Just eight months into his term, U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy opposed President Barack Obama on a high-profile vote on whether to bomb Syria to deter and degrade the use of chemical weapons by its dictator, Bashar al-Assad.

Murphy, a former state legislator, faced the prospect in 2013 of crossing the president from his own party on a vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"In a lot of ways I think it was important for me to show my willingness early on in my term to break with the president in foreign policy when we were in different places," he said in a recent interview.

Murphy, who said U.S. bombings in Syria would have "increased the level of chaos and human misery," was in the minority opposing authorization for Obama to order an attack. The president ultimately ruled out air strikes and instead negotiated a deal in which Assad removed deadly chemicals.

The episode highlights how Connecticut's junior senator is mapping out his own foreign policy views that question intervention, or as he said, making America safer "without having to simply throw around our military weight."

Murphy is finding support from the left and right, questioning what the U.S. can achieve on the battlefield following the Iraq war. He also must balance his skepticism about intervention with Connecticut's deep ties to major defense contractors such as submarine manufacturer Electric Boat, jet engine maker Pratt & Whitney and helicopter manufacturer Sikorsky.

"My decision to focus on foreign policy is not just because I want to prevent sending Connecticut soldiers to fight another Iraq war in the future, but also because we've got tens of thousands of jobs in Connecticut that are dependent on an America that is vigorously involved in helping to make the world safer," he said.

Murphy, backed by liberals in his base, was praised by MoveOn.org, a progressive policy advocacy group that says his foreign policy is a "counterweight to a hawkish, endless war," according to a spokeswoman.

And he's supported by some conservatives who approve of his calling out the Saudi kingdom's role in financing Islamic extremism. Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, a free market think tank, said Murphy expresses "some very sensible things about U.S. foreign policy, especially in the [Middle East]."

"There is a pretty widespread war weariness on the part of the American people," he said. "It's not a particularly partisan issue."

Murphy has criticized U.S. backing of Saudi Arabia's war against al-Qaeda in Yemen that has led to thousands of civilian casualties,urged more foreign aid to counter what he says are the roots of terrorism in disenfranchisement, lack of opportunity and discrimination and calls for limits to covert operations.

Preble, however, said foreign assistance and economic development aid can be overrated. Terrorists generally are motivated more by an urge to drive out western influence than poverty, he said. And massive forms of economic development, such as the Marshall Plan in Europe soon after World War II, have succeeded in nations with "well-established political orders," he said.

Murphy, 42, has precedent for staking out foreign policy views. Sen Chris Dodd, a Peace Corps worker in the Dominican Republic in the 1960s, took particular interest in U.S.- Latin America relations in the 1980s and Sen. Joe Lieberman was denied renomination for a fourth term in 2006 by fellow Democrats angry at his support of the Iraq War.

"Connecticut voters are used to the idea they've had two senators active on these issues," said Molly Reynolds, a fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institute.

Murphy may be benefiting from a safe Connecticut seat, unlikely to draw a primary challenge from a fellow Democrat or a successful Republican rival in a state dominated by Democrats. A result is that he's free to spend time on foreign policy that may be less polarizing than domestic issues, she said.

John Feffer, a foreign policy specialist at the Institute for Policy Studies, a left-of-center research group, said Murphy's views sound more far-reaching than typical only because Congress is failing to act.

"More money on diplomacy? Well, of course," he said. "Had he said it 15 years ago, it would have brought a yawn."

Feffer credits the senator for providing a stage for U.S. involvement across the globe without necessarily calling for military action.

"We want to remain constructively engaged in the world. Murphy provides a platform for that," he said.