Obama wants you to believe he got us out of Iraq, although a significant US presence remains. Under his watch, the troop counts dropped there, but increased in Afghanistan from 34,000 at the start of his presidency to a peak of 101,000 last year to current levels of 68,000. The “Anti-Bush” also felt it necessary to put our forces and resources into the Libyan conflict without Congressional approval.
So, how would have Romney fared? He would have been a copycat of Obama who was basically a copycat of Bush. You could glean as much from the third presidential debate during which Romney repeatedly agreed with most of Obama’s foreign endeavors. As mentioned earlier, Romney would have increased defense spending. But to what end? Like all Neocons, he criticized Obama’s handling of the alleged Iranian threat and would have likely done a switcheroo akin to Obama’s Iraq-Afghanistan transfer and instead focused on Iran, keeping us in perpetual war. Obama will be just as hawkish as his Administration continues to emphasize Afghanistan, dabbles in Iran and Syria, and thinks nothing of sending unmanned drones around the world to unleash acts of war upon nations not Constitutionally-identified as threats.
Both men hate the Constitution. As made evident by their support for wars that were never approved by Congress, neither man seems to care for our founding document and the standards it set for us.
Both openly support the National Defense Authorization Act and all its evils (acts that candidate Obama ran against in 2008). Under the NDAA, Habeas Corpus is suspended under the pretense of war (which in the age of terror carries wide meaning). Anyone who carries out an “attack” (once again, a nebulous word in itself), including American citizens, could be detained indefinitely without trial, a right that we have, clearly called out in the Constitution.