President
Obama delivered the following remarks at the United States Military Academy at
West Point, N.Y., commencement ceremony on May 28, 2014. Transcript courtesy of
Federal News Service.
PRESIDENT
OBAMA: Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you, General Caslen, for
that introduction. General Trainor, General Clarke, faculty and staff at West
Point, you have been outstanding stewards of this proud institution and
outstanding mentors for the newest officers in the United States Army.
I’d like
to acknowledge the Army’s leadership -- General McHugh -- Secretary McHugh,
General Odierno, as well as Senator Jack Reed who is here and a proud graduate
of West Point himself. To the class of 2014, I congratulate you on taking your
place on the Long Gray Line.
Among you
is the first all-female command team: Erin Mauldin and Austen Boroff. In Calla
Glavin, you have a Rhodes Scholar, and Josh Herbeck proves that West Point accuracy extends beyond the three point line.
(Laughter.)
To the
entire class, let me reassure you in these final hours at West
Point, as commander in chief, I hereby absolve all cadets who are
on restriction for minor conduct offenses. (Laughter, applause.)
Let me
just say that nobody ever did that for me when I was in school.
I know
you join me in extending a word of thanks to your families. Joe DeMoss, whose
son James is graduating, spoke for a whole lot of parents when he wrote me a letter
about the sacrifices you’ve made. “Deep inside,” he wrote, “we want to explode
with pride at what they are committing to do in the service of our country.”
Like several graduates, James is a combat veteran, and I would ask all of us
here today to stand and pay tribute not only to the veterans among us, but to
the more than 2.5 million Americans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as their
families. (Applause.)
It is a
particularly useful time for America
to reflect on those who’ve sacrificed so much for our freedom, a few days after
Memorial Day. You are the first class to graduate since 9/11 who may not be
sent into combat in Iraq or Afghanistan.
(Cheers, applause.)
When I
first spoke at West Point in 2009, we still had more than 100,000 troops in Iraq. We were
preparing to surge in Afghanistan.
Our counterterrorism efforts were focused on al-Qaida’s core leadership --
those who had carried out the 9/11 attacks. And our nation was just beginning a
long climb out of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
Four and
a half years later, as you graduate, the landscape has changed. We have removed
our troops from Iraq.
We are winding down our war in Afghanistan.
Al-Qaida’s leadership on the border region between Pakistan
and Afghanistan
has been decimated, and Osama bin Laden is no more. (Cheers, applause.) And
through it all, we’ve refocused our investments in what has always been a key
source of American strength: a growing economy that can provide opportunity for
everybody who’s willing to work hard and take responsibility here at home.
In fact,
by most measures America
has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world. Those who argue
otherwise -- who suggest that America
is in decline or has seen its global leadership slip away -- are either
misreading history or engaged in partisan politics.
Think
about it. Our military has no peer. The odds of a direct threat against us by
any nation are low, and do not come close to the dangers we faced during the
Cold War. Meanwhile, our economy remains the most dynamic on Earth, our
businesses the most innovative. Each year, we grow more energy independent.
From Europe to Asia, we are the hub of
alliances unrivaled in the history of nations.
America continues to attract striving immigrants. The values of our
founding inspire leaders in parliaments and new movements in public squares
around the globe. And when a typhoon hits the Philippines,
or schoolgirls are kidnapped in Nigeria,
or masked men occupy a building in Ukraine,
it is America
that the world looks to for help. (Applause.) So the United States is and remains the
one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century past, and it will
be true for the century to come.
But the
world is changing with accelerating speed. This presents opportunity, but also
new dangers. We know all too well, after 9/11, just how technology and
globalization has put power once reserved for states in the hands of
individuals, raising the capacity of terrorists to do harm.
Russia’s
aggression towards former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe while China’s
economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors.
From Brazil to India, rising middle classes
compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums. And even
as developing nations embrace democracy and market economies, 24-hour news and
social media makes it impossible to ignore the continuation of sectarian
conflicts, failing states and popular uprisings that might have received only
passing notice a generation ago.
It will
be your generation’s task to respond to this new world. The question we face,
the question each of you will face, is not whether America will lead but how we will
lead, not just to secure our peace and prosperity but also extend peace and
prosperity around the globe.
Now, this
question isn’t new. At least since George Washington served as commander in
chief, there have been those who warned against foreign entanglements that do
not touch directly on our security or economic well-being.
Today,
according to self-described realists, conflicts in Syria
or Ukraine or the Central African Republic
are not ours to solve. And not surprisingly, after costly wars and continuing
challenges here at home, that view is shared by many Americans.
A
different view, from interventionists from the left and right, says that we
ignore these conflicts at our own peril, that America’s willingness to apply
force around the world is the ultimate safeguard against chaos, and America’s
failure to act in the face of Syrian brutality or Russian provocations not only
violates our conscience, but invites escalating aggression in the future.
And each
side can point to history to support its claims, but I believe neither view
fully speaks to the demands of this moment. It is absolutely true that in the
21st century, American isolationism is not an option. We don’t have a choice to
ignore what happens beyond our borders. If nuclear materials are not secure,
that poses a danger to American citizens.
As the
Syrian civil war spills across borders, the capacity of battle-hardened
extremist groups to come after us only increases. Regional aggression that goes
unchecked, whether in southern Ukraine
or the South China Sea or anywhere else in the
world, will ultimately impact our allies, and could draw in our military. We
can’t ignore what happens beyond our boundaries.
And
beyond these narrow rationales, I believe we have a real stake -- abiding
self-interest -- in making sure our children and our grandchildren grow up in a
world where schoolgirls are not kidnapped; where individuals aren’t slaughtered
because of tribe or faith or political belief.
I believe
that a world of greater freedom and tolerance is not only a moral imperative;
it also helps keep us safe.
But to
say that we have an interest in pursuing peace and freedom beyond our borders
is not to say that every problem has a military solution. Since World War II,
some of our most costly mistakes came not from our restraint but from our
willingness to rush into military adventures without thinking through the
consequences, without building international support and legitimacy for our
action, without leveling with the American people about the sacrifices
required. Tough talk often draws headlines, but war rarely conforms to slogans.
As General Eisenhower, someone with hard-earned knowledge on this subject, said
at this ceremony in 1947, “War is mankind’s most tragic and stupid folly; to
seek or advise its deliberate provocation is a black crime against all men.”
Like
Eisenhower, this generation of men and women in uniform know all too well the
wages of war, and that includes those of you here at West
Point. Four of the service members who stood in the audience when
I announced the surge of our forces in Afghanistan gave their lives in
that effort. A lot more were wounded.
I believe
America’s
security demanded those deployments. But I am haunted by those deaths. I am
haunted by those wounds. And I would betray my duty to you, and to the country
we love, if I sent you into harm’s way simply because I saw a problem somewhere
in the world that needed to be fixed, or because I was worried about critics
who think military intervention is the only way for America to avoid looking
weak.
Here’s my
bottom line: America
must always lead on the world stage. If we don’t, no one else will. The
military that you have joined is, and always will be, the backbone of that
leadership. But U.S.
military action cannot be the only -- or even primary -- component of our
leadership in every instance. Just because we have the best hammer does not
mean that every problem is a nail.
And
because the costs associated with military action are so high, you should
expect every civilian leader -- and especially your commander in chief -- to be
clear about how that awesome power should be used. So let me spend the rest of
my time describing my vision for how the United States of America, and our
military, should lead in the years to come, for you will be part of that
leadership.
First,
let me repeat a principle I put forward at the outset of my presidency: The
United States will use military force, unilaterally if necessary, when our core
interests demand it -- when our people are threatened; when our livelihoods are
at stake; when the security of our allies is in danger.
In these
circumstances, we still need to ask tough questions about whether our actions
are proportional and effective and just. International opinion matters, but America should
never ask permission to protect our people, our homeland or our way of life.
(Applause.)
On the
other hand, when issues of global concern do not pose a direct threat to the
United States, when such issues are at stake, when crises arise that stir our
conscience or push the world in a more dangerous direction but do not directly
threaten us, then the threshold for military action must be higher. In such
circumstances, we should not go it alone. Instead, we must mobilize allies and
partners to take collective action. We have to broaden our tools to include
diplomacy and development, sanctions and isolation, appeals to international
law, and, if just, necessary and effective, multilateral military action. In
such circumstances, we have to work with others because collective action in
these circumstances is more likely to succeed, more likely to be sustained,
less likely to lead to costly mistakes.
This
leads to my second point. For the foreseeable future, the most direct threat to
America,
at home and abroad, remains terrorism, but a strategy that involves invading
every country that harbors terrorist networks is naive and unsustainable. I
believe we must shift our counterterrorism strategy, drawing on the successes
and shortcomings of our experience in Iraq
and Afghanistan,
to more effectively partner with countries where terrorist networks seek a
foothold.
And the
need for a new strategy reflects the fact that today’s principal threat no
longer comes from a centralized al-Qaida leadership. Instead it comes from
decentralized al-Qaida affiliates and extremists, many with agendas focused in
the countries where they operate. And this lessens the possibility of
large-scale 9/11-style attacks against the homeland, but it heightens the
danger of U.S. personnel
overseas being attacked, as we saw in Benghazi.
It heightens the danger to less defensible targets, as we saw in a shopping
mall in Nairobi.
So we have to develop a strategy that matches this diffuse threat, one that
expands our reach without sending forces that stretch our military too thin or
stir up local resentments.
We need
partners to fight terrorists alongside us. And empowering partners is a large
part of what we have done and what we are currently doing in Afghanistan.
Together with our allies, America
struck huge blows against al-Qaida core and pushed back against an insurgency
that threatened to overrun the country.
But
sustaining this progress depends on the ability of Afghans to do the job. And
that’s why we trained hundreds of thousands of Afghan soldiers and police.
Earlier this spring, those forces -- those Afghan forces -- secured an election
in which Afghans voted for the first democratic transfer of power in their
history. And at the end of this year, a new Afghan president will be in office,
and America’s
combat mission will be over.
Now --
(applause) -- that was an enormous achievement made because of America’s armed
forces. But as we move to a train and advise mission in Afghanistan, our reduced presence there allows
us to more effectively address emerging threats in the Middle East and North Africa. So earlier this year I asked my national
security team to develop a plan for a network of partnerships from South Asia
to the Sahel.
Today, as
part of this effort, I am calling on Congress to support a new counterterrorism
partnerships fund of up to $5 billion, which will allow us to train, build
capacity and facilitate partner countries on the front lines. And these
resources will give us flexibility to fulfill different missions, including
training security forces in Yemen who’ve gone on the offensive against
al-Qaida, supporting a multinational force to keep the peace in Somalia,
working with European allies to train a functioning security force and border
patrol in Libya and facilitating French operations in Mali.
A
critical focus of this effort will be the ongoing crisis in Syria. As frustrating
as it is, there are no easy answers there, no military solution that can
eliminate the terrible suffering anytime soon. As president, I made a decision
that we should not put American troops into the middle of this increasingly
sectarian civil war, and I believe that is the right decision. But that does
not mean we shouldn’t help the Syrian people stand up against a dictator who
bombs and starves his own people. And in helping those who fight for the right
of all Syrians to choose their own future, we are also pushing back against the
growing number of extremists who find safe haven in the chaos.
So with
the additional resources I’m announcing today, we will step up our efforts to
support Syria’s neighbors --
Jordan and Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq
-- as they contend with refugees and confront terrorists working across Syria’s
borders. I will work with Congress to ramp up support for those in the Syrian
opposition who offer the best alternative to terrorists and brutal dictators.
And we will continue to coordinate with our friends and allies in Europe and
the Arab World to push for a political resolution of this crisis and to make
sure that those countries and not just the United States are contributing
their fair share of support to the Syrian people.
Let me
make one final point about our efforts against terrorism. The partnerships I’ve
described do not eliminate the need to take direct action when necessary to
protect ourselves. When we have actionable intelligence, that’s what we do,
through capture operations, like the one that brought a terrorist involved in
the plot to bomb our embassies in 1998 to face justice, or drone strikes, like
those we’ve carried out in Yemen
and Somalia.
There are
times when those actions are necessary and we cannot hesitate to protect our
people. But as I said last year, in taking direct action, we must uphold
standards that reflect our values. That means taking strikes only when we face
a continuing, imminent threat, and only where there is no certainty -- there is
near certainty of no civilian casualties, for our actions should meet a simple
test: We must not create more enemies than we take off the battlefield.
I also
believe we must be more transparent about both the basis of our
counterterrorism actions and the manner in which they are carried out. We have
to be able to explain them publicly, whether it is drone strikes or training
partners. I will increasingly turn to our military to take the lead and provide
information to the public about our efforts. Our intelligence community has
done outstanding work and we have to continue to protect sources and methods,
but when we cannot explain our efforts clearly and publicly, we face terrorist
propaganda and international suspicion, we erode legitimacy with our partners
and our people, and we reduce accountability in our own government.
And this
issue of transparency is directly relevant to a third aspect of American
leadership, and that is our effort to strengthen and enforce international
order.
After World War II, America had the wisdom to shape
institutions to keep the peace and support human progress -- from NATO and the
United Nations, to the World Bank and IMF. These institutions are not perfect,
but they have been a force multiplier. They reducing the need for unilateral American
action and increase restraint among other nations.
Now, just
as the world has changed, this architecture must change as well. At the height
of the Cold War, President Kennedy spoke about the need for a peace based upon
a gradual evolution in human institutions. And evolving these international
institutions to meet the demands of today must be a critical part of American
leadership.
Now,
there are lot of folks, a lot of skeptics who often downplay the effectiveness
of multilateral action. For them, working through international institutions,
like the U.N. or respecting international law, is a sign of weakness. I think
they’re wrong. Let me offer just two examples why.
In Ukraine, Russia’s
recent actions recall the days when Soviet tanks rolled into Eastern
Europe. But this isn’t the Cold War. Our ability to shape world
opinion helped isolate Russia
right away. Because of American leadership, the world immediately condemned
Russian actions, Europe and the G-7 joined with us to impose sanctions, NATO
reinforced our commitment to Eastern European allies, the IMF is helping to
stabilize Ukraine’s economy,
OSCE monitors brought the eyes of the world to unstable parts of Ukraine.
And this
mobilization of world opinion and international institutions served as a counterweight
to Russian propaganda and Russian troops on the border and armed militias in
ski masks.
This
weekend, Ukrainians voted by the millions. Yesterday, I spoke to their next
president. We don’t know how the situation will play out, and there will remain
grave challenges ahead, but standing with our allies on behalf of international
order, working with international institutions, has given a chance for the
Ukrainian people to choose their future -- without us firing a shot.
Similarly,
despite frequent warnings from the United States
and Israel
and others, the Iranian nuclear program steadily advanced for years. But at the
beginning of my presidency, we built a coalition that imposed sanctions on the
Iranian economy, while extending the hand of diplomacy to the Iranian
government. And now we have an opportunity to resolve our differences
peacefully. The odds of success are still long, and we reserve all options to
prevent Iran
from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But for the first time in a decade, we have a
very real chance of achieving a breakthrough agreement, one that is more
effective and durable than what we could have achieved through the use of
force. And throughout these negotiations, it has been our willingness to work
through multilateral channels that kept the world on our side.
The point
is, this is American leadership. This is American strength.
In each
case, we built coalitions to respond to a specific challenge. Now we need to do
more to strengthen the institutions that can anticipate and prevent problems
from spreading.
For
example, NATO is the strongest alliance the world has ever known but we’re now
working with NATO allies to meet new missions both within Europe, where our
eastern allies must be reassured, but also beyond Europe’s
borders, where our NATO allies must pull their weight to counterterrorism and
respond to failed states and train a network of partners.
Likewise,
the U.N. provides a platform to keep the peace in states torn apart by
conflict. Now, we need to make sure that those nations who provide peacekeepers
have the training and equipment to actually keep the peace so that we can
prevent the type of killing we’ve seen in Congo
and Sudan.
We are going to deepen our investment in countries that support these
peacekeeping missions because having other nations maintain order in their own
neighborhoods lessens the need for us to put our own troops in harm’s way. It’s
a smart investment. It’s the right way to lead. (Applause.)
Keep in
mind, not all international norms relate directly to armed conflict. We have a
serious problem with cyberattacks, which is why we’re working to shape and
enforce rules of the road to secure our networks and our citizens. In the Asia
Pacific, we’re supporting Southeast Asian nations as they negotiate a code of
conduct with China on
maritime disputes in the South China Sea, and
we’re working to resolve these disputes through international law.
That
spirit of cooperation needs to energize the global effort to combat climate
change, a creeping national security crisis that will help shape your time in
uniform, as we are called on to respond to refugee flows and natural disasters,
and conflicts over water and food, which is why, next year, I intend to make
sure America is out front in putting together a global framework to preserve
our planet.
You see,
American influence is always stronger when we lead by example. We cannot exempt
ourselves from the rules that apply to everyone else. We can’t call on others
to make commitments to combat climate change if a whole lot of our political
leaders deny that it is taking place. We can’t try to resolve problems in the South China Sea when we have refused to make sure that
the Law of the Sea Convention is ratified by the United States Senate, despite
the fact that our top military leaders say the treaty advances our national
security. That’s not leadership. That’s retreat. That’s not strength; that’s
weakness. It would be utterly foreign to leaders like Roosevelt and Truman,
Eisenhower and Kennedy.
I believe
in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being. But what makes us
exceptional is not our ability to flout international norms and the rule of
law; it is our willingness to affirm them through our actions.
(Applause.)
And
that’s why I will continue to push to close Gitmo, because American values and
legal traditions do not permit the indefinite detention of people beyond our
borders. (Applause.) That’s why we’re putting in place new restrictions on how America
collects and uses intelligence -- because we will have fewer partners and be
less effective if a perception takes hold that we’re conducting surveillance
against ordinary citizens. (Applause.) America does not simply stand for
stability or the absence of conflict, no matter what the cost; we stand for the
more lasting peace that can only come through opportunity and freedom for
people everywhere -- which brings me to the fourth and final element of
American leadership: our willingness to act on behalf of human dignity.
America’s support for democracy and human rights goes beyond
idealism; it is a matter of national security. Democracies are our closest
friends and are far less likely to go to war. Economies based on free and open
markets perform better and become markets for our goods. Respect for human
rights is an antidote to instability and the grievances that fuel violence and
terror.
A new
century has brought no end to tyranny. In capitals around the globe --
including, unfortunately, some of America’s partners -- there has
been a crackdown on civil society. The cancer of corruption has enriched too
many governments and their cronies and enraged citizens from remote villages to
iconic squares.
And
watching these trends, or the violent upheavals in parts of the Arab world,
it’s easy to be cynical. But remember that because of America’s
efforts -- because of American diplomacy and foreign assistance, as well as the
sacrifices of our military -- more people live under elected governments today
than at any time in human history. Technology is empowering civil society in
ways that no iron fist can control. New breakthroughs are lifting hundreds of
millions of people out of poverty. And even the upheaval of the Arab world
reflects the rejection of an authoritarian order that was anything but stable,
and now offers the long-term prospect of more responsive and effective
governance.
In
countries like Egypt, we
acknowledge that our relationship is anchored in security interests, from peace
treaties to Israel
to shared efforts against violent extremism. So we have not cut off cooperation
with the new government, but we can and will persistently press for reforms
that the Egyptian people have demanded.
And
meanwhile, look at a country like Burma,
which only a few years ago was an intractable dictatorship and hostile to the United States.
Forty million people. Thanks to the enormous courage of the people in that
country, and because we took the diplomatic initiative, American leadership, we
have seen political reforms opening a once- closed society; a movement by
Burmese leadership away from partnership with North
Korea in favor of engagement with America and our
allies.
We’re now
supporting reform and badly needed national reconciliation through assistance
and investment, through coaxing and, at times, public criticism. And progress
there could be reversed, but if Burma
succeeds we will have gained a new partner without having fired a shot --
American leadership.
In each
of these cases, we should not expect change to happen overnight. That’s why we
form alliances -- not only with governments, but also with ordinary people. For
unlike other nations, America
is not afraid of individual empowerment. We are strengthened by it. We’re
strengthened by civil society. We’re strengthened by a free press. We’re
strengthened by striving entrepreneurs and small businesses. We’re strengthened
by educational exchange and opportunity for all people and women and girls.
That’s who we are. That’s what we represent. (Applause.)
I saw
that through a trip to Africa last year, where
American assistance has made possible the prospect of an AIDS-free generation,
while helping Africans care themselves for their sick. We’re helping farmers
get their products to market to feed populations once endangered by famine. We
aim to double access to electricity in sub- Saharan Africa so people are
connected to the promise of the global economy. And all this creates new
partners and shrinks the space for terrorism and conflict.
Now,
tragically, no American security operation can eradicate the threat posed by an
extremist group like Boko Haram -- the group that kidnapped those girls.
And
that’s we have to focus not just on rescuing those girls right away, but also
on supporting Nigerian efforts to educate its youth. This should be one of the
hard-earned lessons of Iraq
and Afghanistan,
where our military became the strongest advocate for diplomacy and development.
They understood that foreign assistance is not an afterthought -- something
nice to do apart from our national defense, apart from our national security.
It is part of what makes us strong.
Now,
ultimately, global leadership requires us to see the world as it is, with all
its danger and uncertainty. We have to be prepared for the worst, prepared for
every contingency, but American leadership also requires us to see the world as
it should be -- a place where the aspirations of individual human beings really
matters, where hopes and not just fears govern; where the truths written into
our founding documents can steer the currents of history in the direction of justice.
And we cannot do that without you.
Class of
2014, you have taken this time to prepare on the quiet banks of the Hudson. You leave this
place to carry forward a legacy that no other military in human history can
claim. You do so as part of a team that extends beyond your units or even our
Armed Forces, for in the course of your service, you will work as a team with
diplomats and development experts.
You’ll
get to know allies and train partners. And you will embody what it means for America to lead
the world.
Next week
I will go to Normandy
to honor the men who stormed the beaches there. And while it’s hard for many
Americans to comprehend the courage and sense of duty that guided those who
boarded small ships, it’s familiar to you. At West Point,
you define what it means to be a patriot.
Three
years ago Gavin White graduated from this academy. He then served in Afghanistan.
Like the soldiers who came before him, Gavin was in a foreign land, helping
people he’d never met, putting himself in harm’s way for the sake of his
community and his family and the folks back home. Gavin lost one of his legs in
an attack. I met him last year at Walter Reed. He was wounded but just as
determined as the day that he arrived here at West Point.
And he developed a simple goal. Today his sister Morgan will graduate. And true
to his promise, Gavin will be there to stand and exchange salutes with her.
(Cheers, applause.)
We have
been through a long season of war. We have faced trials that were not foreseen
and we’ve seen divisions about how to move forward. But there is something in
Gavin’s character, there is something in the American character, that will
always triumph.
Leaving
here, you carry with you the respect of your fellow citizens. You will
represent a nation with history and hope on our side. Your charge now is not
only to protect our country, but to do what is right and just. As your
commander in chief, I know you will. May God bless you. May God bless our men
and women in uniform. And may God bless the United States of America. (Cheers,
applause.)
