Among the many urgent problems that compete for our attention, the political choice between more war or the courage to seek peaceful solutions to the many and complex problems of global violence begs for our attention and discernment.

One might have thought, perhaps naively, that an electoral campaign to be president of a nation that has been at war for the past 15 years would provide an opportunity to debate the grave issues of foreign and military policy. The current presidential campaign has failed miserably in this democratic responsibility.

Yet many people yearn for clarity. They want to evaluate claims that more military interventions in the Middle East will achieve stated aims and be less damaging than our recent wars. They wonder about alternatives. Instead what we hear is war talk — the rhetoric of “defeating and destroying,” “taking no options off the table,” “by force if necessary,” “standing up to bullies” and more of the same.

But we can actually learn something from the campaign rhetoric.

From Trump, we can learn that his pledge to keep us out of more wars cannot be trusted — not when we says he has “a secret plan” to quickly “defeat and destroy” ISIS, not when he threatens war crimes such as targeting civilians and bringing back torture, not when he brazenly asserts “to the victor belong the spoils” in reference to taking Iraqi oil and not when he blithely considers using nuclear weapons. People who speculate that Trump is some kind of isolationist are way off track.

From Clinton, we learn that she will vastly expand the air war against ISIS in both Iraq and Syria. We learn that she talks in terms of a “generational war.” We learn that she still advocates a no-fly zone in Syria, a move that will mean military confrontations with both Assad’s forces and possibly the Russians — and more U.S. forces involved in combat. We also learn that while Clinton touts her coercive diplomacy that prevented Iran from developing nuclear weapons, she also threatens war if there are violations and is confrontational with Iran over its involvement in Syria and Lebanon. Not least, Clinton has opted for just one side of the most enduring conflict in the entire region. Clinton’s uncritical, pro-Israel statements are a slap in the face to Palestinians and anyone — within Israel, the U.S. or across the globe — who hopes for a more balanced approach to that conflict.

It is significant that prominent neo-conservatives and most of the national security establishment — people who would normally support a Republican candidate — have moved into the Clinton camp. For those of us who hope for a more peaceful U.S. foreign policy, what is to be done?

I have two suggestions. First, perhaps incredulously after what I have written, vote for Clinton. Other than foreign and military policy (and a some other crucial matters), there is much to be said for her candidacy, not least her recognition that the reality of climate change demands action — another ignored topic in the campaign. Do not waste your vote on a third-party candidate — not in this election.

Not only is Trump a bellicose wild card in foreign and military policy — a candidate who appeals to the hyper-nationalist, xenophobic, “whatever it takes” sector of the electorate — his entire candidacy is a call to war: a war against the truth of climate change, a war against Muslim immigrants, a war on undocumented migrants through building a wall and mass deportation, a war on minorities in their struggles against police shootings with his thinly veiled calls for “law and order,” a war on women and a war on anyone who becomes an enemy through his encouragement of violence. Trump’s pledge to create a fortress America is a formula for an America at war with itself.

Second, if your goal is a more peaceful world, don’t get stuck on this election. There will be no deliverance at the presidential level. The challenge of creating a culture and a government that is less militaristic — less reliant on military solutions that most always have adverse and often have devastating consequences — is a “generational struggle” to which we should commit ourselves. We must begin again the hard work of building a culture of peace-making and a political movement to end war.

— Rob Crawford is a longtime Vashon resident who recently retired from UW Tacoma, where he taught history, politics and human rights. He founded and coordinates the Washington State Religious Campaign Against Torture.