My fellow Americans, tonight I want to talk to you about
Syria, why it matters and where we go from here. 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 a hundred thousand 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 Aug. 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 Aug. 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, cellphone 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 Aug. 21st, we know that Assad's chemical weapons personnel
prepared for an attack near an area they where they mix sarin gas. They
distributed gas masks 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 possessed 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 — 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
unshakable 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-Qaida 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?
And 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,
warnings 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 Aug. 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's 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