If Mitt Romney was the President, how would he handle what's happening in the Middle East right now? If you listen to his staff, it's unlikely the attack would have happened at all.
Nothing would have happened in Libya if Mitt Romney was President. At least, that's what one of his senior policy advisor's told The Washington Post. "There’s a pretty compelling story that if you had a President Romney, you’d be in a different situation," Richard Williamson said. "For the first time since Jimmy Carter, we’ve had an American ambassador assassinated."
Williamson argues countries don't respect the U.S. like they used to. Countries are no longer intimidated by the U.S. like they used to be. "In Egypt and Libya and Yemen, again demonstrations — the respect for America has gone down, there’s not a sense of American resolve and we can’t even protect sovereign American property," he said.
So what foreign policy decisions would Mitt have made? According to the New York Times, all of the popular ones. Richardson and a few other aides say Romney would have drawn a "red line" for Iran by now. He would have made Egypt work harder for a proposed $1 billion in aid. He also would have shown more support for the Syrian rebels, including helping them buy arms in other Arab states without supplying from the U.S's own stockpile, and had a much more hands-on role forming the new government in Libya if he were President.
This article is from the archive of our partner The Wire.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to firstname.lastname@example.org.