nomination, has been made exclusively of Neo-Cons. The likelihood is that if he were to end up in the white house, those same Neo-Cons would get the foreign policy positions and end up making US foreign policy for the next 4 years. With all the disasters for world peace that would entail. His recent promise to spend 4% of GDP on the military is an example of this - Romney himself is not a big fan of military spending or strong-arm US foreign policy, he revealed this much in the primaries, but he is still committed to a Neo-Con foreign policy agenda. People said Bush was driven by neo-cons and that his administration was full of them. Hardly any of the powerful ones were neo-cons at all, though. Not all people who want the US to do things abroad are neo-cons. Some are realists, some are liberals, some are constructivists, and so on. Fighting a proxy-war with Iran over Syria, however, is. Not unless you think that all foreign policy is imperialistic, which is an absurd position to take. There are many, myself included, who would argue that confronting the Syria-Iran Axis is both in the interest of the citizens of these countries and the peace of the region. Whatever US leader will be in power, there will always be bloodshed and dominance of the Middle-East by the US and Israel, but with Romney in power, things would just get even worse. Really hoping Romney never gets to be president.