Bullshit. The military spending Romney was wanting to increase was not part of the cost of the two wars. It was a base accounting as the minimum spent based on a percentage of the GDP.
Obama put the costs of the wars on budget so when they wound down, he could spend that money without the new spending being treated as new spending and having to be justified or paid for per rules of congress. Romney's plan was simple to have a set amount that couldn't be redirected into new spending without going through the normal process of paying for the spending somehow in the budgets.
In other words, all Romney's plan would do is force congress to justify spending (something the current rules mandate when increases of spending or new spending happens) instead of using what was being spent on the wars on something else. It seems to me that we are worse off in the long run because of Romney or his plan not being implemented.
In case that was too complicated which from what I am replying to makes me suspicious, it works this way. If congress wants to increase spending on science or STEM activities, currently it has to say we are taking from X or increasing taxes to increase spending on Y. With the wars off budget, that process stayed in place. With the wars on budget, then the emergency spending can be X where congress would say we are going to spend less money on the wars to increase funding for Y. So what was originally a temporary expenditure is now a permanent expenditure. Romney's plan would have only set limits to what could be taken from the military based on the amount of GDP any given year.
Your conclusions are wrought with ignorance or out right lies.