Over the past two years, what began as a series of
peaceful protests against the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad has
turned into a brutal civil war. Over 100,000 people have been killed.
Millions have fled the country. In that time, America has worked with
allies to provide humanitarian support, to help the moderate opposition,
and to shape a political settlement. But I have resisted calls for
military action, because we cannot resolve someone else’s civil war
through force, particularly after a decade of war in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
The situation profoundly changed, though, on August 21st,
when Assad’s government gassed to death over a thousand people,
including hundreds of children. The images from this massacre are
sickening: Men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas.
Others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath. A father clutching his
dead children, imploring them to get up and walk. On that terrible
night, the world saw in gruesome detail the terrible nature of chemical
weapons, and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them
off-limits -- a crime against humanity, and a violation of the laws of
war.
This was not always the case. In World War I, American
GIs were among the many thousands killed by deadly gas in the trenches
of Europe. In World War II, the Nazis used gas to inflict the horror of
the Holocaust. Because these weapons can kill on a mass scale, with no
distinction between soldier and infant, the civilized world has spent a
century working to ban them. And in 1997, the United States Senate
overwhelmingly approved an international agreement prohibiting the use
of chemical weapons, now joined by 189 governments that represent 98
percent of humanity.
On August 21st, these basic rules were violated, along
with our sense of common humanity. No one disputes that chemical
weapons were used in Syria. The world saw thousands of videos, cell
phone pictures, and social media accounts from the attack, and
humanitarian organizations told stories of hospitals packed with people
who had symptoms of poison gas.
Moreover, we know the Assad regime was responsible. In
the days leading up to August 21st, we know that Assad’s chemical
weapons personnel prepared for an attack near an area where they mix
sarin gas. They distributed gasmasks to their troops. Then they fired
rockets from a regime-controlled area into 11 neighborhoods that the
regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces. Shortly
after those rockets landed, the gas spread, and hospitals filled with
the dying and the wounded. We know senior figures in Assad’s military
machine reviewed the results of the attack, and the regime increased
their shelling of the same neighborhoods in the days that followed.
We’ve also studied samples of blood and hair from people at the site
that tested positive for sarin.
When dictators commit atrocities, they depend upon the
world to look the other way until those horrifying pictures fade from
memory. But these things happened. The facts cannot be denied. The
question now is what the United States of America, and the international
community, is prepared to do about it. Because what happened to those
people -- to those children -- is not only a violation of international
law, it’s also a danger to our security.
Let me explain why. If we fail to act, the Assad regime
will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. As the ban against
these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice
about acquiring poison gas, and using them. Over time, our troops would
again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield. And it
could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons,
and to use them to attack civilians.
If fighting spills beyond Syria’s borders, these weapons
could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan, and Israel. And a failure to
stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions
against other weapons of mass destruction, and embolden Assad’s ally,
Iran -- which must decide whether to ignore international law by
building a nuclear weapon, or to take a more peaceful path.
This is not a world we should accept. This is what’s at
stake. And that is why, after careful deliberation, I determined that
it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond
to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted
military strike. The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad
from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime’s ability to use
them, and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their
use.
That's my judgment as Commander-in-Chief. But I’m also
the President of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy. So even
though I possess the authority to order military strikes, I believed it
was right, in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our
security, to take this debate to Congress. I believe our democracy is
stronger when the President acts with the support of Congress. And I
believe that America acts more effectively abroad when we stand
together.
This is especially true after a decade that put more and
more war-making power in the hands of the President, and more and more
burdens on the shoulders of our troops, while sidelining the people’s
representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force.
Now, I know that after the terrible toll of Iraq and
Afghanistan, the idea of any military action, no matter how limited, is
not going to be popular. After all, I've spent four and a half years
working to end wars, not to start them. Our troops are out of Iraq.
Our troops are coming home from Afghanistan. And I know Americans want
all of us in Washington
-- especially me -- to concentrate on the task of building
our nation here at home: putting people back to work, educating our
kids, growing our middle class.
It’s no wonder, then, that you're asking hard questions.
So let me answer some of the most important questions that I've heard
from members of Congress, and that I've read in letters that you've sent
to me.
First, many of you have asked, won’t this put us on a
slippery slope to another war? One man wrote to me that we are “still
recovering from our involvement in Iraq.” A veteran put it more
bluntly: “This nation is sick and tired of war.”
My answer is simple: I will not put American boots on the
ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or
Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or
Kosovo. This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective:
deterring the use of chemical weapons, and degrading Assad’s
capabilities.
Others have asked whether it's worth acting if we don’t
take out Assad. As some members of Congress have said, there’s no point
in simply doing a “pinprick” strike in Syria.
Let me make something clear: The United States military
doesn’t do pinpricks. Even a limited strike will send a message to
Assad that no other nation can deliver. I don't think we should remove
another dictator with force -- we learned from Iraq that doing so makes
us responsible for all that comes next. But a targeted strike can make
Assad, or any other dictator, think twice before using chemical weapons.
Other questions involve the dangers of retaliation. We
don’t dismiss any threats, but the Assad regime does not have the
ability to seriously threaten our military. Any other retaliation they
might seek is in line with threats that we face every day. Neither
Assad nor his allies have any interest in escalation that would lead to
his demise. And our ally, Israel, can defend itself with overwhelming
force, as well as the unshakeable support of the United States of
America.
Many of you have asked a broader question: Why should we
get involved at all in a place that's so complicated, and where -- as
one person wrote to me -- “those who come after Assad may be enemies of
human rights?”
It’s true that some of Assad’s opponents are extremists.
But al Qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria if people
there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from
being gassed to death. The majority of the Syrian people -- and the
Syrian opposition we work with -- just want to live in peace, with
dignity and freedom. And the day after any military action, we would
redouble our efforts to achieve a political solution that strengthens
those who reject the forces of tyranny and extremism.
Finally, many of you have asked: Why not leave this to
other countries, or seek solutions short of force? As several people
wrote to me, “We should not be the world’s policeman.”
I agree, and I have a deeply held preference for peaceful
solutions. Over the last two years, my administration has tried
diplomacy and sanctions, warning and negotiations -- but chemical
weapons were still used by the Assad regime.
However, over the last few days, we’ve seen some
encouraging signs. In part because of the credible threat of U.S.
military action, as well as constructive talks that I had with President
Putin, the Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with
the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical
weapons. The Assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons,
and even said they’d join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which
prohibits their use.
It’s too early to tell whether this offer will succeed,
and any agreement must verify that the Assad regime keeps its
commitments. But this initiative has the potential to remove the threat
of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because
Russia is one of Assad’s strongest allies.
I have, therefore, asked the leaders of Congress to
postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this
diplomatic path. I’m sending Secretary of State John Kerry to meet his
Russian counterpart on Thursday, and I will continue my own discussions
with President Putin. I’ve spoken to the leaders of two of our closest
allies, France and the United Kingdom, and we will work together in
consultation with Russia and China to put forward a resolution at the
U.N. Security Council requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons,
and to ultimately destroy them under international control. We’ll also
give U.N. inspectors the opportunity to report their findings about what
happened on August 21st. And we will continue to rally support from
allies from Europe to the Americas -- from Asia to the Middle East --
who agree on the need for action.
Meanwhile, I’ve ordered our military to maintain their
current posture to keep the pressure on Assad, and to be in a position
to respond if diplomacy fails. And tonight, I give thanks again to our
military and their families for their incredible strength and
sacrifices.
My fellow Americans, for nearly seven decades, the United
States has been the anchor of global security. This has meant doing
more than forging international agreements -- it has meant enforcing
them. The burdens of leadership are often heavy, but the world is a
better place because we have borne them.
And so, to my friends on the right, I ask you to reconcile
your commitment to America’s military might with a failure to act when a
cause is so plainly just. To my friends on the left, I ask you to
reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those
images of children writhing in pain, and going still on a cold hospital
floor. For sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are
simply not enough.
Indeed, I’d ask every member of Congress, and those of you
watching at home tonight, to view those videos of the attack, and then
ask: What kind of world will we live in if the United States of America
sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas, and
we choose to look the other way?
Franklin Roosevelt once said, “Our national determination
to keep free of foreign wars and foreign entanglements cannot prevent us
from feeling deep concern when ideals and principles that we have
cherished are challenged.” Our ideals and principles, as well as our
national security, are at stake in Syria, along with our leadership of a
world where we seek to ensure that the worst weapons will never be
used.
America is not the world’s policeman. Terrible things
happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every
wrong. But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from
being gassed to death, and thereby make our own children safer over the
long run, I believe we should act. That’s what makes America
different. That’s what makes us exceptional. With humility, but with
resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth.
Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.
No comments:
Post a Comment