Read: President Obama's remarks at West Point Academy commencement
In a press release, the White House sent the following (unedited here):
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT WEST POINT ACADEMY COMMENCEMENT CEREMONY
U.S. Military Academy-West Point
West Point, New York
10:22 A.M. EDT
THE
PRESIDENT: Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you so much. Thank you.
And thank you, General Caslen, for that introduction. To General
Trainor, General
Clarke, the 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. 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 and applause.) Let me just say that nobody ever did that for
me when I was in school. (Laughter.)
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.)
This
is a particularly useful time for America to reflect on those who have
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. (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 Qaeda’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 Qaeda’s leadership on the border region between Pakistan and
Afghanistan has been decimated, and Osama bin Laden is no more.
(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 passed 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 toward 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 and 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 wellbeing.
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
cities. 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, an
abiding self-interest, in making sure our children and our grandchildren
grow up
in a world where schoolgirls are not kidnapped and where individuals
are not 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 to 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 servicemembers 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 ever 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
naïve 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 Qaeda leadership. Instead,
it comes
from decentralized al Qaeda affiliates and extremists, many with
agendas focused in 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 Qaeda 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. (Applause.)
Now,
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 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 have gone on the offensive against al Qaeda; 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, 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 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 to support 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 reduce 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 a 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 G7 joined 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 cyber-attacks, 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
can’t exempt ourselves from the rules that apply to everybody 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’s 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 our 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 with 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 -- 40
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 just 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 why 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.
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 a 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, of 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.
(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. (Applause.)
END 11:08 A.M. EDT
Labels: commencement, President Barack Obama, West Point Academy
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home