Characterizing it as a Muslim ban isn't wrong. It's a travel ban that will mainly effect Muslims.
It would be much easier to defend this ban as not targeting Muslims from countries that don't have the political capital to defend themselves if blanket bans like this one actually improved national security. Can you honestly make the claim that it does?
There are more people in majority Muslim Indonesia than there are in all seven of the other countries combined. Add in Pakistan and Bangladesh, and you easily have double the number of Muslims. If Trump wanted to ban Muslims, he'd ban Indonesia. Instead, he banned those seven countries because they are known to have connections with terrorists.
If a pipe bursts, temporarily turning off the water main while you figure out how to fix the problem isn't a bad strategy.
You're making a No True Scotsman argument by saying that it's not a Muslim ban because Trump didn't ban enough muslims. You're also completely ignoring the fact that Bannon very likely spent some time determining what sort of ban would and wouldn't be defensible. The use of 8 U.S. Code § 1187 wasn't by accident.
Also, your excuse about connections to terrorists needs citations because, from what I've read, these connections don't actually exist.
It would be much easier to defend this ban as not targeting Muslims from countries that don't have the political capital to defend themselves if blanket bans like this one actually improved national security. Can you honestly make the claim that it does?