Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
323152295
label
West Point [Commencement Address] 12/5/92 [OA 8485]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
323152295
contentType
document
title
West Point [Commencement Address] 12/5/92 [OA 8485]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
13648-026
collections
Records of the White House Office of Speechwriting (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Speech Draft Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
323152295
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
75fce593a6ff771c
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
S
S
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Speech File Draft Files
Subseries:
Chron File, 1989-1993
OA/ID Number:
13648
Folder ID Number:
13648-026
Folder Title:
West Point [Commencement Address] 12/5/92 [OA 8485]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
26
18
5
7
THE W
;
HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(West Point, New York)
For Immediate Release
January 5, 1993
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO WEST POINT CADETS
United States Military Academy
West Point, New York
1:22 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. Good luck.
Please be seated. And, General Graves -- thank you, General Graves,
for that very kind introduction. Barbara and I are just delighted to
be here and honored that we could be joined by our able Secretary of
the Army Mike Stone. of course, the man well-known here that heads
our Army, General Sullivan -- General Gordon Sullivan. And Gracie
Graves, General Robert Foley, General Galloway; Shawn Daniel, well-
known to everybody here -- been our host, in a sense. And a West
Point alum who has been at my side for four years, our here somewhere
-- General Scowcroft, graduate of this great institution who served
his country with such distinction. And may I salute the members of
the Board of Visitors -- I see another I have to single out --
General Galvin, who served his country with such honor. And, of
course -- save the best for last -- the Corps of Cadets. Thank you
for that welcome. (Applause.)
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.
(Applause.) Go ahead, rub it in. (Laughter.) But I watched it.
Amazing things can happen in sports. Look at the Oilers, my other
team that took it in the chin the other day. (Laughter.) But I
guess the moral of all of this is that losing is never easy -- trust
me, I know something about that. (Laughter.) 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 am 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 have 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 affects the lives of everyone in
this country as well as many others around the world.
I have had many occasions to don this most important of
hats. 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 honor
and professionalism.
I wish I could say that such demands were a thing of the
past, that with the end of Cold War the calls upon the United States
would diminish. I cannot. Yes, the end of the Cold War, we would
all concede, is a blessing. It is a time of great promise.
Democratic governments have never been SO numerous. what happened
two or three days ago in MOSCOW would not have been possible in the
MORE
Cold War Days. Thanks to historic treaties, such as that START II
pact just reached with Russia -- the likelihood of nuclear holocaust
is vastly diminished.
But this does not mean that there is no specter of war,
no threats to be reckoned with. And already, we see disturbing signs
of what this new world could become if we are passive and aloof. We
would risk the emergence of a world characterized by violence,
characterized by chaos, one in which dictators and tyrants threaten
their neighbors, build arsenals brimming with weapons of mass
destruction, and ignore the welfare of their own men, women and
children. And we could see a horrible increase in international
terrorism, with American citizens more at risk than ever before.
We cannot and we need not allow this to happen. Our
objective must be to exploit the unparalleled opportunity presented
by the Cold War's end -- to work toward transforming this new world
into a new world order, one of governments that are democratic,
tolerant, and economically free at home, and committed abroad to
settling inevitable differences peacefully, without the threat or use
of force.
Unfortunately, not everyone subscribes to these
principles. We continue to see leaders bent on denying fundamental
human rights and seizing territory regardless of the human cost. No,
an international society, one more attuned to the enduring principles
that have made this country a beacon of hope for so many for so long,
will not just emerge on its own. It's got to be built.
Two hundred years ago, another departing President
warned of the dangers of what he described as "entangling alliances".
His was the right course for a new nation at that point in history.
But what was "entangling" in Washington's day is now essential. This
is why, at Texas A&M a few weeks ago, I spoke of the folly of
isolationism, and of the importance -- morally, economically, and
strategically -- of the United States remaining involved in world
affairs. We must engage ourselves if a new world order -- one more
compatible with our values and congenial to our interest
-- is to emerge. But even more, we must lead.
Leadership -- well, it takes many forms. It can be
political or diplomatic, it can be economic or military, it can be
moral or spiritual leadership. Leadership can take any one of these
forms -- or it can be a combination of them.
Leadership should not be confused with either
unilateralism or universalism. We 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 is no one else.
Leadership cannot be simply asserted or demanded; it
must be demonstrated. Leadership requires formulating worthy goals,
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.
MORE
- 3 -
Some of this work must take place here at home.
Congress does have a constitutional role to play. 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 sustainable.
This is what our administration, the Bush administration
has tried to do. When Saddam Hussein 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.
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 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 the 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 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. 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 quarantee mistakes involving American interests and
American lives. And it 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 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.
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 decision -- I might say on advice of our
outstanding military leaders who are so well known to everybody here
-- to use military force in Panama, when 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. 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 Clinton, a military second to none. We have the very
best.
And, yet, it is essential to recognize 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 makes any armed force
truly effective is the quality of its leadership, the quality of its
training, the quality of its people.
MORE
- 5 -
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, and 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 American troops? And who will forget
the way the American soldier held out his arms and said, "It's
okay You're alright 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 scourge of drugs, to break down the barriers of racial
discrimination, to offer equal opportunity to women.
This is not just a result of self-selection. It also
reflects the military's commitment to education and training. You
know, people speak of defense conversion, the process by which
defense, the defense firms re-tool for civilian tasks. Well, defense
conversion within the military has been going on for years. It is
the constant process of training and retraining, which the military
does so well, that allows individuals to keep up with the latest
technology, take on more challenging assignments, and prepare for
life on the outside.
Out of this culture of merit and competition have
emerged hundreds of thousands of highly skilled men and women
brimming with real self-confidence. What they possess is a special
mix of discipline, a willingness to accept direction, and the
confidence -- a willingness to accept responsibility. Together,
discipline and confidence provide the basis for winning, for getting
the job done.
There is no higher calling, no more honorable choice,
than the one that you here today have made. To join the Armed Forces
is to be prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice for your country and
for your fellow man.
What you have done, what you are doing, sends an
important message, one that J. fear sometimes gets lost amidst today's
often materialist, self-interested culture. It is important to
remember, it is important to demonstrate, that there is a higher
purpose to life beyond one's self. Now, I speak of family, of
community, of ideals. I speak of duty, honor, country.
There are many forms of contributing to this country,
of
public service. Yes, there is government. There is volunteerism
I love to talk about the thousand points of light -- one American
helping another. The daily tasks that require doing -- in our
classrooms, in our hospitals, our cities, our farms. All can and do
represent a form of service. In whatever form, service benefits our
society and it ennobles the giver. It is a cherished American
concept, one we should continue to practice and pass on to our
children.
This was what I wanted to share on this occasion. You
are beginning your service to country; and I am nearing the end of
MORE
- 6 -
mine. In exactly half a century ago, in June of 1942 -- as General
Graves mentioned -- we were at war and I was graduating from school.
The speaker that day at Andover was the then Secretary of War Henry
Stimson. And his message was one of public service, but with a twist
-- on the importance of finishing one's schooling before going off to
fight for one's country.
I listened closely to what he had to say, but I didn't
take his advice. And that day was my eighteenth birthday. And when
the commencement ceremony ended, I went on into Boston, and enlisted
in the Navy as a Seaman 2nd Class. And I never regretted it.
You, too, have signed up. You, too, will never regret
it. And I salute you for it.
Fortunately, because of the sacrifices made in years
before and still being made, you should be able to complete this
phase of your education. A half century has passed since I left
school to go into the service; a half century has passed since that
day when Stimson spoke of the challenge of creating a new world.
You will also be entering a new world, one far better
than the one I came to know -- a world with the potential to be far
better yet. This is the challenge, this is the opportunity of your
lifetimes. I envy you for it, and I wish you Godspeed.
And while I'm at it, as your Commander-In-Chief, I
hereby grant amnesty to the Corps of Cadets. (Applause.) Thank you
all very much. Thank you. Thank you very, very much. Good luck to
all of you, Warm up here. Good luck to you guys. Thank you.
END
1:50 P.M. EST