So the question begs an exercise in futility. Not because Romney lost the Presidency and the question is moot. It's because he had no core to guess what he would really do. The policy paper cited below were probably written on an Etch-A-Sketch. He would have flipped flopped at least a dozen times by now. Just the rest of the GOP complaint machine, just make it up as you go along. Maybe there are style points for the number of 180s involved.
However, it's also slightly less depressing than a McCain / Palin ticket running things. Then the question is "Who would McCain bomb?" and the follow-ups of "When and how often?"
The last few news cycles have seen the the range of usual complaints:
- Don't draw a red line, you're indecisive and no leader.
- Draw one, you're now boxed in and left with no options. It's amateur hour.
- Suggest military action to enforce the red line, you're subverting the Constitution by not getting Congressional approval. That's an impeachable offense.
- Wait to do military action, you're now telegraphing your moves to the enemy.
- Don't do military action, and you now have no credibility and have weakened US resolve.
There's a complaint for everything.
If Obamacare cured cancer, all we would hear is how this job killing legislation put all those oncologists out of work.
While the hypocrisy of the Bush era neo-cons, and their rally 'round the flag blowhards that make up the GOP, not currently backing a military strike is dripping in double talk and lame excuses; let's track where the GOP would be today with Mitt in the Oval Office. We do have road map of where he wanted to lead us. Surprise, it's written by neo-cons with intervention or preemptive war ready for every crisis.
From the Guardian.com in October 2012 describing Romney's announced plan to Syria.
Seek an escalation of the conflict in Syria by arming rebels with the heavy weapons needed to confront president Bashar al-Assad's tanks, helicopters and fighter jets.
Goal: A US-Iranian proxy war. Fought in Syria.
"Iran is sending arms to Assad because they know his downfall would be a strategic defeat for them. We should be working no less vigorously with our international partners to support the many Syrians who would deliver that defeat to Iran – rather than sitting on the sidelines," - Mitt Romney.
Obama is failing to provide unequivocal support for the rebels in Syria.
"I will work with our partners to identify and organise those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad's tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets." - Mitt Romney.
He anticipated that the rebels will one day lead the country and the US should align itself with them, given the country's position at the heart of the Middle East.
He said he and Obama share a desire for a safer, freer and more prosperous Middle East.
"I share this hope. But hope is not a strategy. We cannot support our friends and defeat our enemies in the Middle East when our words are not backed up by deeds," - Mitt Romney.
He warned Iran not to pursue a nuclear weapon capability and said
the US had to back this up "through actions, not just words", and urged an expansion of the aircraft carrier presence in the eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf.
Guardian: Romney Would Arm Syrian Rebels
President Romney's policy would have put the US on track to at least arm a regional war in the Mideast. Active military involvement by the US would have been a real possibility.
Just a wild guess, but if Romney had bothered to ask this House for the same vote Obama has now before Congress, he would have gotten their support.
It's no surprise that the GOP again is predisposed against anything Obama, even when he is only articulating a lighter version of their own policy. It does emphasize the length they will go to embarrass the President, now even playing with national security issues and victims of a genocide.
If Obama wants to really pressure the right wing, there is a way to turn up the heat. Invite the Israeli ambassador to the White House to draw a different red line for Congress. Are you really defenders of Israel? Are you going to support our ally and their full support for a strike on Syria? Or are you going to support and defend their enemy, a terrorist nation that is linked to Iran and doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist? Are you with us or the terrorists? Now go ahead and vote.