Pete Buttigieg endorses do-somethingism in Syria:

America's leaders can no longer watch in silence as Assad and Russia attack innocent Idlib civilians. Inaction is a stain on our collective conscience. The international community must use all available tools at its disposal to stop this massacre and provide humanitarian aid. https://t.co/Ikz2U5HM12

— Pete Buttigieg (@PeteButtigieg) January 2, 2020

Buttigieg’s foreign policy has become more conventionally hawkish over the last year, and here the former mayor seems to be embracing full-blown liberal interventionism. We see the familiar moralizing rhetoric, the condemnation of “inaction,” and the demand that something “must” be done without first asking whether there is anything constructive that can be done. What is Buttigieg really calling for here? It sounds as if he is proposing a “humanitarian” intervention that would put the U.S. in direct conflict with the Russian and Syrian governments. This is the same problem that has confronted interventionists in Syria for more than seven years. Are they prepared to use force against these governments, and if so how do they think that will improve the situation? If Buttigieg has an answer to that, I doubt it will be any more persuasive than the ones we have heard in the past.

The “all available tools” rhetoric had some foreign policy professionals asking what exactly Buttigieg wants to do:

What are “all available tools”?

What is “the international community” in this context, and how does this differ from a call for US action?

I’m skeptical.@PeteButtigieg needs to be a lot more specific if he thinks we need to be *more deeply involved* in Middle East wars. https://t.co/OEn5B8b8PI

— Jarrett Blanc (@JarrettBlanc) January 2, 2020

What does “all available tools” actually mean? Are we militarily intervening in Idlib? I doubt it.

After 8 years of disastrous US policy in Syria, I’d like to see our politicians at least start using realistic/pragmatic rhetoric https://t.co/TB5O5yPLsw

— Ilan Goldenberg (@ilangoldenberg) January 2, 2020

Like other Buttigieg statements on foreign policy, the latest one suggests that he hasn’t thought things through very well. Buttigieg recently attacked Biden for his poor judgment in voting for the Iraq war authorization. That’s a legitimate and fair criticism of the former vice president, but what does it say about Buttigieg’s own judgment when he seems to be advocating for military action in Syria against two other governments? Buttigieg has no foreign policy experience to speak of, so he has resorted to using Obama’s argument that judgment is more important than experience. If he doesn’t have good judgment, either, why should anyone want to entrust him with the presidency?