the White House will review them.

    It sets a budget of $0 for new regulations in fiscal year 2017, the official said. The White House will set a regulation budget each year.

    With the order, Trump pushes to follow through on repeated campaign promises to cut rules that he said hold back the U.S. economy. In meetings with business leaders since his election, Trump has touted his efforts to reduce regulations and cut corporate taxes.

    1. God Almighty, an officeholder true to his word?

      1. This is what makes me think Trump is operating in good faith. And if he’s working in good faith, here, then no mistake is unfixable and none of this is a disaster yet.

        Thank goodness. I had a small developing concern over the weekend that Trump would get bogged down with immigration and forget all the shiny things he promised small businesses back home.

        Whooooboy! We weren’t wrong about the Trump administration being a wild ride.

        1. Watch the progressives weep, and harvest their tears.

          1. I’m out of storage space. Every keg, cask, barrel and carboy has been pushed into use for storage. And the product isn’t moving because the market is flooded, as it were.

            1. Yup, just got to let them run off to the nearest river. If this keeps up we’ll have to start building flood defenses.

            2. Jesse’s got a couple dozen empty lube barrels if you need them.

          2. I was enjoying their tears for about a month but now it’s getting a little tedious.

    2. This means nothing until the feds cut spending.

      1. Its something since it reduces the amount of regulations that people have to spend money to follow.

  18. “Trump’s ‘Muslim Ban’ Hurts the Fight Against ISIS, Say U.S. Diplomats in Iraq”

    Pure bullshit.

  19. “According to a memo sent by the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad to the State Department, the travel ban risks the U.S. losing critical support from the Iraqi government, military, and the militias which the U.S. continues to support as they collectively try to retake territory occupied by ISIS for the past three years.”

    If we do what we think is best for our own security, they’re not going to want to retake their own country from ISIS anymore?

    Is that what’s being alleged here?

    I say we do what we think is in our own best interests anyway.

    1. Let them murder each other to extinction.

      1. I don’t see that as an excellent official foreign policy.

        American foreign policy should do whatever is constitutional and in the best interests of American security–regardless of whether it hurts people’s feelings.

        If the official Iraqi government doesn’t want to retake their own country from ISIS anymore because America won’t resettle Iraqi refugees in the United States anymore, then Iraqis still a client state–and that issue needs to be addressed.

      2. They were already busy doing that before we got in the way. Not in Iraq, since they had an effective brutal dictator keeping the peace, but we sort of ruined that.

        1. I do not think there was anything remotely resembling peace in Iraq under Saddam. Not to say that that was our problem to solve…

  20. we will lose support we already don’t have and know that what we give goes straight to ISIS in the first place. with friends like that who needs enemies

  21. Reason game for the day: “Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who is the wokest Reason writer of them all?”

    Winner gets a cocktail party invitation

    Loser has to read Brietbart for the rest of the day

  22. Top 10 Largest Muslim Populations.
    1 Indonesia 209,120,000 Not affected
    2 India 176,200,000 Not affected
    3 Pakistan 167,410,000 Not affected
    4 Bangladesh 134,430,000 Not affected
    5 Nigeria 77,300,000 Not affected
    6 Egypt 76,990,000 Not affected
    7 Iran 73,570,000 120-day hold
    8 Turkey 71,330,000 Not affected
    9 Algeria 34,730,000 Not affected
    10 Morocco 31,930,000 Not affected

    About a billion Muslims from the world over, except for a small number of areas where ISIS is prominent, are still free to migrate to the US.

    Trump’s order is clearly not a “Muslim ban”. Trump may be an authoritarian idiot, but it is inexcusable for you to ignore facts, too.

    1. Goddamn Trump is incompetent, he can’t even get a Muslim ban right!

    2. Remember when the “Muslim Ban” folks were all worked up about the lying Tea Party folks and their “Death Panels?”
      Principals, not principles.

    3. The fact that Iran is on the list and not Saudi Arabia speaks volumes about its politics and how effective it will be.

      1. It speaks to a list not created by Trump. Regardless, it’s probably based on the ability to bet refugees. Countries with governments that will not cooperate or are failed are on the list. That’s not Saudi.

    4. And if you omit India (not a Muslim-majority nation), the top five (by population) Muslim nations are unaffected. I can’t be arsed to do the math but this is maybe 10% maximum of the world’s muslims affected?

  23. God knows Reason would object to anything that harmed our bombing campaigns against international jihadism. I never knew they were so Gung Ho to ensure our aggressive militarism not run into any possible PR snafus. Lord knows a temporary travel ban from select countries must be sending shockwaves through the muslim world in ways ‘hundreds of dead civilians every month’ somehow don’t.

    1. The hallowed insides of Ayn’s tomb steams with the dismayed stubble of vomit shot from a queenly corpse baffled.

      1. That’s… just… horriblly beautiful.

    2. *for clarity –

      i think its a stupid policy, stupidly executed.

      i also think the dissimulation involved in order to pretend that this is somehow exceptional, the exaggeration calling it a “muslim ban”, and Reason pulling this “it might harm our Bombing Campaign’s Popularity!!” – is ridiculous stuff.

      1. I’m sure the editorial board is noting your concerns.

        1. i’m pretty sure they’re not, and i wouldn’t expect them to.

          reactions from readers are mostly for other readers, who may or may not change their opinion on the credibility of the magazine when it later chooses to suddenly change its view and suggest “maybe the campaign against ISIS shouldn’t be a policy-priority at all

          or even later than that, when Trump-appointed diplomats express opinions they decide aren’t newsworthy because of what are obvious conflicts of interest.

  24. If anyone on the Reason staff trundles through these comments, I have a request. Could you please have someone write an article explicitly stating the principle that you believe is being violated and then the manner in which it’s being violated? What has been put forth so far today is pretty sketchy. It would be nice for someone to sit down and really make a clear cut case.


    1. Well, yesterday the ‘Muslim ban’ was dubbed unconstitutional. That’s a pretty good explanation, no?

      1. It might be if anyone were making that argument today.

        But let’s set even that aside for a moment. From a strictly libertarian perspective, what is the actual problem?

        1. Trump’s a big ol meanie and I can’t ship this butthurt lotion fast enough?

        2. That depends on whether a given libertarian believes the federal government can rightly claim the authority to vet potential entrants before they’re allowed in.

        3. From a strictly libertarian perspective, what is the actual problem?

          Anything that interferes with the effectiveness of our bombing campaigns is a cause for concern?

          Defending our “military interests”?

          Uh… the next Reason Cruise was going to be a riverboat ride down the Tigris?

          just spitballing.

    2. An article based on sober reflection and consideration?!? But that could take hours!

      1. It’s much easier to just repeat the current proggie talking points.

        *Trump bans Muslims! World chaos ensues! Worst situation since the dinosaurs were wiped out by giant space rock!*

    3. The ability to make a clear-cut case would necessarily entail having an actual argument in favor of your stance, and the patent stupidity of Reason’s conclusions herein demonstrate that they haven’t one.

  25. I guess i have to wonder…if Obama has the power to do 110K refugees here like was planned for 2017. Has the power 50K or whatever it was the years before. Why does trump not have the power to make it 0?

    If you are going to argue this violates the constitution, wouldn’t only taking in 110K as opposed to say 0.5 million or even 5 million to as much as possible also violate the constitution?

    Or is it just as long as we pull some number out of the air that isn’t zero that makes this constitutional

    1. You saying things like this makes me wonder if I’ve woken up in a Philip K. Dick novel.

      1. The fact that AmSoc said these things is making me wonder if Spock has a beard in this universe.

    2. Just the kind of question that reporters/journalists should be asking the pants wetters.

  26. Iraqi officials have already called for reciprocity in the form of banning U.S. citizens from entering Iraq, and a spokesman for The Popular Mobilization Forces, a coalition of Iranian-backed Shiite militias fighting the Sunni extremists of ISIS said Trump’s action insulted “the dignity of Iraqis who have suffered thousands of martyrs fighting terrorism on the behalf of the world,” according to the Journal”

    Soooo.. we used to call the Iraqi PMU, “Iranian backed death squads”, which doesn’t sound to pleasant, and major concern for Iranian influence inside Iraq. Now their feelings are being used to argue against trump..

    I think we should keep track of who can hold more positions on the same topic in the 4 years.. trump or his opponents.

    1. To note, I aint got no problem with the Iraqi PMU.. just there were hysterics over them in the last year or so from decidedly anti-trump forces..

    2. Iraqi officials have already called for reciprocity in the form of banning U.S. citizens from entering Iraq

      Bring the troops home.

    3. CAIR and th ACLU will straighten them out in no time

  27. Usually, if you’re going to help a foreign country fighting in your region you’re going to want to that foreign country to have a backup plan for YOU if their operation goes south. That’s why many who collaborate with the US end up IN the US.

    Not sure why an Iraqi or Syrian would, at this point in time, be interested in helping the US when it potentially paints a target on them should things go south and the US withdraw from the region, leaving their collaborators behind.

    1. The thing is in Iraq, the US collaborators control Baghdad, Shia-stan parts and the entire federal government. To say someone isn’t safe inside most area of Iraq because they helped the US is like saying the entire government that was set up isn’t safe.

      1. While that is true today, in a place with as much turmoil as the Middle East is in right now, I would, personally if in that position, not hang my future on the assumption that the political power in Iraq will remain stable.

        Plus, even with Shia collaborators, the Kurds, who have generally been cooperative with the US, aren’t going to like the idea of helping the US without contingencies in place. They’re already pretty upset as is that the US isn’t going to support any creation of a Kurdish state, knowing that Kurdish people who collaborate with the US won’t get the same protections as other collaborators in the past had won’t help.

  28. I’m a little disappointed. Where’s the Dalmia article proclaiming that we finally have proof that Trump is Hitler?

  29. Of course – the purpose is to destabilize the middle east to provide a pretext for TrumPutin to nuke them. It has nothing to do with ‘protecting’ the homeland. (Their goal is to disrupt supply to boost prices for Tillerson’s interests in the US and Russia.)

    1. Their goal, or the one you think makes sense?

      You know what I think makes sense. Putin enjoys such popularity in his own country partly because the Russians are experiencing a religious revival, post-USSR. His constituency is Christian, and they very much approve of Putin assisting Assad in protecting the area’s Christian populations. They see it as helping their brothers in Christ.

      Putin and Trump get along. Trump is now talking about protecting Christians in the area.

      The dots just connect themselves at this point.

      I could be wrong, but this is what makes sense to me.

      1. You can’t bomb a country and ban entry of its refugees and call yourself “Christian”. Sorry to break it to you.

        1. Yes, we should take advice from shreek on what a Christian is. What is that name you have for them, shreek? Bush Pigs and Christ???

          1. Christfags.

          2. “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”

        2. LOL. Except people do, which means that “can” doesn’t mean what you think it means.

          Defining reality only works if everyone around you feels like playing along.

        3. So what was Obama then? A Muslim? Because he sure bombed Iraq and banned refugees from same for 6 months.

        4. Hah!! Someone who named themselves “Antichrist” giving a lecture on who is and is not “Christian”.

        5. I was not aware we were supposed to be calling this a Christian country.

  30. “Arabs are incapable of peace and democracy so we must support their autocrats and despots otherwise they’ll lose control of the terrists gonna getcha!” They’ve been extorting us for decades with this nonsense. Hopefully events in this country will inspire other countries to rise up to embrace and protect their vulnerable minorities. American Spring!

  31. And how many of you have seen that anecdote about the Iranian (?) muslima medical student who is [gestures] “this close” to her degree in microbiology which she will immediately use to cure cancer and AIDS, but is not unable to return to the US and finish her degree? A sad story, to be sure; and she is doubtlessly a nice person and all. Hopefully she’ll be able to get a waiver.

    And yes, policies like this often inconvenience the good as well as the bad. But the point is that without good vetting it’s impossible to tell the good from the bad, and even the best vetting is not 100% reliable. Anecdotes like this are supposed to make you forget everything but that one virtuous muslima and conflate her plight with that of all persons from those countries who are seeking to enter the US.

    1. Well, we can’t have a sensible discussion on that stuff, because muh feelz!

    2. Better to let 1000 murderers in than ban one innocent. Or something.

    3. +1 gun grabber

  32. Considering that many of the top jihadi leaders were US & UK educated, these countries need to do a better job of vetting their immigrants too.

    1. many of the top jihadi leaders were US & UK educated

      “Know your enemy.”

  33. I guess the Goldwater rule has officially been revoked. Malignant Narcissist.

    Scapegoating and banishing groups of people who are seen as threats, including immigrants and religious minorities; degrading, ridiculing, and demeaning rivals and critics; fostering a cult of the Strong Man who appeals to fear and anger; promises to solve our problems if we just trust in him; reinvents history and has little concern for truth (and) sees no need for rational persuasion.”

    1. Sounds like they’re describing practically every president the U.S. has had. Maybe that’s why libertarians have always been against the imperial presidency, no matter which party held office.

      1. ^This. And, notably, certain recent candidates for president. Hmmm….

    2. That pretty much describes “everyone in politics since the ancient Greeks”

      1. Nebuchadnezzar II loved his own reflection.

      2. But Trump is Hitler. Check. mate.

        In all seriousness, I think that Trump is different mainly in that he wears his pettiness on his sleeve, whereas more experienced politicians and those who can rely on a sympathetic media hide theirs better.

        1. I came up with this before and I was so pleased with myself I’ll use it again. Trump is playing Risk on their Monopoly board and they don’t like that he’s not playing their game.

    3. I didn’t click the link. Is that the DNC advertising for new positions?

      1. It’s the UK’s Independent. They don’t sound very independent from U.S. Democratic partisanship, though.

    4. CNN is running a similar story in their op-ed too.

  34. Ok, answer me this; given Foggy Bottom’s record of bootless diplomacy with assorted violent nuts, and their habit of running their own foreign policy without input from either the Executive OR the Legislature, why should we take these idiots seriously?

      1. Does this sound familiar?

        Advocates say that the administration is ignoring a directive from Congress to draft a contingency plan to expedite visas should those Iraqis who worked for the United States government, especially interpreters for the military, come under increased threat after American forces are drawn down at the end of the year.

        “This is not a priority right now for anyone in the government,” said Becca Heller, who runs the Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project at the Urban Justice Center in New York. “Not enough people in the Obama administration care about this topic.”

        The flow of Iraqis to the United States this year could be the smallest since 2007, when the Bush administration was facing an uproar for not effectively addressing the refugee crisis.

        Through the first nine months of the current fiscal year, fewer than 7,000 Iraqis have been admitted to the United States. In March, just seven were admitted on a so-called special immigrant visa ? a class established by Congress to quickly move Iraqis in danger for having helped the American government ? and in April, just nine. In some months last year more than 200 arrived on such visas.

        And does everyone remember the GLOBAL OUTRAGE, and the countless indignant editorials bemoaning the heartlessness of that Administration? Good times.

        1. I’m sure there’s a reason why Obama’s ban was different.

          1. Sure there is. Because behind every double standard is a single standard.

  35. It has not escaped my notice that the people who are crying loudest right now seem to be pretty much the same people who wanted “no-fly, no-buy” gun laws. Where citizens are denied due process by being placed on secret government lists by anonymous government personnel with no way to argue their case. Because “you can’t be too careful!”

    And the people who are arguing “no terrorists from those countries have attacked the US” seem to be largely the same people who after every mass shooting call for loads of new gun control laws that would not have prevented the tragedy du jour.

    And yet they seem to have no trouble with cognitive dissonance.

  36. This is so heart-breaking for us as our family has been battling to reunite our families in America and Iran for awhile but now because of this #Muslimban it is more difficult than ever to make our dream a reality. But we are more determined now than ever to do it. Anything you can do to help is greatly appreciated! Thank you! help-my-sons-grandpa-in-iran-visit

    1. I’m sure some of the atheists here will be by shortly to suggest you drop the 7th century superstition.

      Otherwise, hang in there.

Comments are closed.