President Obama’s Tuesday night speech to the nation urging action in Syria seems to be solidifying opposition.

Rep. Anna Eshoo, a Palo Alto Democrat, came out Wednesday strongly against a military strike. Eshoo is a close friend and ally of House minority leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, but is parting ways with Pelosi too on Syria.

Eshoo flatly called a military strike an act of war, despite Secretary of State John Kerry’s insistence to the contrary. “There is no question that striking Syria is an act of war,” Eshoo said in a statement. “It would be preemptive, unilateral, and contrary to how the U.S. has conducted its foreign policy for decades.”

Eshoo welcomed the administration’s embrace of the Russian gambit to disarm Syria of its chemical weapons. “This diplomatic path holds out hope for the world that the situation can be addressed in a way that has always been one of America’s great strengths—leading with integrity to avert war,” she said.

Eshoo laid out four questions she said member of Congress must answer before voting to use military force:

“Is this in the national security interests of the U.S.?
Will this action make us safer?
Will it make the Syrian people safer?
Does Syria pose an imminent threat to the United States?

Eshoo said she is “not naïve” about the dangers but doubts that military action alone will remove them. She quoted Joint Chiefs chair Gen. Martin Dempsey testifying to Congress that, “‘Militarily, I can state that we can achieve the goal of deterring and degrading. Take note that I didn’t say we can prevent.’”

Here is the rest of her statement:

“What is more determinative is the power of our ideas, rather than the power of our military. There is a place for military action, but Syria is not that place.

“When the U.S. strayed from its historical moorings, we learned painful and costly lessons that might alone does not get the job done. Instead of diplomacy, containment and coalitions, our military interventions, invasions and surges have left countries in turmoil and emboldened jihadists, making the world more dangerous. We must learn from the lessons of recent history, or we will repeat the failures.

“I believe a preemptive and unilateral strike against Syria is wrong.
“I believe it will make the world more dangerous, not safer.
“I believe it will not reverse the tide on the ground in Syria.
“I believe that using force for the sake of force is not in the interest of our national security and will be counterproductive.

“I believe, as do thousands of my constituents, that going to war against Syria—regardless of how targeted or limited the strikes—will implicate the U.S. in a civil war, cause possible retaliations in the region destabilizing it even more, and add to the ill will against our country.

“I will cast a ‘no’ vote to the President’s request for authorization to strike Syria should it be taken up by the U.S. House of Representatives.”