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 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 government 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, 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 August
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 day
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 met 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'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