Well he did serve half as long as the others, and we did come pretty close to a few. I don't think it's a very good metric regardless though, because it depends hugely on external factors and world politics which the President doesn't have as much control over. As war-mongering as Bush may have been, 9/11 was an external force. If something similar would've happened during Trump's presidency on US ground, I have zero doubt he would've started another war.
Iraq had what to do with 9/11? Not the excuse, what did it actually have to do with 9/11, as compared to say Saudi Arabia.
The media got mad when Trump wouldn't attack Syria, and said using missiles made him seem Presidential. Makes you wonder what the media and the rest really want.
So did Trump, so if you are just looking at that and not, say, the Balkans, I'm not sure why Trump gets any extra credit here.
Of course, there's probably some dispute over whether intervening to prevent genocide, either in general or in the specific manner it actually occurred under Clinton in the Balkans, is really a negative.
He definitely didn't start it, but there were US missiles landing on at least 3 continents. I was a child at the time, but it was such big news that I still remember two of those occasions.
The 2011 military intervention in Libya happened under Obama. It was led by France and UK, with US support, and wouldn't have happened if Obama had not green-lighted the operation. 10 years later the country is still in the middle of a civil war, de facto cut in two opposing camps that each control roughly half of the country.
Of course, compared to Iraq invasion it was a small scale operation, but is still generally considered Obama responsibility (although of course primarily Sarkozy and Cameron responsibility).
