As Americans, we are alarmed and repulsed by the aggression and brutality displayed by Islamic State in Iraq and Syria; certainly, a response by the U.S. government is called for. However, the approach outlined in the president’s speech Sept. 10, while understandable, is likely to lead to protracted, painful and ineffective consequences.

We need not look far back into history to see examples of this. Proposed alternatives could produce less immediate but more effective results. Scholars and activists are calling on the president and Congress to:

• Stop the military escalation. We’ve seen how unintended consequences can spiral out of control, causing more pain and suffering in the region and hurting U.S. security.

• Hit Islamic State where it hurts: its financial backing. Cut the cash flowing to Islamic State by cracking down on Turkish, Iraqi and other oil dealers who are purchasing Islamic State’s oil on the black market. This would cut Islamic State off from its most important revenue stream.

• Build a coalition for a political solution, not military action. Support a United Nations-led effort to convene countries in the region as well as the European Union and Russia to develop strong diplomatic, economic and political initiatives to restrict the flow of arms, militias and finances across borders. It is mostly U.S. and Saudi weapons that have flooded the region for over 15 years.

Institute an arms embargo. Support restarting U.N.-sponsored negotiations to end the Syrian civil war.

• Commit to an honest “No boots on the ground” policy. Recommit to enforcing the Leahy Law, which prohibits assistance to foreign military units known to violate human rights.

• Massively increase U.S. humanitarian contributions to U.N. agencies for the millions of refugees and displaced people from both Syria and Iraq.

For more information, see the websites of Peace Action and Win Without War.

Nancy Nickerson

Portland