The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
Remarks
of President Barack Obama Graduation Ceremony West Point, New York
Graduation Ceremony
West Point, New York
May 28, 2014
West Point, New York
May 28, 2014
As Prepared for
Delivery –
Good morning. Thank you, General Caslen, for
that introduction. To General Trainor, General Clarke, and the faculty and
staff at West Point – you have been outstanding stewards of this proud
institution, and excellent mentors for the newest officers in the United States
Army. I’d like to acknowledge the Army’s leadership – Secretary McHugh and
General Odierno, as well as Senator Jack Reed – 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. 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 many
parents when he wrote me a letter about the sacrifices you have 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 like to 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, and their families.
It is a particularly useful time for America
to reflect on those who have sacrificed so much for our freedom – for you are
the first class to graduate since 9/11 who may not be sent into combat in Iraq
or Afghanistan. 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
counter-terrorism efforts were focused on al Qaeda’s core leadership. 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, the landscape has
changed. We have removed our troops from Iraq. We are winding down our war in
Afghanistan. Al Qaeda’s leadership in the border region between Pakistan and
Afghanistan has been decimated, and Osama bin Laden is no more. Through it all,
we have refocused our investments in a key source of American strength: a
growing economy that can provide opportunity 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 unrivalled
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
girls are kidnapped in Nigeria, or masked men occupy a building in Ukraine – it
is America that the world looks to for help. The United States is the one
indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed, and will
likely 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 the individual, 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 our own,
and governments seek a greater say in global forums. And even as developing
nations embrace democracy and market economies, 24 hours news and pervasive
social media makes it impossible to ignore 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 you will face – is not
whether America will lead, but how we will lead, not just to secure our peace
and prosperity, but also to extend peace and prosperity around the globe.
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. Not
surprisingly, after costly wars and continuing challenges at home, that view is
shared by many Americans.
A different view, from interventionists on the
left and right, says 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.
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. If nuclear materials are not secure,
that could pose a danger in American cities. As the Syrian civil war spills
across borders, the capacity of battle-hardened groups to come after us
increases. Regional aggression that goes unchecked – in southern Ukraine, the
South China Sea, or anywhere else in the world – will ultimately impact our
allies, and could draw in our military.
Beyond these narrow rationales, I believe we
have a real stake – an abiding self-interest – in making sure our children grow
up in a world where school-girls are not kidnapped; where individuals
aren’t slaughtered because of tribe or faith or political beliefs. 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, or leveling with the
American people about the sacrifice required. Tough talk 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. That includes those of you
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. 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 fixing, 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.
Let me spend the rest of my time, then,
describing my vision for how the United States of America, and our military,
should lead in the years to come.
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 livelihood is at stake; or when the security of our
allies is in danger. In these circumstances, we still need to ask tough
questions about whether our action is proportional, effective and just.
International opinion matters. But America should never ask permission to
protect our people, our homeland, or our way of life.
On the other hand, when issues of global
concern that do not pose a direct threat to the United States are at stake –
when crises arise that stir our conscience or push the world in a more
dangerous direction – 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 must broaden our tools to include
diplomacy and development; sanctions and isolation; appeals to international
law and – if just, necessary, and effective – multilateral military action. We
must do so because collective action in these circumstances is more likely to
succeed, more likely to be sustained, and 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 counter-terrorism 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.
This 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 the countries where they operate. This lessens the possibility of
large-scale 9/11-style attacks against the homeland, but heightens the danger
to U.S. personnel overseas, as we saw in Benghazi; or less defensible targets,
as we saw in a shopping mall in Nairobi. We need a strategy that matches this
diffuse threat; one that expands our reach without sending forces that stretch
our military thin, or stir up local resentments.
Empowering partners is a large part of what
we’ve done 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. That’s why we trained hundreds of thousands of Afghan
soldiers and police. Earlier this spring, those forces secured an election in
which Afghans voted for the first democratic transfer of power in their
history. At the end of this year, a new Afghan President will be in office, and
America’s combat mission will be over.
Now, as we move to a train and advise mission
in Afghanistan, our reduced presence there will allow us to more effectively
address emerging threats in the Middle East and North Africa. 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 Counter-Terrorism Partnerships Fund of up
to $5 billion, which will allow us to train, build capacity, and facilitate
partner countries on the front lines. 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 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 people. And in helping
those who fight for the right of all Syrians to choose their own future, we
also push back against the growing number of extremists who find safe-haven in
the chaos.
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 host refugees, and confront terrorists
working across Syrian borders. I will work with Congress to ramp up support for
those in the Syrian opposition who offer the best alternative to terrorists and
a brutal dictator. 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 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 partnership I’ve described does 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 have carried out in Yemen
and Somalia. 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 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 be more transparent about
both the basis for our actions, and the manner in which they are carried out –
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 must
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.
This issue of transparency is directly
relevant to a third aspect of American leadership: our efforts 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. Though imperfect, these
institutions have been a force multiplier – reducing the need for unilateral
American action, and increased restraint among other nations. But 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.” Evolving these institutions to meet
the demands of today must be a critical part of American leadership.
Of course, skeptics often downplay the
effectiveness of multilateral action. For them, working through international institutions,
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. This
mobilization of world opinion and institutions served as a counterweight to
Russian propaganda, Russian troops on the border, and armed militias. 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 be
grave challenges. But standing with our allies on behalf of international order
has given a chance for the Ukrainian people to choose their future.
Similarly, despite frequent warnings from the
United States, 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. 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 would be 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.
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 them from spreading. For example, NATO is the strongest alliance the
world has ever known. But we are now working with NATO allies to meet new
missions – within Europe, where our Eastern allies must be reassured; and also
beyond Europe’s borders, where our NATO allies must pull their weight to
counter-terrorism, respond to failed states, and train a network of partners.
Likewise, the UN provides a platform to keep
the peace in states torn apart by conflict. Now we need to make sure that those
nations who provide peace-keepers have the training and equipment to keep the
peace, so that we can prevent the type of killing we have seen in Congo and
Sudan. We are deepening our investment in countries that support these
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
is a smart investment. It’s the right way to lead.
Keep in mind, not all international norms
relate directly to armed conflict. In the face of cyber-attacks, we are working
to shape and enforce rules of the road to secure our networks and citizens. In
the Asia Pacific, we are supporting Southeast Asian nations as they negotiate a
code of conduct with China on the South China Sea, and are working to resolve
territorial and maritime disputes through international law. That spirit of
cooperation must energize the global effort to combat climate change – a
creeping national security crisis that will help shape your time in uniform, as
we’re called on to respond to refugee flows, natural disasters, and conflicts
over water and food. That’s why, next year, I intend to make sure America is
out front in 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 so many of our political leaders deny that it is taking place.
It’s a lot harder to call on China to resolve its maritime disputes under the
Law of the Sea Convention when the United States Senate has refused to ratify
it – despite the repeated insistence of our top military leaders that the
treaty advances our national security. That’s not leadership; that’s retreat.
That’s not strength; that’s weakness. And 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’s our willingness to affirm
them through our actions. That’s why I will continue to push to close GTMO –
because American values and legal traditions don’t permit the indefinite
detention of people beyond our borders. That’s why we are 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
are conducting surveillance against ordinary citizens. America does not simply
stand for stability, or the absence of conflict, no matter what the price; 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’s a matter of national security. Democracies are our closest friends, and
are far less likely to go to war. Free and open economies 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 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. Watching these trends, or the violent upheaval in parts of
the Arab World, it is easy to be cynical.
But remember that because of America’s efforts
– through diplomacy and foreign assistance, as well as the sacrifices of our
military – more people live under elected governments today than 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 out of poverty.
And even the upheaval of the Arab World reflects the rejection of an
authoritarian order that was anything but stable, and offers the long-term
prospect of more responsive and effective governance.
In Egypt, we acknowledge that our relationship
is anchored in security interests – from the peace treaty 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 the reforms
that the Egyptian people have demanded.
Meanwhile, look at a country like Burma, which
only a few years ago was an intractable dictatorship, hostile to the United
States. Thanks to the enormous courage of the people in that country – and
because we took the diplomatic initiative – we have seen political reforms
opening a once closed society; a movement away from partnership with North
Korea in favor of engagement with America and our allies. We are now supporting
reform – and badly needed national reconciliation – through assistance and
investment; coaxing and, at times, public criticism. Progress could be
reversed. But if Burma succeeds, we will have gained a new partner without
having fired a shot.
In all these cases, we should not expect
change to happen overnight. That’s why we form alliances – not only with
governments, but with ordinary people. For unlike other nations, America is not
afraid of individual empowerment, we are strengthened by it – by civil society
and transparency; by striving entrepreneurs and small businesses; by
educational exchange and opportunity for women and girls. That’s who we are.
That’s what we represent.
I saw that throughout my trip to Africa last
year. American assistance has made possible the prospect of an AIDS-free
generation, while helping Africans care for their sick. We are helping farmers
get their products to market, and feeding 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.
All this creates new partners and shrinks the
space for terrorism. Tragically, no American security operation can eradicate
the threat posed by an extremist group like Boko Haram. That is why we must
focus both on rescuing those girls, but also on supporting Nigerian efforts to
educate its youth. Indeed, this should be one of the hard-earned lessons of
Iraq and Afghanistan, where our military became the strongest advocate for
diplomacy and development. Foreign assistance isn’t an afterthought – something
nice to do apart from our national defense. It’s part of what makes us strong.
Ultimately, global leadership requires us to
see the world as it is, with all its danger and uncertainty. But American
leadership also requires us to see the world as it should be – a place where
the aspirations of individual human beings matter; 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.
Graduates, 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. And you do so as part
of a team that extends beyond your units or even our Armed Forces. In the
course of your service, you will work as a team with diplomats and development
experts. You will get to know allies and train partners. You will embody what
it means for America to lead.
Next week, I will go to Normandy to honor the
men who stormed the beaches. And while it is hard for many Americans to
comprehend the courage and sense of duty that guided those who boarded small
ships, it is 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, he was in a foreign land, helping people he’d never met, putting himself
in harm’s way for the sake of his people 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. 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.
We have been through a long season of war. We
have faced trials that were not foreseen, and divisions about how to move
forward. But there is something in Gavin’s character, and America’s 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.
