Thank you. you for Thank that welcome. Let me begin with the hard part. It is difficult for a Navy person to come up to West Point after that game a month ago. But I watched it. Amazing things can happen in sports. Look at the Oilers, my other team, that took it on the chin the other day. But I guess the moral of all this is that losing is never easy trust me I know something about that. But if you have to lose, that's the way to do it: Fight with all you have, give it your best shot and win or lose, learn from it and get on with life. And I'm about to get on with the rest of my life. But before I do, I want to share with you at this institution of leadership some of my thinking, both about the world you will soon be called upon to enter and the life that you've chosen. Any president has several functions. He speaks for and to the nation. He must faithfully execute the law, and he must lead. But no function, none of the president's hats, in my view, is more important than his role as commander in chief. For it is as commander in chief that the president confronts and makes decisions that, one way or another, affect the lives of everyone in this country as well as many others around the world. And I've had many occasions to don this most important of hats, and over the past four years, the men and women who proudly and bravely wear the uniforms of the U.S. armed services have been called upon to go in harm's way and have discharged their duty with DEPOSITED BY honor and professionalTATES OF AMOSA besettling inevitable differ I wish I could say that such ences peacefully without the threat demands were a thing of the past, or use of force. that with the end of the Cold War, Unfortunately, not everyone the calls upon the United States subscribes to these principles. We would diminish. I cannot. Yes, the continue to see leaders bent on end of the Cold War, we would all denying fundamental human rights concede, is a blessing. It is a time and seizing territory regardless of of great promise. Democratic the human cost. governments have never been so No, an international society, one numerous. What happened two or more attuned to the enduring three days ago in Moscow would principles that have made this not have been possible in the Cold country a beacon of hope for so War days. many for so long, will not just emerge on its own. It's got to be Threats Remain built. Thanks to historic treaties such Two hundred years ago, another as that START II pact just reached departing president warned of the with Russia, the likelihood of dangers of what he described as nuclear holocaust is vastly dimin- "entangling alliances." His was the ished. But this does not mean that right course for a new nation at that there is no specter of war, no point in history. But what was threats to be reckoned with, and entangling in Washington's day is already we see disturbing signs of now essential. what this new world could become And this is why at Texas A&M a if we are passive and aloof. few weeks ago, I spoke of the folly We would risk the emergence of of isolationism and of the impora world characterized by violence, tance, morally, economically and characterized by chaos, one in strategically, of the United States, which dictators and tyrants threaten remaining involved in world affairs. their neighbors, build arsenals We must engage ourselves if a new brimming with weapons of mass world order, one more compatible destruction and ignore the welfare with our values and congenial to of their own men, women and our interests, is to emerge. But even more, we must lead. Leadership — well, it takes many “In a world where we are the only remaining superpower, it is the role of the United States to marshal its moral and material resources to promote a democratic peace. It is our responsibility, it is our opportunity to lead. ... Leadership requires formulating worthy goals and persuading others of their virtue and contributing one's share of the common effort and then some. invaded Kuwait, it was the United States that galvanized the U.N. Security Council to act and then mobilized the successful coalition on the battlefield. The pattern, not exactly the same, but similar in Somalia. First the United States underscored the importance of alleviating the growing tragedy, and then we organized humanitarian efforts designed to bring hope, food and peace. At times, real leadership requires a willingness to use military force, and force can be a useful backdrop to diplomacy, a complement to it or, if need be, a temporary alternative. need not respond by ourselves to each and every outrage of violence. The fact that America can act does not mean that it must. A nation's sense of idealism need not be at odds with its interests, nor does principle displace prudence. No, the United States should not seek to be the world's policeman. There is no support abroad or at home for us to play this role, nor should there be. We would exhaust ourselves in the process, wasting precious resources needed to address those problems at home and abroad that we cannot afford to ignore. But in the wake of the Cold War, in a world where we are the only remaining superpower, it is the role of the United States to marshal its moral and material resources to promote a democratic peace. It is our responsibility, it is our opportunity to lead. There's no one else. Leadership cannot be simply asserted or demanded. It must be demonstrated. Leadership requires formulating worthy goals and persuading others of their virtue and contributing one's share of the common effort and then some. Leadership takes time, it takes patience, it takes work. And some of this work must take place here at home. Congress does have a constitutional role to play, and leadership therefore also involves working with the Congress and the American people to provide the essential domestic underpinning if U.S. military commitments are to be sustained, if they're to be sustainable. And this is what our administration, the Bush administration, has tried to do. When Saddam Hussein and dramatic difference, and do so without excessive levels of risk and cost. Operations Provide Comfort and Southern Watch in Iraq, and then Operation Restore Hope in Somalia all bear witness to the wisdom of selected use of force for selective purposes. Sometimes ... the decision not to use force, to stay our hand, I can tell you it's just as difficult as a decision to send our soldiers into battle. The former Yugoslavia — well, it's been such a situation. There are, we all know, important humanitarian and strategic interests at stake there, but up to now it's not been clear that the application of limited amounts of force by the United States and its traditional friends and allies would have had the desired effect, given the nature and the complexity of that situation. Our assessment of the situation in the former Yugoslavia could well change if and as the situation changes. The stakes could grow. The conflict could threaten to spread. Indeed, we are constantly reassessing our options and are actively consulting with others about steps that might be taken to contain the fighting, protect the humanitarian effort and deny Serbia the fruits of aggression. Military force is never a tool to be used lightly or universally. In some circumstances, it may be essential; in others, counterproductive. I know that many people would like to find some formula, some easy formula, to apply, to tell us with precision when and where to intervene with force. Use of Force As commander in chief, I have made the difficult choice to use military force. I determined we could not allow Saddam's forces to ravage Kuwait and hold this critical region at gunpoint. I thought then, and I think now, that using military force to implement the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council was in the interest of the United States and the world community. The need to use force arose as well in the wake of the gulf war, when we came to the aid of the peoples of both northern and southern Iraq. And more recently, as I'm sure you know, I determined that only the use of force could stem this human tragedy of Somalia. The United States should not stand by with so many lives at stake, and when a limited deployment of U.S. forces, buttressed by the forces of other countries and acting under the full authority of the United Nations, could make an immediate Rigid Rules Unwise Anyone looking for scientific certitude is in for a disappointment. In the complex new world we are entering, there can be no single or simple set of fixed rules for using force. Inevitably, the question of military intervention requires judgment. Each and every case is unique. To adopt rigid criteria would guarantee mistakes involving American interests and American lives and would give would be troublemakers a blueprint for determining their own actions. It could signal U.S. friends and allies that our support was not to be , and do so of risk and e Comfort raq, and Hope in to the of force for “The all-volunteer force is one of the true success stories of modern-day America. It is instructive to look at just why this is so. At its heart, a voluntary military is based upon choice. ... The decision freely taken by young men and women to join, the decision by more mature men and women to remain." sion not to d, I can tas a iers into lavia ation. ,importegic counted on. And similarly, we cannot always decide in advance which interests will require our using military force to protect them. The relative importance of an interest is not a guide. Military force may not be the best way of safeguarding something vital, while using force might be the best way to protect an interest that qualifies as important, but less than vital. But to warn against a futile quest for a set of hard and fast rules to govern the use of military force is not to say there cannot be some principles to inform our decisions. Such guidelines can prove useful in sizing and indeed shaping our forces, and in helping us to think our way through this key question. Using military force makes sense as a policy where the stakes warrant, where and when force can be effective, where no other policies are likely to prove effective, where its application can be limited in scope and time, and where the potential benefits justify the potential costs and sacrifice. t up to it the unts of and its s would given city of uation uld well row. American lives and the security of the canal appeared to be threatened by outlaws who stole power in the face of free elections. And similarly, we moved swiftly to safeguard democracy in the Philippines. But in every case involving the use of force, it will be essential to have a clear and achievable mission, a realistic plan for accomplishing the mission and criteria no less realistic for withdrawing U.S. forces once the mission is complete. Only if we keep these principles in mind will the potential sacrifice be one that can be explained and justified. We must never forget that using force is not some political abstraction but a real commitment of our fathers and mothers, and sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, friends and neighbors. You've got to look at it in human terms. In order even to have the choice, we must have available adequate military forces tailored for a wide range of contingencies, including peacekeeping. Indeed, leading the effort toward a new world order will require a modern capable military, in some areas necessitating more rather than less defense spending. are ers en to the y Serbia bol to . In be nize that as important as such factors are, any military is more than simply the sum of its weapons or the state of its technology. What kes any armed force truly effective is the quality of its leadership, the quality of its training, the quality of its people. We have succeeded abroad in no small part because of our people in uniform. The men and women in our armed forces have demonstrated their ability to master the challenges of modern warfare, and at the same time whether on the battlefield of Iraq or in some tiny little village in Somalia America's soldiers have always brought a quality of caring and kindness to their mission. Who will ever forget — I know I won't — those terrified Iraqi soldiers surrendering to Americ troops? And who will forget the way the American soldier held out his arms and said, “It's OK, you're all right now"? Or in Somalia, the young Marine, eyes filled with tears, holding the fragile arm of an emaciated child. There can be no doubt about it -- the all-volunteer force is one of the true success stories of modern-day America. It is instructive to look at just why this is so. At its heart, a voluntary military is based upon choice. You all know that. The decision freely taken by young men and women to join, the decision by more mature men and women to remain. And the institution of the armed forces has thrived on its commitment to developing and promoting excellence. It is meritocracy in action. Race, religion, wealth, background count not. Indeed, the military offers many examples for the rest of society, showing what can be done to eradicate the 8 409AA Oroduc. ble nula, Consensus Desirable Once we are satisfied that force makes sense, we must act with the maximum possible support. The United States can and should lead, but we will want to act in concert, where possible, involving the United Nations or other multinational grouping. The United States can and should contribute to the common undertaking in a manner commensurate with our wealth, with our strength; but others should also contribute militarily, be it by providing combat or support forces, access to facilities or bases, or overflight rights. And similarly, others should contribute economically. It is unreasonable to expect the United States to bear the full financial burden of intervention when other nations have a stake in the outcome. A desire for international support must not become a prerequisite for acting, though. Sometimes a great power has to act alone. I made a tough, tough decision, I might say, on advice of our outstanding military leaders who are so wellknown to everybody here, to use military force in Panama, when , to tell where Sacred Trust As president, I have said that my ability to deploy force on behalf of U.S. interests abroad was made possible because past presidents and I would single out in particular my predecessor, Ronald Reagan and past secretaries of defense sustained a strong military. Consistent with this sacred trust, I am proud to pass on to my successor, President-elect (Bill) Clinton, a military second to none. We have the very best. And yet it is essential to recog ia 17677 XL1 09/96 02-013-01 GB vohing ican Je s. It allies 3 |