Mediaboss Marketing

Sen. Angus KingAngus KingAngus King: I'm voting for Tillerson but against Sessions Angus King: Trump travel ban 'worst foreign policy decision' since Iraq war Overnight Energy: Senate begins moving Trump's energy, environment team MORE (I-Maine) on Tuesday blasted President Trump's executive order banning refugees from entering the U.S., saying it makes the country more dangerous, not less.

"This is probably the worst foreign policy decision since the invasion of Iraq. What it's done is played right into ISIS's hands," King said on CNN's "New Day."

King said he's spent a great deal of his time on matters of foreign policy and terrorism.

"We just played right into their hands. Over the weekend, there were all kinds of excited communications from [the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria] about what a great thing Donald TrumpDonald TrumpState officials defy Spicer, rip travel ban: report NY attorney general joins ACLU lawsuit against Trump order San Francisco sues Trump admin. over sanctuary cities order MORE had done for them."

King added that America has troops in Iraq fighting alongside Muslim troops.

"And what does it do to that situation? What kind of danger does it raise?" he said.

"There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world and we don't want a war with all of them. We don't need a war with all of them. We're not opposed to all of them."

A lot of intelligence the country gets about terrorism also comes from Muslims, he said.

Trump's executive order, signed Friday, has spurred protests across the country, with both Republican and Democratic lawmakers raising concerns.

Sen. John McCainJohn McCainGraham to attend White House SCOTUS announcement Former Obama official: Trump management style isn't working in White House Angus King: Trump travel ban 'worst foreign policy decision' since Iraq war MORE (R-Ariz.)saidSunday the president's order may fuel ISIS propaganda.

See the original post:
Angus King: Trump travel ban 'worst foreign policy decision' since Iraq war - The Hill

After President Donald Trump barred Iranians from entering the U.S, Iran said it would ban all U.S. citizens from coming to its country. Video provided by Newsy Newslook

People protest against President Trump's executive immigration ban, in Brussels on Jan. 30.(Photo: AFP/Getty Images)

Iraq retaliated Monday against President Trump's executive order banning itsnationalsfromentering the United States for 90 days by approving a "reciprocity measure" that will apply to Americans seeking admissionto the country.

The counter-move was adopted by Iraq's parliament, although it was not clear to what extent it would apply to aid workers, oil company executives and other key workerswho routinely do business in Iraq.

The U.S. military, which has about 5,000 personnel in the country,does not enter Iraq through normal immigration channels. There are thousands of civilian contractors working for the State Department and U.S. military in Iraq.

The push back from Iraq's governmentcame as other voices in the Muslim world and beyond weighed in with criticism and concerns Monday.

An association that represents57 Muslim-majority countries expressed "graveconcern"that Trump's executive order banning refugees and citizensfrom seven of its members from traveling to the U.S.will "embolden the radical narratives of extremists" and provide further fuel for "advocates of violence and terrorism."

Refugee admissions have been halted for120 days. Syrians have been barred indefinitely.

The forcefully worded statement from the Saudi Arabia-based Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, a group that promotes Muslim solidarity in economic, social and political affairs, arrived as the fallout from Trump's ban for citizens of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen all OIC members showed no sign of abating.

"The OIC calls upon the United States government to reconsider this blanket decision and maintain its moral obligation to provide leadership and hope at a time of great uncertainty and unrest in the world," the organization said.

The OIC's rebuke was the official criticism out of Saudi Arabia, a staunch U.S. ally, and came just a day after Trump spoke to Saudi King Salman and invited him to the White House. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt, countries with large Muslim populations, were not included in the ban.

In Europe,European UnionCommission spokesman Margaritis Schinas said that the 28-nation bloc is carefully studying Trump's decision to see how much the travel ban on refugees will impact its 500 million citizens.

Contributing: Jim Michaels in Washington.

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2jJVoiG

The rest is here:
Iraq pushes back with 'reciprocity measure' against Trump's ban

WASHINGTON No one knows how seriously to take President Donald Trump's threat to seize Iraq's oil.

Doing so would involve extraordinary costs and risk confrontation with America's best ground partner against the Islamic State group, but the president told the CIA this weekend, "Maybe you'll have another chance."

The recycled campaign comment is raising concerns about Trump's understanding of the delicate Middle East politics involved in the U.S.-led effort against extremist groups. Trump has said he was opposed to the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. But on the campaign trail and again on Saturday, the day after his inauguration, he suggested the costly and deadly occupation of the country might have been offset somewhat if the United States had taken the country's rich petroleum reserves.

"To the victor belong the spoils," Trump told members of the intelligence community, saying he first argued this case for "economic reasons." He said it made sense as a counterterrorism approach to defeating the IS group "because that's where they made their money in the first place."

"So we should have kept the oil," he said. "But, OK, maybe you'll have another chance."

The statement ignores the precedent of hundreds of years of American history and presidents who have tended to pour money and aid back into countries the United States has fought in major wars. The U.S. still has troops in Germany and Japan, with the permission of those nations, but did not take possession of their natural resources. And taking Iraq's reserves, the world's fifth largest, would require an immense investment of resources and manpower in a country that the United States couldn't quell after spending more than $2 trillion and deploying at one point more than 170,000 troops.

U.S. enemies and friends would oppose the move. While Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has accepted U.S. help to retake IS-held territory in his country, he has repeatedly asserted Iraqi sovereignty. He said of Trump's oil vow in November, "I am going to judge him by what he does later."

Asked about the matter Monday, White House press secretary Sean Spicer stressed Trump's economic argument.

"We want to be sure our interests are protected," he told reporters. "We're going into a country for a cause. He wants to be sure America is getting something out of it for the commitment and sacrifice it is making."

There is uncertainty as to where Trump's idea derives from, though the president has noted that taking the oil is something "I have long said." Hints of this notion existed in some of the pre-2003 rhetoric from the Bush administration about the Iraq war "paying for itself." But top advisers to President George W. Bush have stressed how the future of Iraq's resources were pointedly left out of decision-making related to the invasion so as not to fuel a perception that the war was driven by oil concerns.

Bush "almost bent over backwards not to make a special effort to gain access for us to the oil resources," John Negroponte, who was Bush's director of national intelligence, told CNN.

Regarding Trump, former CIA Director and Defense Secretary Robert Gates told NBC, "I have no clue what he's talking about."

Taking the oil would require a permanent U.S. occupation, or at least until Iraq's 140 billion barrels of crude run out, and a large presence of American soldiers to guard sometimes isolated oil fields and infrastructure. Such a mission would be highly unpopular with Iraqis, whose hearts and minds the U.S. is still try to win to defeat groups such as IS and al-Qaida.

"This is totally wrong," said Zaher Aziz, a 42-year-old owner of a market stand in Irbil. "They came here by themselves and occupied Iraq. And now they want the Iraqis to pay for that?"

However unrealistic Trump's suggestion, intelligence officials believe more has to be done to cut off Islamic State oil revenues. The group seized significant oil when it stormed across Syria's border in 2014 and seized the city of Mosul and large swaths of Iraqi territory. The U.S. Treasury Department estimated that IS raked in $500 million from oil and gas sales in 2015. That figure is likely lower now as a result of U.S.-led operations, but officials say oil continues to fund the group's recruitment and far-flung terrorist activities.

"In terms of oil helping establish ISIS, of course that's oversimplification," said Hassan Hassan, co-author of the book "ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror," using an alternate acronym from the militants. He said oil was a small part of the group's "origins and early years," when it morphed from an al-Qaida branch to an organization claiming a worldwide caliphate.

___

AP videojournalist Balint Szlanko in Irbil, Iraq, contributed to this report.

See the rest here:
Trump's talk of keeping Iraq's oil sparking concerns | Fox News

U.S. military vehicles are seen during an operation to attack Islamic State militants in the town of Bashiqa, east of Mosul, Iraq, on Nov. 7, 2016. Azad LashkariReuters

Updated: 12:09 PM UTC | Originally published: Jan 29, 2017

Iraqi lawmakers voted Monday to approve a "reciprocity measure" that might see U.S. nationals banned from entering the country in retaliation against U.S. President Donald Trump's executive order on Iraqis in the U.S., a move that could hinder the fight against ISIS.

The Iraqi parliaments foreign committee earlier issued a statement calling on the Iraqi government to act after President Trump controversially ordered that citizens from Iraq and six other Muslim-majority countries be refused entry to the U.S. for at least 90 days. Iraq is on the front line of the war on terrorism, said the statement, released Sunday. It is unfair that the Iraqis are treated in this way.

On Monday, the parliament voted to ask the government to retaliate, Reuters reports . It's not clear yet whether a ban on U.S. nationals is a realistic possibility; Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has not yet issued a public reaction to the order.

If a retaliatory ban were to be enacted it could impact thousands of American aid workers, contractors and journalists currently working in Iraq, as well as more than 5,000 U.S. military personnel there to aid Iraqi forces in their effort to oust ISIS from Mosul and the country.

This decision by the U.S. is arbitrary, said Intisar Al-Jabbouri, a Sunni MP from the Nineveh Governorate in northern Iraq. The Iraqi government has the right to reciprocate.

The U.S. withdrew troops from Iraq in 2011, but since ISIS captured swaths of Iraqi territory in 2014, it has slowly sent advisers, trainers and special forces back to the country. Their guidance as well as weapons and funding has been key to the fight against ISIS.

Iraqi forces are battling the militants of the so-called Islamic State in the neighborhoods of Mosul , Iraqs second largest city and the largest urban center still under ISIS control. American military advisers are nearby, helping to direct the fight.

If Iraq were to ban U.S. citizens from traveling to Iraq it would have devastating consequences for our fight against ISIS, al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, said Chris Harmer, a senior analyst with the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War. Thats just in the short term."

Nevertheless the idea has caught on in certain, influential circles. Moqtada al-Sadr, a powerful Shiite cleric who led a violent insurgency in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion, quickly issued a statement saying Americans should leave. It would be arrogant for you to enter freely to Iraq and other countries while barring them the entrance to your country, Sadr said on his website, addressing the U.S. And therefore you should get your nationals out.

Other Iraqi leaders may be keen to see the Americans leave in the hope that Iran may fill the void left behind, rather than that simple reciprocity for President Trumps ban on Iraqi nationals. Those that are closely aligned with Iran might think this is a good idea an opportunity to remove American influence from Iraq once and for all, said Renad Mansour, an Academy Fellow for the Middle East and North Africa at Chatham House.

Mansour says Sadr, as well as Iranian-backed leaders, may use Trump's ban for their own political gains and take the opportunity to stoke anti-American sentiment. "Now they can say, 'I told you so.'"

It's possible Trump's order could exacerbate cracks in the already fragile coalition in Iraq, in which groups who receive support from the U.S. fight in concert with those who are backed by Iran. Iranian generals have been spotted on the front lines in key battles against ISIS, both in Iraq and Syria. Shiite militias, many funded by Tehran, are ruthless fighters but have been accused of abuses against civilian populations , fueling sectarian tensions.

The Popular Mobilization Forces, a coalition of mostly Shiite militias, also issued a statement on Sunday urging al-Abadi to kick out U.S. nationals. Its going to be tricky for al-Abadi to deal with, said Mansour.

Despite the strong rhetoric and anti-American sentiment in response to Trumps decision, lawmaker Jabbouri says it would be difficult for Iraq to approve and implement such a ban given the essential role the U.S. plays in both its military and humanitarian efforts. There is a strategic need to keep American experts to ensure the sustainability of the coalition fight against ISIS, she says.

But if the Iraqi parliament gets its way, it could provide an opening for Iran to extend its influence on the country. The U.S. scaling-back of operations has already left room for an increasing Iranian presence, Harmer says. Long term, it would complete the decline of U.S. strategic influence in Iraq and pave the way for Iran to increase their already significant influence over the Iraqi government." The effect, he says, would be "catastrophic."

The rest is here:
Iraq Mulls Retaliatory Ban on U.S. Over Donald Trump Order | Time ... - TIME

5450882

Iraqs parliament passed a reciprocal ban on visas for U.S. citizens Monday, two lawmakers told The Associated Press.

The description of the ban as reciprocal indicates that the ban on U.S. visas will remain in place, as long as the Trump administrationprohibits Iraqi citizens from entering the U.S. for a period of 90 days. Trumps executive order said the administration will undergo a comprehensive review of the visa application process for the barred countries, and will further implement extreme vetting.

Iraqs parliament has not officially announced the action.We ask the Iraqi government to reciprocate to the decision taken by the U.S administration, the foreign affairs committee of the lawmaking body said Sunday. Their statement continued,Iraq is in the frontline of the war of terrorism and it is unfair that the Iraqis are treated in this way.

The lawmakers did not specify what type of visas the reciprocal ban would apply too. The U.S. has nearly 5,000 troops in Iraq supporting the counter-ISIS mission, along with thousands more civilians, contractors, and other support personnel. Iraq is also a major site of U.S. operations against ISIS in Syria.

The Iraqi action comes amid the U.S. backed Iraqi Security Forces operations to retakethe city of Mosul from Islamic State.

Follow Saagar Enjeti on Twitter

Send tips to[emailprotected]

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [emailprotected].

See the rest here:
Iraq Wants To Bar Americans In Response To Trump's Temporary Suspension - Daily Caller