President Trump’s ‘Return on Investment’ Policy with Iraq is a Shrewd National Security Strategy

ROI (return on investment) is not a strange concept in conventional business. Nor should it be in international geopolitical business.

By David Kamioner | January 12, 2020

One of the best parts of having a hard nosed businessman in the White House, one who is known for negotiating tough deals that work out in his interest, is that now, his interest is in the national interest.

In an an interview with Laura Ingraham on Fox News on Friday and in a tweet last week President Trump said that if American forces leave Iraq the U.S. should be compensated for the billions of dollars we have spent in defense of that country.

Simple ROI, return on investment.

Trump told Ingraham, “We built one of the world’s most expensive airport facilities, anywhere in the world. I mean, I wish we had it in New York. I wish we had it in Washington. We build runways that are 15,000 feet long … In fact, I think they’re 20,000 feet long over there … Nobody ever built runways like this … But we have billions of dollars into that.”

How would we collect the cash? “Well, we have a lot of their money right now. We have a lot of their money. We have $35 billion of their money right now sitting in an account. And I think they’ll agree to pay. I think they’ll agree to pay,” said the president in the interview.

Here is his tweet on the general subject.

I can hear the gushy consistency of leftist hand wringing already.

That just makes us mercenaries, they may whine. Really?

RELATED: Trump Rages Against Dems for ‘Defending the Life’ of ‘Father of the Roadside Bomb’ Soleimani

Well, first there is massive precedent for this.

Even recently Trump got the Saudis to kick in $1 billion to somewhat repay the American taxpayers for the defense of The Kingdom.

The South Koreans, remembering we fought a deadly war there to keep them independent and in the process lost 33,000 troops, have come up with $500 million to partially compensate the U.S. for almost seventy years of defending them.

If only NATO would be so gracious.

It brings to mind the question of what is the proper role for a military. Is there an economic component in the legitimate mission of a national armed forces? Of course there is.

RELATED: Irate Protester Shreds Elizabeth Warren at Town Hall Meeting for ‘Supporting Terrorists’

When Great Britain ruled the waves it did so to protect trade routes. When I encountered leftist protesters in the early 90s who were spewing “No Blood for Oil!” I thought the proper response should be, why not?

If much of that oil had been shut off by Saddam Hussein, by his invasion of Kuwait and threat to Saudi Arabia, it would no doubt have had a devastating effect on the American and Western economies. Isn’t economic well-being a vital part of national security?

As such, the principle of economic priorities, in this case return on investment, taking a place in the national security equation is normal and beneficial. The president is right to stress it.

Watch the interview with President Trump:

This piece originally appeared in LifeZette and is used by permission.

Read more at LifeZette:
Epstein Case Takes Chilling Turn As Footage Outside His Cell During Suicide Attempt Is Erased
Harvey Weinstein Trial Goes Off the Rails as Lawyer and Judge Go at it in Court
Speaker Pelosi Blinks and President Trump Wins as Impeachment Articles Plan to Move to Senate

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carl Higbie. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.

Join the Discussion

COMMENT POLICY: We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, hard-core profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment!