[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 29, Number 1 (Monday, January 11, 1993)]
[Pages 9-14]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks at the United States Military  Academy  in  West  Point,  New 
York


January 5, 1993

    Thank you all very much. Good luck. Please be seated. 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 4 years, over here somewhere, 
General Scowcroft, graduate of this great institution who served his 
country with such distinction. 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.
    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. 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 on 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

[[Page 10]]

it your best shot. And win or lose, learn from it, and get on with life.
    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 4 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 the 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 2 or 3 days ago in Moscow 
would not have been possible in the 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

[[Page 11]]

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.
    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 guarantee mistakes involving 
American interests and American lives. And it would give would-be 
troublemakers a blueprint for determining their own

[[Page 12]]

actions. It could signal U.S. friends and allies that our support was 
not to be counted on.
    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.
    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.
    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

[[Page 13]]

and said, ``It's okay. 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 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 the defense firms retool 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 I 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 voluntarism--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 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 18th birthday. And when the commencement 
ceremony ended, I went on into Boston and enlisted in the Navy as a 
seaman 2d 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.
    Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you very, very much. Good 
luck to

[[Page 14]]

all of you. Warm up here. Good luck to you guys. Thank you.

Note: The President spoke at 1:22 p.m. in the Washington Mess Hall at 
the U.S. Military Academy. In his remarks, he referred to Lt. Gen. 
Howard D. Graves, USA, Superintendent of the Academy, and his wife, 
Gracie; Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan, USA, Chief of Staff of the Army; Brig. 
Gen. Robert Foley, USA, Commandant of the Academy; Brig. Gen. Gerald R. 
Galloway, USA, Dean of the Academy; Cadet Shawn Daniel, 1st Capt., U.S. 
Corps of Cadets; and Gen. John R. Galvin, USA, Ret., visiting professor 
in the Academy's department of social science.