The past weeks have been tumultuous for the U.S. on matters of national security. The new administration has brought a realignment of both key players and larger security goals for the U.S. On its face this is unsurprising, but the accompanying difficulties seem unique President Trump’s idiosyncratic first thirty days. The quick ouster of General Flynn and the immersive national security cabaret at Mar-a-Lago may just be the tip of this iceberg. We are left wondering if these blips are just the inevitable result of Mr. Trump’s first steps as a politician, or the warning signs of a darker future for U.S. security concerns. The issuing of Executive Order 13769 (the so-called “travel ban”) in January has played into those concerns.
The Executive Order (EO), which barred entry in the U.S. from seven countries in the Middle East for non-citizens, has instantly become the most famous Executive Order of recent years. Though the order itself has stalled in the courts and will be replaced by a new order in coming weeks (which will likely fare better against judicial challenges) the existence of the EO is already altering the landscape of U.S. security concerns. Though speculation abounds over what the EO might mean for the future of U.S. policy with regard to refugees and domestic security, Aleph Policy analysts were curious about how the order may affect the immediate security concerns for U.S. forces and allies on the ground.
To answer this problem we reached out to our contacts in Iraq, one of the seven countries listed by the EO, and the site of the ongoing Mosul Offensive against the Islamic State. Sources in the country have cited a noticeable decline in morale among certain senior officers in the Iraqi Special Operations Forces, which spearheads the operations in the city of Mosul. Sources reported to Aleph Policy an air of resentment over the fact they and their relatives were barred from entry into the U.S. despite fighting on the frontlines against the Islamic State. These feelings are particularly pronounced amongst ISOF members who have family in the U.S., as they fear that they may not be able to see them again in the near future if these bans are extended beyond the initial 90-day proposal.
Trump’s ban seems to have sparked a more hostile reaction amongst the al-Hashd al-Sha’abi, or People’s Mobilization Front, a militia organization sponsored in part by the Iraqi government and comprising a number of Shi’a militia units. While there is little love for the United States within the Hashd, their reaction to the ban has been especially troubling. Though previously willing to work with the U.S. to expel the Islamic State (if only begrudgingly) they now seem less willing to maintain even those minimal ties.
While this may not seem troubling to many of President Trump’s supporters, losing support among key Iraqi groups, fighters, commanders, and other stakeholders will likely do more harm than good in the long run. It is important to remember that ISOL and the Hashd al-Sha’abi, along with the Kurdish Peshmerga, have made been vital to driving Islamic State from much of Iraq. The total defeat of the Islamic State in Iraq will be a far greater blow to the group’s ability to strike out at the U.S. and its interests than EO 13769’s proposed ban. Further cooperation with these groups and maintenance of some semblance of cordial relations are likely prerequisites for shaping a more stable future for Iraq once the Islamic State is expelled and defeated.
It is important that the effects of the Executive Orders abroad be more carefully considered. Even without having been fully put into force, January’s travel ban has already had an impact on U.S. relations and interests abroad. The administration must acknowledge this and take steps to mitigate potential damage. Unfortunately, last week’s shake-up in the National Security Council and overwhelming enthusiasm for issuing a new EO suggest that these concerns are either not being assessed or not being prioritized by the Trump administration.
Keep up to date: follow Aleph Policy Initiative on Twitter at @alephpolicy