• Remarks by the President
    September 12,2013
    • Email Article
    •  
    •  Print Article
     
    Editorís note: What follows is an edited transcript of the presidentís remarks Tuesday night.



    President Barack Obama

    My fellow Americans, tonight I want to talk to you about Syria ó 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 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 elseís civil war through force, particularly after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The situation profoundly changed, though, on Aug. 21, when Assadís 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 ó 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. 21, 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.

    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 Syriaís 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 Assadís ally, Iran ó 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 whatís 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 regimeís 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 regimeís ability to use them, and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use.

    Thatís my judgment as Commander-in-Chief. But Iím also the President of the worldís 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.

    ... Itís no wonder, then, that youíre asking hard questions. So let me answer some of the most important questions that Iíve heard from members of Congress, and that Iíve read in letters that youíve sent to me.

    First, many of you have asked, wonít this put us on a slippery slope to another war? One man wrote to me that we are ďstill recovering from our involvement in Iraq.Ē A veteran put it more bluntly: ďThis nation is sick and tired of war.Ē

    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 Assadís capabilities.

    Others have asked whether itís worth acting if we donít take out Assad. As some members of Congress have said, thereís no point in simply doing a ďpinprickĒ strike in Syria.

    Let me make something clear: The United States military doesnít do pinpricks. Even a limited strike will send a message to Assad that no other nation can deliver. I donít think we should remove another dictator with force ó 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 donít 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 thatís so complicated, and where ó as one person wrote to me ó ďthose who come after Assad may be enemies of human rights?Ē

    Itís true that some of Assadís 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 ó and the Syrian opposition we work with ó 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.

    ... Over the last few days, weíve 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 theyíd join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits their use.

    Itís 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 Assadís strongest allies.

    ... America is not the worldís 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. Thatís what makes America different. Thatís 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.
    • Email Article
    •  
    •  Print Article
    2 Comments
    MORE IN Commentary
    Everybodyís right and everybodyís wrong. So the killing just goes on. Full Story
    Amid the sound and fury that greeted the Supreme Courtís ruling in the Hobby Lobby case, many... Full Story
    The New York Times said the following in an editorial: Full Story
    More Articles