United States political journal containing speech transcripts, photos, editorial and archives of historical documents relating to the Presidency of the United States.
The United States has been inspired by the Syrian peoples' pursuit of a peaceful transition to democracy. They have braved ferocious brutality at the hands of their government. They have spoken with their peaceful marches, their silent shaming of the Syrian regime, and their courageous persistence in the face of brutality - day after day, week after week. The Syrian government has responded with a sustained onslaught. I strongly condemn this brutality, including the disgraceful attacks on Syrian civilians in cities like Hama and Deir al Zour, and the arrests of opposition figures who have been denied justice and subjected to torture at the hands of the regime. These violations of the universal rights of the Syrian people have revealed to Syria, the region, and the world the Assad government's flagrant disrespect for the dignity of the Syrian people.
The United States opposes the use of violence against peaceful protesters in Syria, and we support the universal rights of the Syrian people. We have imposed sanctions on President Assad and his government. The European Union has imposed sanctions as well. We helped lead an effort at the UN Security Council to condemn Syria's actions. We have coordinated closely with allies and partners from the region and around the world. The Assad government has now been condemned by countries in all parts of the globe, and can look only to Iran for support for its brutal and unjust crackdown.
The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar al-Assad is standing in their way. His calls for dialogue and reform have rung hollow while he is imprisoning, torturing, and slaughtering his own people. We have consistently said that President Assad must lead a democratic transition or get out of the way. He has not led. For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside.
The United States cannot and will not impose this transition upon Syria. It is up to the Syrian people to choose their own leaders, and we have heard their strong desire that there not be foreign intervention in their movement. What the United States will support is an effort to bring about a Syria that is democratic, just, and inclusive for all Syrians. We will support this outcome by pressuring President Assad to get out of the way of this transition, and standing up for the universal rights of the Syrian people along with others in the international community.
As a part of that effort, my Administration is announcing unprecedented sanctions to deepen the financial isolation of the Assad regime and further disrupt its ability to finance a campaign of violence against the Syrian people. I have signed a new Executive Order requiring the immediate freeze of all assets of the Government of Syria subject to U.S. jurisdiction and prohibiting U.S. persons from engaging in any transaction involving the Government of Syria. This E.O. also bans U.S. imports of Syrian-origin petroleum or petroleum products; prohibits U.S. persons from having any dealings in or related to Syria's petroleum or petroleum products; and prohibits U.S. persons from operating or investing in Syria. We expect today's actions to be amplified by others.
We recognize that it will take time for the Syrian people to achieve the justice they deserve. There will be more struggle and sacrifice. It is clear that President Assad believes that he can silence the voices of his people by resorting to the repressive tactics of the past. But he is wrong. As we have learned these last several months, sometimes the way things have been is not the way that they will be. It is time for the Syrian people to determine their own destiny, and we will continue to stand firmly on their side.
Address by PM Netanyahu at the Graduation Ceremony of Course 38 of the National Security College
7/25/2011
- Translation -
Honorable Minister of Defense,
IDF Chief of Staff,
Police Commissioner,
Head of the General Security Service,
Prison Service Commissioner,
IDF Generals in regular service and reserves,
And of course, College Staff, Commander Gershon Hacohen and Prof. Ben-Ze'ev,
Above all – National Security College graduates and dear families,
This is a moment of great pride for you and for us – for you, graduates, for all of us, the entire nation, and I believe particularly for your families.
You have made a long journey to come here. First of all, to get to this course. It means you were selected. You are a selected elite. You have also undergone a comprehensive, in-depth process of understanding the fundamentals of our national security which you are now required to defend. Our national security is a triple-headed triangle: security, economy and society. The upper head is security, and the most decisive component in each one of the heads is the human component – the excellence, the ability to produce excellence, to let it rise, flourish and create new things. That is why you are at the top of the triangle, the edge of the peak, and you are worthy of every praise, but also every challenge.
The formula of this triangle – security, economy and society – is the source of our national strength, our national confidence to successfully withstand new challenges, primarily the challenge of living in peace with our neighbors, while our entire surroundings are undergoing fundamental, historic changes. I hope that these changes will ultimately produce freer societies, more responsive to their peoples' needs. It is not a simple process. It is a lengthy one, but a real development of real democracies around us will undoubtedly serve to strengthen the prospects of peace.
Meanwhile, we are facing major challenges and major opportunities in each of the three components I described.
In security – we are a small country, one of the smallest in the world, and we are facing unparalleled threats. In addition to the threat of conventional war and the war of terrorism in between wars, we face three new challenges that have been developing over the past few years: the nuclear threat, the threat of missiles and the cyber threat. These threats gradually intertwine. And I believe in our ability to meet these threats. Over the past year, since the previous course, Israel has developed – under your leadership, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and also at the initiative of former Defense Minister Amir Peretz – a multi-layered defense system that was successfully tried in the "Iron Dome" experiment. This is a major, ground-breaking change in the world.
With regard to cyber, I have established a national cyber headquarters, which is designed to bring together the defense, academia and private sector agencies to transform Israel into a global cyber superpower. It is possible, it is certainly necessary, but I believe that we are no longer merely at the top of the list, we are at the top of the top, and we must remain there. It is a constant race. We cannot rest on our laurels. There is no such thing. It is a constant battle to be at the forefront.
This is true also with regard to the economy. There are plenty of reasons why we would like to see a developed and dynamic economy, but the most simple, prosaic reason is that we have no other way of financing our defense – and defense costs a lot of money. Weapons cost a lot of money, forces cost a lot of money and development costs a lot of money, and it keeps going up and up.
I recently read a wonderful book by a remarkable historian, Will Durant, a 20th century American historian who, after writing, over a period of fifty years, eleven volumes on the history of mankind, concluded his findings in a small book, a thin 100-page book entitled "the Lessons of History". And I share with you both the bad news and the good news. The bad news is that Durant's conclusion was that the Law of Numbers works. It works because large nations – he wrote this in the 60's – have enormous economic power because of their numbers, and ultimately economic power translates itself into political power and military power. Now for the good news. He lists one exception to the Large Numbers Rule – the young State of Israel.
We have tackled the economic problem by doubling our GNP per capita in comparison with our neighbors. We were more or less equal, but now we are 10 or 15 times larger than our neighbors. It is as if our population was 10 or 15 times greater, although we have a lot of neighbors. We have tackled it also through our economy of knowledge and our technological economy. I am a great believer in this, on condition that there is freedom of entrepreneurship. Free economy is a necessary pre-requisite for a growing economy – a growing economy that now surpasses European countries in its GNP per capita – something that did not exist a decade ago.
Israel's powerful economy is the second fundamental pillar of our national security, for which you are now responsible. The third condition is society, our social cohesion. Prof. Ben-Ze'ev said that it depends on education, higher education. It is true, but higher education depends on the education that preceded it. In other words, our elementary schools and high schools, and we are in a process of a shifting trend. A shift in trend is coming, you can see it in the various science, math and physics Olympics. Israel has taken a sudden leap forward, in dozens of places. How can you generate this change? How do you change education? When you look at the world's successful countries, countries that have succeeded in transforming education, the main factor is not merely resources. We have put in the resources.
Our national strength is our democracy. The Knesset takes priority over the National Security College. When I was in the Knesset opposition I had time and I met with teachers' organizations. They knew that I liked clear ideas and they also showed me a presentation that explains it all in education. One particular transparency featured: "inputs" – a large arrow – "outputs", and what I said was that my entire experience, without exception, has taught me that the arrow works the other way around. When you are in the public service, in security, economy, education, anywhere, if you know what you want to achieve and you put in the resources, you will achieve it. If you are investing in a bottomless pit, with no direction, you will fail to achieve it.
And you know it – each one of you in your own way – otherwise you would not be here. You know that setting goals is the key to attaining them. What we are currently doing in education is setting goals. And by setting the goals, by expecting each and every child in Israel to excel or at least to maximize their potential – we produce results. And we have seen this in many countries. We have seen it in the world's five leading countries in education. This is what unites them. Both students and teachers are expected to show results, and the principals are rewarded for producing these results. It is not an easy change, but it is a necessary one if we are to have social cohesion and the confidence that each and every child in Israel can compete in the world of the 21st century.
Education is the key to cohesion, but it is insufficient because people make a good living, better than more and more European countries, but ultimately they are not left with much. Why? The main reason is that many things cost more in Israel. Why do they cost more? Why does yogurt cost more here than in Europe? Why do many products cost more? Because where there is no competition, prices go up and then less is left in our pockets, and one of our goals now is not only to boost our economy, but also to achieve a reduction in prices, and the highest prices are not for yogurt nor for cheese – although they are important – they are the prices of housing, and this is where we have to break the government cartel.
I said we have a very small country, but we have turned into an even smaller one by a long-standing government monopoly in the Israel Lands Administration and the planning mechanism that is responsible for the fact that construction and planning procedures in Israel are the slowest in the world. Well, not the slowest. We are ranked 140 or 120. Although we top the list on other things. This is about to change. I will not present it today. You are welcome to hear it tomorrow, but these are steps that are important for us to produce the social cohesion I have described, so that people will know that they can make a living and they can have something to aspire to, that their children will receive the best education, both in universities and before that, in our schools, so that they can keep leading Israel up the global ladder.
Ultimately, the most important thing is the unity of ideas. We all know that this is the only country the Jewish people have. We know what became of us when we had no such country, when we had no government, no army, no security services, no intelligence services, and this major transformation in the history of our people is only a few dozen years old. But Israel moved up and up, and historian Will Durant was largely correct when he said that we violate the iron rules of history.
Those rules were set in the 16th or 17th century by an Italian historian named Vico. He said that all peoples and all cultures, without exception, exhibited the same patterns as a "field tree". They sprout, they bloom, they wither and then they die. He said: if you wait long enough, you'll see there are no exceptions. But there was a problem. There was one clear exception – the Jewish people. One of Vico's disciples, a Jew, Rabbi Nachman Krochmal, said: every time the Jews are on the brink of death, they reinvent themselves. The Jews have power, the Jewish people has an enormous living power, which reveals itself in different times, when they revive themselves remarkably. I believe each and every one of you has this sense of mission. And at this time, we expect each of you, in turn, to meet this challenge.
This is not your graduation. This is your beginning. You are about to shoulder an enormous responsibility, as enormous as our expectations of you. At this time, I want to tell you that I believe in you and I salute you.
May you be successful for the benefit of the people of Israel and the State of Israel.
Prime Mnister's Office : http://www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Communication/PMSpeaks/speechmbl250711.htm
OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the
asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn
what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.
While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while
most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get
our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who
earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our
income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax
rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent
of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term
investors.
These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in
Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted
owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high
places.
Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as
payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds
like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable
income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of
the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33
percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.
If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your
percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a
job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.
To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government
revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal
income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a
rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing
in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class:
typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax
brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.
Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and
my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory
I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest
because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.
I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60
years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates
were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment
because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make
money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who
argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of
nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s
happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.
Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400
Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had
aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2
percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400
had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average —
but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.
The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can
be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to
income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though
every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun
work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)
I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very
decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this
country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to
give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being
told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their
fellow citizens are truly suffering.
Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of
rearranging our country’s finances. They’ve been instructed to devise a
plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It’s
vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are
rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our
country’s fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very
substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness.
That feeling can create its own reality.
Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich
America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then
turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of
taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point
reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut
helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.
But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such
households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income
in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital
gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in
2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.
My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly
Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared
sacrifice.
Warren E. Buffett is the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway.
THE PRESIDENT: Tonight, I’d like to update the American people on
the international effort that we have led in Libya –- what we’ve done,
what we plan to do, and why this matters to us.
I want to begin by paying tribute to our men and women in uniform who,
once again, have acted with courage, professionalism and patriotism.
They have moved with incredible speed and strength. Because of them and
our dedicated diplomats, a coalition has been forged and countless
lives have been saved.
Meanwhile, as we speak, our troops are supporting our ally Japan,
leaving Iraq to its people, stopping the Taliban’s momentum in
Afghanistan, and going after al Qaeda all across the globe. As
Commander-in-Chief, I’m grateful to our soldiers, sailors, airmen,
Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and to their families. And I know all
Americans share in that sentiment.
For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role
as an anchor of global security and as an advocate for human freedom.
Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally
reluctant to use force to solve the world’s many challenges. But when
our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act.
That’s what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks.
Libya sits directly between Tunisia and Egypt -– two nations that
inspired the world when their people rose up to take control of their
own destiny. For more than four decades, the Libyan people have been
ruled by a tyrant -– Muammar Qaddafi. He has denied his people freedom,
exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and
terrorized innocent people around the world –- including Americans who
were killed by Libyan agents.
Last month, Qaddafi’s grip of fear appeared to give way to the promise
of freedom. In cities and towns across the country, Libyans took to the
streets to claim their basic human rights. As one Libyan said, “For
the first time we finally have hope that our nightmare of 40 years will
soon be over.”
Faced with this opposition, Qaddafi began attacking his people. As
President, my immediate concern was the safety of our citizens, so we
evacuated our embassy and all Americans who sought our assistance. Then
we took a series of swift steps in a matter of days to answer Qaddafi’s
aggression. We froze more than $33 billion of Qaddafi’s regime’s
assets. Joining with other nations at the United Nations Security
Council, we broadened our sanctions, imposed an arms embargo, and
enabled Qaddafi and those around him to be held accountable for their
crimes. I made it clear that Qaddafi had lost the confidence of his
people and the legitimacy to lead, and I said that he needed to step
down from power.
In the face of the world’s condemnation, Qaddafi chose to escalate his
attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people.
Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were
attacked. Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed.
Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. Water for hundreds of
thousands of people in Misurata was shut off. Cities and towns were
shelled, mosques were destroyed, and apartment buildings reduced to
rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon
people who had no means to defend themselves against assaults from the
air.
Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis,
I ordered warships into the Mediterranean. European allies declared
their willingness to commit resources to stop the killing. The Libyan
opposition and the Arab League appealed to the world to save lives in
Libya. And so at my direction, America led an effort with our allies at
the United Nations Security Council to pass a historic resolution that
authorized a no-fly zone to stop the regime’s attacks from the air, and
further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people.
Ten days ago, having tried to end the violence without using force, the
international community offered Qaddafi a final chance to stop his
campaign of killing, or face the consequences. Rather than stand down,
his forces continued their advance, bearing down on the city of
Benghazi, home to nearly 700,000 men, women and children who sought
their freedom from fear.
At this point, the United States and the world faced a choice. Qaddafi
declared he would show “no mercy” to his own people. He compared them
to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In
the past, we have seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a
thousand people in a single day. Now we saw regime forces on the
outskirts of the city. We knew that if we wanted -- if we waited one
more day, Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a
massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the
conscience of the world.
It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to
let that happen. And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan
leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing
and enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973.
We struck regime forces approaching Benghazi to save that city and the
people within it. We hit Qaddafi’s troops in neighboring Ajdabiya,
allowing the opposition to drive them out. We hit Qaddafi’s air
defenses, which paved the way for a no-fly zone. We targeted tanks and
military assets that had been choking off towns and cities, and we cut
off much of their source of supply. And tonight, I can report that we
have stopped Qaddafi’s deadly advance.
In this effort, the United States has not acted alone. Instead, we have
been joined by a strong and growing coalition. This includes our
closest allies -– nations like the United Kingdom, France, Canada,
Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain, Greece, and Turkey –- all of whom have
fought by our sides for decades. And it includes Arab partners like
Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, who have chosen to meet their
responsibilities to defend the Libyan people.
To summarize, then: In just one month, the United States has worked
with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an
international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army,
prevent a massacre, and establish a no-fly zone with our allies and
partners. To lend some perspective on how rapidly this military and
diplomatic response came together, when people were being brutalized in
Bosnia in the 1990s, it took the international community more than a
year to intervene with air power to protect civilians. It took us 31
days.
Moreover, we’ve accomplished these objectives consistent with the
pledge that I made to the American people at the outset of our military
operations. I said that America’s role would be limited; that we would
not put ground troops into Libya; that we would focus our unique
capabilities on the front end of the operation and that we would
transfer responsibility to our allies and partners. Tonight, we are
fulfilling that pledge.
Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement
of the arms embargo and the no-fly zone. Last night, NATO decided to
take on the additional responsibility of protecting Libyan civilians.
This transfer from the United States to NATO will take place on
Wednesday. Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and
protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and
partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the
pressure on Qaddafi’s remaining forces.
In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role --
including intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue
assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications. Because of
this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition, the risk and cost of
this operation -- to our military and to American taxpayers -- will be
reduced significantly.
So for those who doubted our capacity to carry out this operation, I
want to be clear: The United States of America has done what we said we
would do.
That’s not to say that our work is complete. In addition to our NATO
responsibilities, we will work with the international community to
provide assistance to the people of Libya, who need food for the hungry
and medical care for the wounded. We will safeguard the more than $33
billion that was frozen from the Qaddafi regime so that it’s available
to rebuild Libya. After all, the money doesn’t belong to Qaddafi or to
us -- it belongs to the Libyan people. And we’ll make sure they receive
it.
Tomorrow, Secretary Clinton will go to London, where she will meet with
the Libyan opposition and consult with more than 30 nations. These
discussions will focus on what kind of political effort is necessary to
pressure Qaddafi, while also supporting a transition to the future that
the Libyan people deserve -- because while our military mission is
narrowly focused on saving lives, we continue to pursue the broader goal
of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people.
Now, despite the success of our efforts over the past week, I know that
some Americans continue to have questions about our efforts in Libya.
Qaddafi has not yet stepped down from power, and until he does, Libya
will remain dangerous. Moreover, even after Qaddafi does leave power,
40 years of tyranny has left Libya fractured and without strong civil
institutions. The transition to a legitimate government that is
responsive to the Libyan people will be a difficult task. And while the
United States will do our part to help, it will be a task for the
international community and –- more importantly –- a task for the Libyan
people themselves.
In fact, much of the debate in Washington has put forward a false
choice when it comes to Libya. On the one hand, some question why
America should intervene at all -– even in limited ways –- in this
distant land. They argue that there are many places in the world where
innocent civilians face brutal violence at the hands of their
government, and America should not be expected to police the world,
particularly when we have so many pressing needs here at home.
It’s true that America cannot use our military wherever repression
occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always
measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be
an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right. In this
particular country -– Libya -- at this particular moment, we were faced
with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique
ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a
broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a
plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the
ability to stop Qaddafi’s forces in their tracks without putting
American troops on the ground.
To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and -– more
profoundly -– our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such
circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations
may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The
United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to
wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.
Moreover, America has an important strategic interest in preventing
Qaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have
driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya’s borders, putting
enormous strains on the peaceful –- yet fragile -– transitions in Egypt
and Tunisia. The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region
would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive
leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power.
The writ of the United Nations Security Council would have been shown
to be little more than empty words, crippling that institution’s future
credibility to uphold global peace and security. So while I will never
minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a
failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for
America.
Now, just as there are those who have argued against intervention in
Libya, there are others who have suggested that we broaden our military
mission beyond the task of protecting the Libyan people, and do whatever
it takes to bring down Qaddafi and usher in a new government.
Of course, there is no question that Libya -– and the world –- would be
better off with Qaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world
leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through
non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include
regime change would be a mistake.
The task that I assigned our forces -– to protect the Libyan people
from immediate danger, and to establish a no-fly zone -– carries with it
a U.N. mandate and international support. It’s also what the Libyan
opposition asked us to do. If we tried to overthrow Qaddafi by force,
our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops
on the ground to accomplish that mission, or risk killing many civilians
from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would
be far greater. So would the costs and our share of the responsibility
for what comes next.
To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the
extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our
diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there
took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a
trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in
Libya.
As the bulk of our military effort ratchets down, what we can do -- and
will do -- is support the aspirations of the Libyan people. We have
intervened to stop a massacre, and we will work with our allies and
partners to maintain the safety of civilians. We will deny the regime
arms, cut off its supplies of cash, assist the opposition, and work with
other nations to hasten the day when Qaddafi leaves power. It may not
happen overnight, as a badly weakened Qaddafi tries desperately to hang
on to power. But it should be clear to those around Qaddafi, and to
every Libyan, that history is not on Qaddafi’s side. With the time and
space that we have provided for the Libyan people, they will be able to
determine their own destiny, and that is how it should be.
Let me close by addressing what this action says about the use of
America’s military power, and America’s broader leadership in the world,
under my presidency.
As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than keeping
this country safe. And no decision weighs on me more than when to
deploy our men and women in uniform. I’ve made it clear that I will
never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally
when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies and our
core interests. That's why we’re going after al Qaeda wherever they
seek a foothold. That is why we continue to fight in Afghanistan, even
as we have ended our combat mission in Iraq and removed more than
100,000 troops from that country.
There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly
threatened, but our interests and our values are. Sometimes, the course
of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and our
common security -– responding to natural disasters, for example; or
preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security,
and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America’s
problems alone, but they are important to us. They’re problems worth
solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as
the world’s most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help.
In such cases, we should not be afraid to act -– but the burden of
action should not be America’s alone. As we have in Libya, our task is
instead to mobilize the international community for collective action.
Because contrary to the claims of some, American leadership is not
simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden
ourselves. Real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for
others to step up as well; to work with allies and partners so that they
bear their share of the burden and pay their share of the costs; and to
see that the principles of justice and human dignity are upheld by all.
That’s the kind of leadership we’ve shown in Libya. Of course, even
when we act as part of a coalition, the risks of any military action
will be high. Those risks were realized when one of our planes
malfunctioned over Libya. Yet when one of our airmen parachuted to the
ground, in a country whose leader has so often demonized the United
States –- in a region that has such a difficult history with our country
–- this American did not find enemies. Instead, he was met by people
who embraced him. One young Libyan who came to his aid said, “We are
your friends. We are so grateful to those men who are protecting the
skies.”
This voice is just one of many in a region where a new generation is
refusing to be denied their rights and opportunities any longer.
Yes, this change will make the world more complicated for a time.
Progress will be uneven, and change will come differently to different
countries. There are places, like Egypt, where this change will inspire
us and raise our hopes. And then there will be places, like Iran,
where change is fiercely suppressed. The dark forces of civil conflict
and sectarian war will have to be averted, and difficult political and
economic concerns will have to be addressed.
The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of
this change. Only the people of the region can do that. But we can make
a difference.
I believe that this movement of change cannot be turned back, and that
we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles
that have guided us through many storms: our opposition to violence
directed at one’s own people; our support for a set of universal rights,
including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their
leaders; our support for governments that are ultimately responsive to
the aspirations of the people.
Born, as we are, out of a revolution by those who longed to be free, we
welcome the fact that history is on the move in the Middle East and
North Africa, and that young people are leading the way. Because
wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United
States. Ultimately, it is that faith -- those ideals -- that are the
true measure of American leadership.
My fellow Americans, I know that at a time of upheaval overseas -- when
the news is filled with conflict and change -- it can be tempting to
turn away from the world. And as I’ve said before, our strength abroad
is anchored in our strength here at home. That must always be our North
Star -- the ability of our people to reach their potential, to make
wise choices with our resources, to enlarge the prosperity that serves
as a wellspring for our power, and to live the values that we hold so
dear.
But let us also remember that for generations, we have done the hard
work of protecting our own people, as well as millions around the
globe. We have done so because we know that our own future is safer,
our own future is brighter, if more of mankind can live with the bright
light of freedom and dignity.
Tonight, let us give thanks for the Americans who are serving through
these trying times, and the coalition that is carrying our effort
forward. And let us look to the future with confidence and hope not
only for our own country, but for all those yearning for freedom around
the world.
Thank you. God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America. (Applause.) Thank you.
Banned by the Taliban the practice of ritually abusing young men in Afghanistan has been widespread. The practice called bacha bazi ("boy-play") party was noted in a Wikileaks memo. A report by the Houston Press highlights the participation by DynCorp.
