The President:
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 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 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 governments
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, 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.
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
where they mix sarin gas.
They distributed
gasmasks 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 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.
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 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 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 Qaeda 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?
As 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 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 is 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.
