President Trump triggered a firestorm of domestic and global protest over his new Executive Order issued on Friday. [To read the full text, please click here.]
While I am grateful for a Commander-in-Chief who finally recognizes the threat posed by followers of Radical Islam and is willing to take bold and decisive action to protect the American people, this Executive Order has been mishandled by the new administration.
It is not a “Muslim Ban,” as it is being portrayed by its critics. But it feels like one.
It doesn’t ban Muslims from the world’s largest Islamic nations like Indonesia or India. Nor does it ban Muslims from our most trusted Sunni Arab allies like Jordan and Egypt. Nor should it.
In reality, this Executive Order merely requires a temporary, several month delay of visitors to the United States — Muslim, Christian, or otherwise — from seven countries where Radical Islam and jihadi activity have been very serious. It also temporarily suspends the ability of refugees from such high-risk countries until the administration has more time to improve our vetting procedures. These are laudable goals.
The problem is that this presidential directive was poorly drafted. It is being poorly executed. And it is being even more poorly communicated.
As a result, damage is being done to America’s reputation. In pursuit of defending America from Radical Islam, the administration has inadvertently handed the jihadists a talking point they can use to recruit and radicalize more people, that America is at war with all of Islam. This is not true, but to many in the Islamic world it feels true. This is dangerous.
Changes to the Executive Order need to be made immediately. Changes to the White House’s communications strategy need to be made as well.
The last thing we should do in a hot war with the Islamic State and other jihadist forces is to alienate our moderate Muslim allies. But that’s what is happening.
What we should be doing is strengthening our alliances with friends like Jordan, Egypt, the Gulf States, and other Muslim countries. We should be listening to their leaders, getting their counsel, and finding ways to work together to confront and defeat a common enemy.
The President has a strong national security and legal team around him. He can fix this. And he should. Here are a few suggestions:
- The President and his team should admit they’ve made mistakes and move quickly to fix the document, getting counsel from a range of experts in an out of government, to achieve the desired end. Hastiness isn’t helpful.
- Then, the President could addressed the nation on television from the Oval Office to explain very carefully and thoroughly what the problem is and how best to deal with the problem. He could use the address to answer people’s questions.
- Most importantly, the President must explain to the public that while the followers of Radical Islam do pose a grave threat to the American people and our allies, this does not mean that all Muslims are a threat, or that Islam itself is the threat.
- As I have explained before, the data indicate that upwards of 90% of Muslims do not hold violent views or seek to attack us. Rather, between 7% and 10% indicate that they support suicide bombings and other forms of violence against “infidels.” It is critical that our leaders make these distinctions and educate the public about the nature of the threat.
Yes, Mr. Trump called for such a ban during the campaign, but he was highly criticized for it, and rightly so. Banning people from entering the U.S. based on their religious views would be both unconstitutional and morally repugnant. To be fair, it should be noted that Mr. Trump backed down and sought advice on how best to protect the country from the threats of violent jihadists trying to enter the homeland.
Protecting the American people from all threats, foreign and domestic, is absolutely the most important job of the President of the United States. So is abiding by the American legal tradition of commonsense and fair play.
The new President and his team need to remember that this is not just a “kinetic war,” one fought with bullets and bombs. This is also a “war of ideas,” an ideological battle fought for hearts and minds.
SOME USEFUL ARTICLES TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE:
—————
———————-—-
[This column is based on my personal beliefs and opinions. I share them in my personal capacity as a dual US-Israeli citizen and an author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of The Joshua Fund, which is a non-profit organization and takes no political or legislative positions.]
