This country faces a teachable moment. U.S. President Barack Obama has threatened to use military power to attack the government of Syria as punishment for that government’s alleged use of chemical weapons on Syrian people. The public and Congress will be debating this proposal in the coming week(s). The public should take advantage of this teachable moment to build mass opposition to U.S. militarism, now and into the future.

Over and over again, the U.S. government has taken military action as its only “weapon,” claiming “national security” or another rationale that many in this country are questioning or deciding is false reasoning. Memories of Iraq are still fresh.

The president is offering a strategy of attack, and possible war, that makes no sense beyond “teaching the Assad regime a lesson.” Obama painted himself into a corner by drawing a line and now faces either a risky and foolish military action or the shame of “talking tough” and then backing down on that talk.

There are a few simple talking points to address the situation and the many more future dilemmas around the U.S. use of military power:

—  It is still not clear who is responsible for the gas attack, and memories of “weapons of mass destruction” claims in Iraq leaves any claims of responsibility as allegations only;

—  The estimated number of dead in Syria since the conflict began in 2011 is 75,000-100,000, according to United Nations and Syrian opposition sources. Why is the killing of 1,400-plus people from a gas attack special, other than it may be a little more gruesome? Dead is dead;

—  The bumper sticker, “Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong” applies here;

—  The U.S. goal is to reduce and end the violence in Syria; a military attack only increases that violence. If the U.S. government wants to act in a humanitarian way, that is just the opposite;

—  The British people and Parliament understand the dangers and futility of an attack. The U.S. public and Congress (hopefully) should also;

—  The proposed unilateral military action is illegal and immoral;

—  In order to end the civil conflict in Syria, there must be a reduction in military action and civil strife. The U.S. would be abdicating its potential to help end the conflict by its own military strike;

—  There are ways to end the violence — by reducing and cutting off the supply of weapons and ammunition coming to both sides; intervention by a coalition of national governments; U.N. negotiations; supporting nonviolent resistance movements within Syria; sending money for food and medical supplies for those suffering from the conflict, both in Syria and refugee camps outside the country; focusing on a cease fire, not on who is right and who is wrong. The public should support those responses instead of a military strike; and

—  The U.S. should be on the side of ending the violence in the name of preserving human rights, not on the side of one political faction when both have killed thousands and committed unspeakable acts against the other.

The public and their elected representatives should use this time, and beyond, to discuss the crucial questions of how the United States should act. If the U.S. bombs targets affecting the Syrian government (and, inevitably, innocent Syrian people at the same time), it will reduce the U.S. to being a bully.

Instead, people can urge a policy that puts the human rights of innocent people, such as those in Syria, first. Making human rights a priority will improve the stature of the United States in this world. It could demonstrate that this country can be effective in resolving conflicts in the world with the ability to discuss and preserve life rather than as enforcers using weapons. That would be a big boost to national security as well.

The situation in Syria is an opportunity to utilize a teachable moment to create a foreign policy based on peace and reconciliation. I hope the people of the United States and members of Congress will rise to the occasion and speak out strongly for a strategy of peace and nonviolent conflict resolution, not war.

Larry Dansinger of Monroe has been an organizer throughout Maine for peace initiatives and nonviolent responses to violence for several decades. 

Copy the Story Link