奧巴馬西點軍校演講全文：美國比任何時候都更強盛
美國總統奧巴馬5月28日面對西點軍校畢業生演講。他認為，美國的國力比任何時候都更加強盛，“全世界都期待美國出手相助”，“美國是一個不可或缺的國家，而且至今仍然如此。這是上一個世紀的現實，也將是下一個世紀的現實。”奧巴馬將美國“在世界舞台上發揮領導作用”視為自己的底線，並表示“我們如果不領導世界，誰來領導？”當面對國際輿論時他説，“為了保護我國人民、我們的國土、我們的生活方式，美國永遠不需要徵求別人的許可”，“我對美國例外論深信不疑。”奧巴馬認為，“美國對民主和人權的支持超出了理想主義的範疇”，“民主政權”這個最親密的朋友能成為美國產品的市場。在中國南海問題上，他表示“我們正在這個過程中向東南亞國家提供支持”。最後，他勉勵西點軍校的畢業生們：“為了讓美國領導世界，你們要竭盡所能。”
以下為奧巴馬演講全文
謝謝，非常感謝。感謝卡斯倫將軍的介紹。特雷納將軍（General Trainor）、克拉克將軍（General Clarke）、全體西點軍校的教職員們，你們是這個光榮學府的傑出管理者，也是美軍新晉軍官的傑出導師。
5月28日，奧巴馬在西點軍校演講
我要向陸軍部長麥格修將軍（General McHugh）和奧迪耶諾將軍（General Odierno）表示感謝，同樣要感謝的還有參議員傑克•裏德（Senator Jack Reed），他今天也在這，他也是一名自豪的西點人。2014屆畢業生們，祝你們再續西點軍魂的傳奇。
你們當中出了首屆女指揮官小組：艾琳•莫爾丁（Erin Mauldin）和奧斯汀•波洛夫（Austen Boroff）。加拉•格拉文（Calla Glavin），你獲得了羅德獎學金，而喬希•荷貝克（Josh Herbeck）則證明西點軍校的命中率在三分線上也不差（喬希•荷貝克是一名籃球球員-譯者注）。（笑聲）
這是你們在西點最後的幾個小時，我想對整個年級説，身為總司令，我在此赦免那些因為小錯被關禁閉的學員們。（笑聲，掌聲）
我只想説，我上學的時候可沒人對我這麼好。
我知道你們要跟我一道向家人説聲謝謝。喬•德莫斯（Joe DeMoss）的兒子詹姆斯畢業在即，喬在寫給我的一封信中，説出了很多家長的心裏話。“內心深處，”他寫道，“我想自豪地宣稱他們為了祖國不惜赴湯蹈火。”好幾名畢業生都跟詹姆斯一樣是退伍老兵，在這裏我想請各位起立，不僅是向我們當中的老兵致敬，更是向250多萬曾在伊拉克或阿富汗等地服役的人和他們的家人致敬。（掌聲）
陣亡將士紀念日剛過去不久，今天紀念那些為我們的自由作出巨大犧牲的人很有必要。你們是9•11以來首屆不用被送上伊拉克或阿富汗戰場的畢業生。（歡呼，掌聲）
當我2009年第一次在西點演講時，我們在伊拉克還有10萬駐軍。我們還在準備大幅增加阿富汗駐軍。我們的反恐工作重點是基地組織的核心領導層——他們實施了9•11襲擊。而我們的國家剛開始走出那場大蕭條（1929）以來最大的金融危機。
四年半之後，在你們畢業之際，情況已大不相同。我們從伊拉克撤軍、縮小阿富汗戰爭的規模。巴基斯坦和阿富汗邊境區域基地組織的首惡遭到滅頂之災，奧薩馬•本拉登不復存在。（歡呼、鼓掌）。在此期間，我們重新將投資重點放在美國的實力增長之源，即能為所有願意努力工作、承擔責任的人提供機會的增長型經濟體。
實際上，從大多數指標來看，美國的國力比任何時候都更加強盛。有人對此表示不同意，他們認為美國正在衰落，已經從主導全球事務的地位下滑。這些人不是對歷史作出了錯誤的解讀，就是陷入了黨派政治的漩渦。想想吧。我國軍隊無可匹敵。任何國家對我們造成直接威脅的可能性很小，遠遠低於我們冷戰時期面臨的危險。
與此同時，我國經濟活力充沛，在全球仍然首屈一指；我國企業最具創新精神。每年，我們都自主生產更多的能源。從歐洲到亞洲，我們是世界有史以來最強大聯盟的核心。
美國繼續吸引勤奮努力的移民。我們的建國理念激勵了全球各地的議會領導人和公共廣場上新發起的各類運動。當颱風襲擊菲律賓的時候，當尼日利亞女學生被綁架的時候，當蒙面人佔領烏克蘭建築物的時候，全世界都期待美國出手相助。（掌聲）所以，美國是一個不可或缺的國家，而且至今仍然如此。這是上一個世紀的現實，也將是下一個世紀的現實。
但是，這個世界正加速發生變化。這種情況提供了機會，也構成了新的危險。眾所周知，由於9•11以來的技術狀況和全球化，原來一些由國家掌握的權力已經掌握在個人手中，這增強了恐怖主義分子造成危害的能力。
俄羅斯入侵前蘇聯共和國的行為震撼了歐洲各國首都的神經，與此同時中國的經濟崛起和軍力擴張引起了鄰國的不安。
從巴西到印度，不斷上升的中產階級與我們展開競爭，各國政府要求在全球事務中獲得更大的發言權。但即使在發展中國家迎接民主和市場經濟之際， 24小時不間斷的新聞和社交媒體提醒我們，不要對持續不斷的宗派衝突、國家衰敗和民眾起義等視而不見，這些可能是上一代人沒有遇到的問題。
你們這一代人的任務將是應對這個新的世界。我們面臨的問題、你們每一個人將面臨的問題，不是美國是否能領導世界，而是我們如何領導世界——不僅僅是保障我們的和平與繁榮，還要讓和平與繁榮擴展到全球各地。
但這不是一個新問題。至少從喬治∙華盛頓擔任總司令開始，就有人發出警告，反對捲入不直接影響到我國安全和經濟福祉的外部糾紛。
今天，從保守的現實主義角度來説，我們不該介入敍利亞、烏克蘭或中非的衝突。毫無疑問，經過代價高昂的戰爭和國內不斷的反戰宣傳，這種觀點已經被很多美國人接受。
來自左翼和右翼的干涉主義者提出了另外一種觀點，他們認為我們不能對這些衝突視而不見，否則我們自身會走向災難。在他們看來，美國在世界各地使用武力，是世界免於戰亂的最後保障。面對敍利亞的暴政和俄羅斯的挑釁，美國如果不採取行動，不僅違背了我們的良知，而且會招致未來日益升級的侵略行動。
這兩派都可以引用歷史資料支持自己的觀點。但是我認為，不論哪一種觀點都無法準確表達時代的需求。21世紀的美國孤立主義並不是可取的方案，這毫無疑問。對於我國邊界以外的事態，我們不能選擇置之不理。比如核材料如果得不到安全處理，就會威脅美國人民。
目前敍利亞內戰已經跨出國界，富於侵略性的極端主義團伙襲擊我們的能力正在加強。地區性侵略行為如果不得到制止——不論在南烏克蘭、南中國海（South China Sea），還是全世界任何地方——最終都將影響到我國的盟國，屆時我國軍隊可能被捲入其中。我們不能無視我國邊界以外的事態。
除了這些狹隘的解釋之外，我認為，我們還面臨一個現實的道德選擇，這同樣是我們無法切割的利益。我們必須保證我們子孫生活的世界不再有女學生被綁架（指近日尼日利亞伊斯蘭極端組織的襲擊），不再有人因自己的民族、信仰和政治觀點被殺害。
我認為世界獲得更大的自由和更多的寬容，不僅是道義之必需，而且有助於保障我們的安全。
但是，我談到我們在海外爭取和平與自由，以保障我們自身利益的問題，這並不意味着對每一個問題都需要採取軍事手段。自第二次世界大戰以來，我們所犯的一些代價最高昂的錯誤都不是因為我們採取剋制態度，而是因為我們沒有認真考慮後果就匆忙進行軍事冒險——沒有事先爭取國際支持和確立行動的合法性；沒有坦白地將必需的犧牲告訴美國人民。豪言壯語容易成為頭條新聞，但戰爭並不因口號而分勝負。艾森豪威爾將軍對這個問題有刻骨銘心的體會。1947年，他在這裏的畢業典禮上發表講話説：“戰爭是人類最悲慘和最愚蠢的鬧劇；蓄意或鼓動挑起戰爭是反對全人類的邪惡骯髒罪行。”
跟艾森豪威爾一樣，這一代的軍人非常清楚戰爭的代價，它包括你們西點人的性命。當我宣佈阿富汗增兵後，4名聽眾（指上次在西點軍校演講的軍校生聽眾）為此犧牲，很多人都負了傷。
我相信為了保障美國安全，我們需要這些軍事行動。但我對死難者無法釋懷，我對傷者無法釋懷。如果我置你們於危險之中僅僅為了解決世界某地的問題，或者擔心批評者壓力，用軍事介入來避免美國顯得軟弱，那麼我就背叛了我對你們的責任，背叛了我們熱愛的國家。
**我的底線是：美國必須一如既往在世界舞台上發揮領導作用。我們如果不領導世界，誰來領導？**你們的軍隊是這種領導作用的中流砥柱，現在如此，一貫如此，今後也將如此。但是，美國的軍事行動不能成為我們在每個場合發揮領導作用的唯一因素——甚至不是最基本的因素。不能因為我們有最優質的榔頭，就把每個問題都當成釘子。
由於軍事行動承擔的代價如此高昂，你們應該知道，你們的每一位文職領導人——特別是你們的總司令——很清楚如何發揮這種無比強大的威力。餘下的時間，請允許我談談我今後美國和美國軍隊如何發揮領導作用。因為你們將參與這種領導作用。
首先，請讓我重複我擔任總統之初提出的一項原則：在我國核心利益需要的時候——當我國人民受到威脅，當我們的生存處於緊急關頭，當盟邦面臨危險，美國將在必要的情況下單方面出兵。
在上述情況下，我們仍然需要提出一些尖鋭的問題，考慮我們的行動是否適當，是否有效，是否正當。國際輿論需要受到重視，但為了保護我國人民、我們的國土、我們的生活方式，美國永遠不需要徵求別人的許可。（掌聲）
另一方面，如果全球性問題對美國並未構成直接的威脅，當某些危機激發了我們的道德責任，或者使全世界滑向更危險的方向——但並不直接威脅到我們的時候，出兵的門檻必須提高。在這類情況下，我們不應該單獨行動。相反，我們必須動員盟邦和夥伴採取集體行動。我們必須擴展我們的干預方式，比如深度外交、制裁、國際法；同時在正當、必要和有效的情況下，採取多邊軍事行動。在這類情況下，我們必須與其他力量合作，因為在這類情況下采取集體行動才更有可能成功，更有可能持久，同時比較不容易犯代價高昂的錯誤。
由此引出我的第二個觀點：在可預見的未來，在美國國內與海外，最直接的威脅仍然是恐怖主義。但是，對每一個包庇恐怖主義網絡的國家都發動攻擊，這個戰略未免過於天真，也不可能持續。我認為，我們必須調整我國打擊恐怖主義的戰略——吸取我們在伊拉克和阿富汗的成功經驗和失敗教訓——轉而與國內有恐怖主義基地的某些國家進行有效的夥伴合作。
新戰略的必要性展示一個事實，即今天的主要威脅不再是中央集權的“基地”組織領導層，而是分散的“基地”組織外圍團伙和極端主義分子，他們經常挑戰所在國家的秩序。這種局面降低了本土遭受大規模9•11式襲擊的可能性，但增加了美國海外人員受到襲擊的危險。正如我們在班加西看到的情況（大使被殺）。這種情況令防備薄弱的目標身處險境，例如我們在內羅畢購物商場看到的情況。為此，我們必須制定適於應對這類瀰漫式威脅的戰略——擴大我們的影響，但不派遣軍隊，避免軍隊的戰線過長，也可以避免引發當地的不滿情緒。
我們需要合作伙伴與我們一起打擊恐怖主義分子。在我們已經進行的工作和我們目前在阿富汗所做的工作中，很大一部份是提高夥伴的自主反恐能力。美國與我們的盟邦一起對“基地”組織核心給予沉重的打擊，挫敗了他們試圖顛覆國家的反叛活動。
但是，這個進程能否持續進行取決於阿富汗人從事這項工作的能力。正是因為這個原因，我們為成千上萬阿富汗士兵和警察提供訓練。今年早春，這些部隊，這些阿富汗部隊保障了選舉的進行，阿富汗人為該國有史以來第一次政權的民主轉移進行投票。今年年底，新的阿富汗總統將就任，美國作戰部隊的使命也將完成。（掌聲）
這是以美國軍隊為後盾取得的巨大成就。但是隨着我們在阿富汗的作戰行動轉向訓練和顧問活動，我們減少阿富汗駐軍後可以更有效地應對中東和北非新出現的威脅。為此，今年早些時候，我要求我的國家安全事務團隊就南亞和薩赫勒（撒哈拉沙漠南部的半乾旱地區）等地的夥伴關係網絡制定一個計劃。
今天，作為這項努力的內容之一，我要求國會批准新的打擊恐怖主義夥伴關係基金，籌款50億美元用於我們為第一線的反恐夥伴國提供訓練，建立軍隊並激勵他們攻擊。這些資源將使我們具備完成不同使命的靈活性，包括訓練已經對“基地”組織發動攻勢的也門安全部隊；支援一支多國部隊維持索馬里的和平；與歐洲盟國合作為利比亞安全部隊和邊境巡邏部隊發揮功能提供訓練；並支持法國在馬裏的行動。
這項工作的一個很關鍵的方面將是應對敍利亞持續存在的危機。由於局勢十分嚴重，不可能有簡單的解決辦法，任何軍事方案都無法很快解除人們面臨的深重苦難。我作為總統作出決定，我們不應該派美國軍隊捲入這場日益激烈的宗派戰爭。我認為，這是正確的戰略。但是這並不意味着我們不應該幫助敍利亞人民反抗，不意味着我們無視用炸彈和飢餓殘害本國人民的獨裁者。我們幫助那些為敍利亞人民自決權而奮鬥的人們，同時也對人數日益增長的極端主義分子給予狠狠的打擊，這些極端主義分子正乘混亂之機尋求安全的庇護所（指加入敍利亞反政府武裝的基地組織成員）。
所以，我今天宣佈提供更多的資源後，我們將對敍利亞鄰國加強支持——例如約旦和黎巴嫩；土耳其和伊拉克——這些國家需要應付難民問題，並抗擊跨越敍利亞邊境的恐怖主義分子。我將與國會一起加強對敍利亞反對派人士的支持。這些反對派是取代恐怖分子和殘暴獨裁者的最佳選擇。我們將繼續與我們在歐洲及阿拉伯世界的朋友和盟邦相互協調，推動為化解這場危機採取政治解決方案，同時確保這些國家，不僅僅是美國，都為支持敍利亞人民作出自己應該作出的一份貢獻。
請讓我就反恐行動談最後一點。我所説的夥伴關係並沒有排除在必要時直接採取行動保護我們自己。我們在掌握可行性情報時會這樣做——比如將一名策劃1998年我國大使館被炸案的恐怖主義分子繩之以法；或是我們在也門和索馬里執行過的那種無人機空襲。
有時採取這樣的行動是必要的，為了保護我們的人民，我們不能猶豫不決。當正如我去年所指出的，我們在採取直接行動時必須秉持體現我們價值觀的各項標準。這意味着只有在我們面臨一種持續不斷、迫在眉睫的威脅時，只有在基本上能夠肯定不會造成平民傷亡時，才會發起攻擊。因為我們的行動應當經得起一個簡單的考驗：我們絕不能在戰場上消滅敵人的同時製造更多的敵人。
我還相信，我們必須讓我們的反恐怖主義行動更站得住腳，提高我們行動的透明度。我們必須能夠公開説明有關行動，不論是無人機空襲還是訓練合作伙伴。我將越來越依賴於我國軍方發揮世界領導作用，並向公眾提供有關我們的各項行動的信息。我們的情報部門工作出色，我們必須繼續保護其情報來源和工作方式。不過，如果我們不能清楚地、公開地説明我們的努力，我們就將面對恐怖主義宣傳和國際社會的質疑，我們將在我們的合作伙伴和我們的人民面前喪失合法性，而且我們還將削弱對我們本國政府的監督。
這個透明度問題直接關係到美國的領導力的第三個方面，即我們嚴格維護國際秩序的努力。
在第二次世界大戰之後，美國深思遠慮，要締造維護和平及支持人類進步的機構——從北約組織到聯合國，從世界銀行到國際貨幣基金組織。這些機構並不完美，但它們一直髮揮着使力量倍增的作用。它們減少了美國單方面採取行動的需要，增加了其他國家之間的約束力。
然而，世界已經變了，這種架構也必須改變。在冷戰最緊張的時候，肯尼迪總統指出和平應當基於“人類機制的逐漸演進”。讓這些國際機構不斷演進以滿足今日的種種需求，這必須成為美國的領導力的一個關鍵部分。
不過，有很多人，有很多持懷疑態度的人，往往貶低多邊行動的效力。對他們而言，通過聯合國這樣的國際機構進行努力或是尊重國際法，都是軟弱的表現。我認為他們是錯誤的。請讓我僅以兩個實例説明理由。
在烏克蘭，俄羅斯最近的所作所為讓人們回想起蘇聯坦克開進東歐地區的日子。但現在已經不是冷戰時代了。我們影響世界輿論的能力立即把俄羅斯推進了孤立處境。由於美國的領導，全世界立即開始譴責俄羅斯；歐洲和7國集團同我們一道實施制裁；北約組織增強了我們對東歐盟友的承諾；國際貨幣基金組織正在幫助穩定烏克蘭的經濟；歐安組織的監察員將烏克蘭動亂地區置於全世界的關注之下。
世界輿論和國際機構動員起來！就能夠與俄羅斯的宣傳抗衡，和部署在邊境的俄軍抗衡，和帶着蒙面武裝人員抗衡（指易裝的俄軍）。
本週末，千百萬烏克蘭人參加了投票。昨天，我同他們的候任總統通了話。我們不知道局勢將如何發展，而且前面依然會有嚴峻的挑戰，但我同我們的盟友站在一起，代表國際秩序同國際機構共同努力，從而不放一槍一炮就為烏克蘭人民提供了一個決定自己的未來的機會。
同樣地，儘管美國、以色列和其他方面不斷髮出警告，但伊朗多年來一直在一步步發展核項目。而在我就任總統伊始，我們結成了一個聯盟，一方面對伊朗經濟實施制裁，一方面向伊朗政府伸出外交之手。現在，我們有機會以和平方式解決我們之間的分歧。
成功的可能性仍然不大，而且我們保留所有制止伊朗獲取核武器的選擇。但10年來第一次，我們有了一個達成突破性協議的真切的機會——這可能比我們通過使用武力獲得的協議更有效力、更加持久。在整個談判過程中，我們始終願意通過多邊渠道進行努力，讓國際社會一直站在我們一邊。
重要的是，這就是美國的領導力。這就是美國的實力。
在上述每個實例中，我們都結成聯盟來應對具體的挑戰。現在，我們需要作出更大的努力來強化這些機構，它們能夠預見問題並防止問題擴散。
例如，北約組織是全世界有史以來最強大的聯盟。但我們現在正在同北約盟國共同執行新的使命，不僅在在東歐盟國關心的歐洲之內（指東歐邊界），而且在歐洲以外。我們的北約盟國必須在歐洲之外盡力抗擊恐怖主義，避免“失敗國家”徹底失控併為一個合作伙伴網絡提供訓練。
同樣地，聯合國提供了一個在被衝突蹂躪的國家中維持和平的平台。現在，我們應當確保那些提供維和人員的國家得到切實維護和平所需的訓練和裝備，以使我們能夠制止我們在剛果和蘇丹所目睹的屠殺行徑。我們將深化我們對支持這些維和使命的國家的投入，因為讓其他國家鄰近地區維護秩序，能減少我們被迫將自己的軍隊派往危險之地的情況。這是一種明智的投入。這是正確的領導方式。（掌聲）
別忘了，並非所有國際準則都與武裝衝突直接相關。我們面臨着一個網絡攻擊的嚴重問題，因此，我們正在努力制定並嚴格執行行為規則，以保護我國網絡和我國公民的安全。在亞太地區，東南亞國家與中國就南中國海出現了海事爭端，我們正在這個過程中向東南亞國家提供支持，希望達成一項協議。而且我們正在通過國際法努力解決這些爭端。
這種合作精神應被用於鼓舞抗擊氣候變化的全球性努力——這一日益嚴峻的全球安全危機將影響到你們身着軍裝期間的使命，因為我們要受命應對難民潮、自然災害以及爭奪水和糧食的衝突，因此，我計劃明年一定要讓美國積極主導制定一個保護整個地球的全球性框架。
你們看，每當我們以身作則地發揮領導作用，美國的影響力便會增強。我們不能讓自己免於遵守適用於其他所有人的規則。如果我國有那麼多的政治領導人都不承認氣候變化正在發生，我們就無法敦促其他人作出抗擊氣候變化的承諾。如果《海洋法公約》得不到美國參議院的批准，我們就無法爭取解決南中國海問題。而且我們的最高層軍事領導人都説該公約能增進我們的國家安全。
這（迴避國際準則）不是領導作用，這是退縮回避；這不是強大，而是軟弱。恐怕像羅斯福和杜魯門以及艾森豪威爾和肯尼迪這樣的領袖對此（拒絕國際條約-譯者注）會感到無比陌生。
我對美國例外論深信不疑。但令我們與眾不同的不是我們能夠無視國際準則和法治，而是我們願意通過我們的行動維護它們。（掌聲）
正因為如此，我將繼續推動關閉關塔納摩監獄——因為美國的價值觀和法律傳統不允許無限期地在我們境外關押人員。（掌聲）正因為如此，我們正在針對美國收集和使用情報的行動實施新的限制措施——因為如果我們承認監控普通公民是正常的事，我們的合作伙伴就將越來越少而且我們的行動效果將會減弱。（掌聲）美國不會簡單地主張穩定或消除衝突，不會不惜代價去落實這些想法。我們主張更加持久的和平，這必須在各國人民都享有機遇和自由的前提下才能實現。由此我要闡明美國領導作用的第四個、也是最後一個要素：我們願意出於人類尊嚴而採取行動。
美國對民主和人權的支持超出了理想主義的範疇——這關係到國家安全。民主政權是我們最親密的朋友，而且它們捲入戰爭的可能性要小得多。基於自由和開放的市場的經濟體增長更快，並能成為我國產品的市場。尊重人權能夠平息不穩定局面，能壓制不滿，消滅暴力和恐怖。
新的世紀並沒有剷除暴政。在全球各國——令人遺憾的是，其中還包括一些美國的合作伙伴——公民社會遭到壓制。腐敗的毒瘤喂肥了太多的統治者以及權貴，從窮鄉僻壤中到首都廣場上，人民為此而憤怒。看到這樣的發展趨勢，看到阿拉伯世界部分地區的暴力動亂，人們不禁會對未來感到悲觀懷疑。
但請你們記住，由於美國的種種努力，由於美國的外交工作和對外援助，以及我國軍人付出的犧牲，今天民選政權管理的民眾比人類歷史上任何時期都多。技術正在增強公民社會的力量，這是任何鐵拳都無法管控的。新的突破性成果正在使數億人民擺脱貧困。甚至連阿拉伯世界的動盪局勢都説明專制制度無法長久。而且（這種動盪）從長期來看，提供了更好的改革可能。
在埃及這樣的國家，我們承認我們的關係植根於安全利益——從與以色列的和平協定，到反對暴力極端主義的共同努力。因此，我們沒有切斷同埃及新政府（軍政府）的合作，但我們能夠而且一定會支持埃及人民，支持他們改革的訴求。
與此同時，看一看像緬甸這個國家，這個人口4000萬的國家在短短几年前還是一個頑固不化的獨裁國家，而且與美國為敵。多虧了該國人民巨大的勇氣，而且由於我們採取了外交行動併發揮了美國的領導作用，我們已經看到政治改革使一個一度封閉的社會逐步開放；緬甸領導人脱離同北韓的夥伴關係，轉而傾向於同美國和我們的盟友接觸。
我們正在通過援助和投資，通過説服勸告，甚至有時公開地予以批評，來支持改革以及迫切需要的全國和解。那裏取得的進步有可能出現倒退，但如果緬甸取得成功，我們就不放一槍一炮地贏得了一個新的合作伙伴。這就是美國的領導力！
在上述各個實例中，我們都不應當期待一夜之間完成變革。因此，我們不僅要同各國政府，還要同普通民眾結成聯盟。因為與其他一些國家不同的是，美國不害怕增強個人的自主權，反而因此而更加強大。公民社會使我們更加強大，自由媒體使我們更加強大，努力奮鬥的企業家和小企業使我們更加強大，教育交流以及性別平等使我們更加強大。這是我們的核心力量。這就是我們所代表的一切！（掌聲）
我在去年訪問非洲的旅途中看到，美國的援助使消滅艾滋病成為可能，同時幫助非洲人民照護病患。我們正在幫助農民將他們的產品送到市場，為一度受到饑荒威脅的人口提供糧食。我們致力於將非洲撒哈拉沙漠以南地區的電力供應擴大一倍，以使那裏的人民與全球經濟的前景互聯互通。所有這一切都帶來了新的合作伙伴，並壓縮了恐怖主義和衝突的空間。
然而，令人痛心的是，美國的安全行動無法根除像“博科聖地”（Boko Haram）這類極端主義組織所構成的威脅，該組織綁架了那些女孩。
因此，我們不僅應當集中力量馬上營救出那些女孩，而且應當支持尼日利亞讓青少年接受教育的努力。這應當是在伊拉克和阿富汗艱苦得來的教訓之一，我們的軍隊已成為在那裏提倡外交與發展的最堅定的倡導者。他們懂得，對外援助不是錦上添花，不是與我們的國家防禦和我們的國家安全脱節的善舉。這是使我們強大的因素之一。
歸根結底，全球領導力要求我們必須認清世界的真相，認清其中的種種威脅和不確定性。我們必須做好最壞的準備，必須做好一切應急準備。但保持美國的領導也要求我們必須看到這個世界應有的未來——在這裏，每個人的理想抱負都至關重要；在這裏，主宰一切的是希望而不是恐懼；在這裏，銘刻在我們建國文獻中的真理能夠讓歷史的潮流向正義的方向奔湧。為了實現這些目標，我們離不開你們的努力。
2014級畢業生們，此時時刻，你們即將離開哈德遜河寧靜的河岸。你們即將延續一個傳奇，在人類歷史上空前的傳奇。你們將作為團隊的一員執行任務——團隊不僅意味着你所在的部隊，甚至不僅僅意味着美國三軍。在你們服役的過程中，你們將同外交家和發展專家團隊協作。
你們將認識盟友、訓練戰友。為了讓美國領導世界，你們要竭盡所能。
下週我將去諾曼底緬懷曾經衝向沙灘的將士。也許很多美國人無法理解那些跳上登陸艇的將士的勇氣和責任感，但你們理解。在西點，你們定義什麼才算是愛國。
三年前卡文•懷特（Gavin White）從這所學院畢業。他去了阿富汗服役。跟比他先到的軍人一樣，他踏上了異國的土地，幫助那些從未謀面的人。他以身犯險只為保護他的社區、家人和親友。在一次襲擊中卡文失去了一條腿。我去年在瓦爾特•裏德（Walter Reed）陸軍醫療中心見過他。雖然身負重傷，但他跟剛來西點時一樣意志堅定。他有一個簡單的願望。今天他的妹妹摩根即將畢業，卡文也兑現了他的諾言，他將在這裏和她的妹妹互敬軍禮。（歡呼，掌聲）
我們經歷了很長一段時間的戰爭。我們經歷了無法預知的考驗，也曾對未來規劃產生分歧。但是卡文有一種精神，美國有一種精神，它總能讓我們取得勝利。
你們將帶着同胞們的敬意離開這裏。你們代表一個國家的歷史和希望。你們的責任不僅是保護我們的國家，還要伸張世界的正義。作為你們的總司令，我知道你們會不負所托。願上帝保佑你們。願上帝保佑我們的軍人，願上帝保佑美利堅合眾國。（歡呼，掌聲）
（愛英語吧、觀察者網 王楊/譯 觀察者網/校）
（翻頁看奧巴馬演講英文原文）
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you, General Caslen, for that introduction. General Trainor, General Clarke, faculty and staff at West Point, you have been outstanding stewards of this proud institution and outstanding mentors for the newest officers in the United States Army.
I’d like to acknowledge the Army’s leadership -- General McHugh -- Secretary McHugh, General Odierno, as well as Senator Jack Reed who is here and a proud graduate of West Point himself. To the class of 2014, I congratulate you on taking your place on the Long Gray Line.
Among you is the first all-female command team: Erin Mauldin and Austen Boroff. In Calla Glavin, you have a Rhodes Scholar, and Josh Herbeck proves that West Point accuracy extends beyond the three point line. (Laughter.)
To the entire class, let me reassure you in these final hours at West Point, as commander in chief, I hereby absolve all cadets who are on restriction for minor conduct offenses. (Laughter, applause.)
Let me just say that nobody ever did that for me when I was in school.
I know you join me in extending a word of thanks to your families. Joe DeMoss, whose son James is graduating, spoke for a whole lot of parents when he wrote me a letter about the sacrifices you’ve made. “Deep inside,” he wrote, “we want to explode with pride at what they are committing to do in the service of our country.” Like several graduates, James is a combat veteran, and I would ask all of us here today to stand and pay tribute not only to the veterans among us, but to the more than 2.5 million Americans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as their families. (Applause.)
It is a particularly useful time for America to reflect on those who’ve sacrificed so much for our freedom, a few days after Memorial Day. You are the first class to graduate since 9/11 who may not be sent into combat in Iraq or Afghanistan. (Cheers, applause.)
When I first spoke at West Point in 2009, we still had more than 100,000 troops in Iraq. We were preparing to surge in Afghanistan. Our counterterrorism efforts were focused on al-Qaida’s core leadership -- those who had carried out the 9/11 attacks. And our nation was just beginning a long climb out of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
Four and a half years later, as you graduate, the landscape has changed. We have removed our troops from Iraq. We are winding down our war in Afghanistan. Al-Qaida’s leadership on the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan has been decimated, and Osama bin Laden is no more. (Cheers, applause.) And through it all, we’ve refocused our investments in what has always been a key source of American strength: a growing economy that can provide opportunity for everybody who’s willing to work hard and take responsibility here at home.
In fact, by most measures America has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world. Those who argue otherwise -- who suggest that America is in decline or has seen its global leadership slip away -- are either misreading history or engaged in partisan politics.
Think about it. Our military has no peer. The odds of a direct threat against us by any nation are low, and do not come close to the dangers we faced during the Cold War. Meanwhile, our economy remains the most dynamic on Earth, our businesses the most innovative. Each year, we grow more energy independent. From Europe to Asia, we are the hub of alliances unrivaled in the history of nations.
America continues to attract striving immigrants. The values of our founding inspire leaders in parliaments and new movements in public squares around the globe. And when a typhoon hits the Philippines, or schoolgirls are kidnapped in Nigeria, or masked men occupy a building in Ukraine, it is America that the world looks to for help. (Applause.) So the United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century past, and it will be true for the century to come.
But the world is changing with accelerating speed. This presents opportunity, but also new dangers. We know all too well, after 9/11, just how technology and globalization has put power once reserved for states in the hands of individuals, raising the capacity of terrorists to do harm.
Russia’s aggression towards former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors.
From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums. And even as developing nations embrace democracy and market economies, 24-hour news and social media makes it impossible to ignore the continuation of sectarian conflicts, failing states and popular uprisings that might have received only passing notice a generation ago.
It will be your generation’s task to respond to this new world. The question we face, the question each of you will face, is not whether America will lead but how we will lead, not just to secure our peace and prosperity but also extend peace and prosperity around the globe.
Now, this question isn’t new. At least since George Washington served as commander in chief, there have been those who warned against foreign entanglements that do not touch directly on our security or economic well-being.
Today, according to self-described realists, conflicts in Syria or Ukraine or the Central African Republic are not ours to solve. And not surprisingly, after costly wars and continuing challenges here at home, that view is shared by many Americans.
A different view, from interventionists from the left and right, says that we ignore these conflicts at our own peril, that America’s willingness to apply force around the world is the ultimate safeguard against chaos, and America’s failure to act in the face of Syrian brutality or Russian provocations not only violates our conscience, but invites escalating aggression in the future.
And each side can point to history to support its claims, but I believe neither view fully speaks to the demands of this moment. It is absolutely true that in the 21st century, American isolationism is not an option. We don’t have a choice to ignore what happens beyond our borders. If nuclear materials are not secure, that poses a danger to American citizens.
As the Syrian civil war spills across borders, the capacity of battle-hardened extremist groups to come after us only increases. Regional aggression that goes unchecked, whether in southern Ukraine or the South China Sea or anywhere else in the world, will ultimately impact our allies, and could draw in our military. We can’t ignore what happens beyond our boundaries.
And beyond these narrow rationales, I believe we have a real stake -- abiding self-interest -- in making sure our children and our grandchildren grow up in a world where schoolgirls are not kidnapped; where individuals aren’t slaughtered because of tribe or faith or political belief.
I believe that a world of greater freedom and tolerance is not only a moral imperative; it also helps keep us safe.
But to say that we have an interest in pursuing peace and freedom beyond our borders is not to say that every problem has a military solution. Since World War II, some of our most costly mistakes came not from our restraint but from our willingness to rush into military adventures without thinking through the consequences, without building international support and legitimacy for our action, without leveling with the American people about the sacrifices required. Tough talk often draws headlines, but war rarely conforms to slogans. As General Eisenhower, someone with hard-earned knowledge on this subject, said at this ceremony in 1947, “War is mankind’s most tragic and stupid folly; to seek or advise its deliberate provocation is a black crime against all men.”
Like Eisenhower, this generation of men and women in uniform know all too well the wages of war, and that includes those of you here at West Point. Four of the service members who stood in the audience when I announced the surge of our forces in Afghanistan gave their lives in that effort. A lot more were wounded.
I believe America’s security demanded those deployments. But I am haunted by those deaths. I am haunted by those wounds. And I would betray my duty to you, and to the country we love, if I sent you into harm’s way simply because I saw a problem somewhere in the world that needed to be fixed, or because I was worried about critics who think military intervention is the only way for America to avoid looking weak.
Here’s my bottom line: America must always lead on the world stage. If we don’t, no one else will. The military that you have joined is, and always will be, the backbone of that leadership. But U.S. military action cannot be the only -- or even primary -- component of our leadership in every instance. Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail.
And because the costs associated with military action are so high, you should expect every civilian leader -- and especially your commander in chief -- to be clear about how that awesome power should be used. So let me spend the rest of my time describing my vision for how the United States of America, and our military, should lead in the years to come, for you will be part of that leadership.
First, let me repeat a principle I put forward at the outset of my presidency: The United States will use military force, unilaterally if necessary, when our core interests demand it -- when our people are threatened; when our livelihoods are at stake; when the security of our allies is in danger.
In these circumstances, we still need to ask tough questions about whether our actions are proportional and effective and just. International opinion matters, but America should never ask permission to protect our people, our homeland or our way of life. (Applause.)
On the other hand, when issues of global concern do not pose a direct threat to the United States, when such issues are at stake, when crises arise that stir our conscience or push the world in a more dangerous direction but do not directly threaten us, then the threshold for military action must be higher. In such circumstances, we should not go it alone. Instead, we must mobilize allies and partners to take collective action. We have to broaden our tools to include diplomacy and development, sanctions and isolation, appeals to international law, and, if just, necessary and effective, multilateral military action. In such circumstances, we have to work with others because collective action in these circumstances is more likely to succeed, more likely to be sustained, less likely to lead to costly mistakes.
This leads to my second point. For the foreseeable future, the most direct threat to America, at home and abroad, remains terrorism, but a strategy that involves invading every country that harbors terrorist networks is naive and unsustainable. I believe we must shift our counterterrorism strategy, drawing on the successes and shortcomings of our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, to more effectively partner with countries where terrorist networks seek a foothold.
And the need for a new strategy reflects the fact that today’s principal threat no longer comes from a centralized al-Qaida leadership. Instead it comes from decentralized al-Qaida affiliates and extremists, many with agendas focused in the countries where they operate. And this lessens the possibility of large-scale 9/11-style attacks against the homeland, but it heightens the danger of U.S. personnel overseas being attacked, as we saw in Benghazi. It heightens the danger to less defensible targets, as we saw in a shopping mall in Nairobi. So we have to develop a strategy that matches this diffuse threat, one that expands our reach without sending forces that stretch our military too thin or stir up local resentments.
We need partners to fight terrorists alongside us. And empowering partners is a large part of what we have done and what we are currently doing in Afghanistan. Together with our allies, America struck huge blows against al-Qaida core and pushed back against an insurgency that threatened to overrun the country.
But sustaining this progress depends on the ability of Afghans to do the job. And that’s why we trained hundreds of thousands of Afghan soldiers and police. Earlier this spring, those forces -- those Afghan forces -- secured an election in which Afghans voted for the first democratic transfer of power in their history. And at the end of this year, a new Afghan president will be in office, and America’s combat mission will be over.
Now -- (applause) -- that was an enormous achievement made because of America’s armed forces. But as we move to a train and advise mission in Afghanistan, our reduced presence there allows us to more effectively address emerging threats in the Middle East and North Africa. So earlier this year I asked my national security team to develop a plan for a network of partnerships from South Asia to the Sahel.
Today, as part of this effort, I am calling on Congress to support a new counterterrorism partnerships fund of up to $5 billion, which will allow us to train, build capacity and facilitate partner countries on the front lines. And these resources will give us flexibility to fulfill different missions, including training security forces in Yemen who’ve gone on the offensive against al-Qaida, supporting a multinational force to keep the peace in Somalia, working with European allies to train a functioning security force and border patrol in Libya and facilitating French operations in Mali.
A critical focus of this effort will be the ongoing crisis in Syria. As frustrating as it is, there are no easy answers there, no military solution that can eliminate the terrible suffering anytime soon. As president, I made a decision that we should not put American troops into the middle of this increasingly sectarian civil war, and I believe that is the right decision. But that does not mean we shouldn’t help the Syrian people stand up against a dictator who bombs and starves his own people. And in helping those who fight for the right of all Syrians to choose their own future, we are also pushing back against the growing number of extremists who find safe haven in the chaos.
So with the additional resources I’m announcing today, we will step up our efforts to support Syria’s neighbors -- Jordan and Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq -- as they contend with refugees and confront terrorists working across Syria’s borders. I will work with Congress to ramp up support for those in the Syrian opposition who offer the best alternative to terrorists and brutal dictators. And we will continue to coordinate with our friends and allies in Europe and the Arab World to push for a political resolution of this crisis and to make sure that those countries and not just the United States are contributing their fair share of support to the Syrian people.
Let me make one final point about our efforts against terrorism. The partnerships I’ve described do not eliminate the need to take direct action when necessary to protect ourselves. When we have actionable intelligence, that’s what we do, through capture operations, like the one that brought a terrorist involved in the plot to bomb our embassies in 1998 to face justice, or drone strikes, like those we’ve carried out in Yemen and Somalia.
There are times when those actions are necessary and we cannot hesitate to protect our people. But as I said last year, in taking direct action, we must uphold standards that reflect our values. That means taking strikes only when we face a continuing, imminent threat, and only where there is no certainty -- there is near certainty of no civilian casualties, for our actions should meet a simple test: We must not create more enemies than we take off the battlefield.
I also believe we must be more transparent about both the basis of our counterterrorism actions and the manner in which they are carried out. We have to be able to explain them publicly, whether it is drone strikes or training partners. I will increasingly turn to our military to take the lead and provide information to the public about our efforts. Our intelligence community has done outstanding work and we have to continue to protect sources and methods, but when we cannot explain our efforts clearly and publicly, we face terrorist propaganda and international suspicion, we erode legitimacy with our partners and our people, and we reduce accountability in our own government.
And this issue of transparency is directly relevant to a third aspect of American leadership, and that is our effort to strengthen and enforce international order.
After World War II, America had the wisdom to shape institutions to keep the peace and support human progress -- from NATO and the United Nations, to the World Bank and IMF. These institutions are not perfect, but they have been a force multiplier. They reducing the need for unilateral American action and increase restraint among other nations.
Now, just as the world has changed, this architecture must change as well. At the height of the Cold War, President Kennedy spoke about the need for a peace based upon a gradual evolution in human institutions. And evolving these international institutions to meet the demands of today must be a critical part of American leadership.
Now, there are lot of folks, a lot of skeptics who often downplay the effectiveness of multilateral action. For them, working through international institutions, like the U.N. or respecting international law, is a sign of weakness. I think they’re wrong. Let me offer just two examples why.
In Ukraine, Russia’s recent actions recall the days when Soviet tanks rolled into Eastern Europe. But this isn’t the Cold War. Our ability to shape world opinion helped isolate Russia right away. Because of American leadership, the world immediately condemned Russian actions, Europe and the G-7 joined with us to impose sanctions, NATO reinforced our commitment to Eastern European allies, the IMF is helping to stabilize Ukraine’s economy, OSCE monitors brought the eyes of the world to unstable parts of Ukraine.
And this mobilization of world opinion and international institutions served as a counterweight to Russian propaganda and Russian troops on the border and armed militias in ski masks.
This weekend, Ukrainians voted by the millions. Yesterday, I spoke to their next president. We don’t know how the situation will play out, and there will remain grave challenges ahead, but standing with our allies on behalf of international order, working with international institutions, has given a chance for the Ukrainian people to choose their future -- without us firing a shot.
Similarly, despite frequent warnings from the United States and Israel and others, the Iranian nuclear program steadily advanced for years. But at the beginning of my presidency, we built a coalition that imposed sanctions on the Iranian economy, while extending the hand of diplomacy to the Iranian government. And now we have an opportunity to resolve our differences peacefully. The odds of success are still long, and we reserve all options to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But for the first time in a decade, we have a very real chance of achieving a breakthrough agreement, one that is more effective and durable than what we could have achieved through the use of force. And throughout these negotiations, it has been our willingness to work through multilateral channels that kept the world on our side.
The point is, this is American leadership. This is American strength.
In each case, we built coalitions to respond to a specific challenge. Now we need to do more to strengthen the institutions that can anticipate and prevent problems from spreading.
For example, NATO is the strongest alliance the world has ever known but we’re now working with NATO allies to meet new missions both within Europe, where our eastern allies must be reassured, but also beyond Europe’s borders, where our NATO allies must pull their weight to counterterrorism and respond to failed states and train a network of partners.
Likewise, the U.N. provides a platform to keep the peace in states torn apart by conflict. Now, we need to make sure that those nations who provide peacekeepers have the training and equipment to actually keep the peace so that we can prevent the type of killing we’ve seen in Congo and Sudan. We are going to deepen our investment in countries that support these peacekeeping missions because having other nations maintain order in their own neighborhoods lessens the need for us to put our own troops in harm’s way. It’s a smart investment. It’s the right way to lead. (Applause.)
Keep in mind, not all international norms relate directly to armed conflict. We have a serious problem with cyberattacks, which is why we’re working to shape and enforce rules of the road to secure our networks and our citizens. In the Asia Pacific, we’re supporting Southeast Asian nations as they negotiate a code of conduct with China on maritime disputes in the South China Sea, and we’re working to resolve these disputes through international law.
That spirit of cooperation needs to energize the global effort to combat climate change, a creeping national security crisis that will help shape your time in uniform, as we are called on to respond to refugee flows and natural disasters, and conflicts over water and food, which is why, next year, I intend to make sure America is out front in putting together a global framework to preserve our planet.
You see, American influence is always stronger when we lead by example. We cannot exempt ourselves from the rules that apply to everyone else. We can’t call on others to make commitments to combat climate change if a whole lot of our political leaders deny that it is taking place. We can’t try to resolve problems in the South China Sea when we have refused to make sure that the Law of the Sea Convention is ratified by the United States Senate, despite the fact that our top military leaders say the treaty advances our national security. That’s not leadership. That’s retreat. That’s not strength; that’s weakness. It would be utterly foreign to leaders like Roosevelt and Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy.
I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being. But what makes us exceptional is not our ability to flout international norms and the rule of law; it is our willingness to affirm them through our actions.
(Applause.)
And that’s why I will continue to push to close Gitmo, because American values and legal traditions do not permit the indefinite detention of people beyond our borders. (Applause.) That’s why we’re putting in place new restrictions on how America collects and uses intelligence -- because we will have fewer partners and be less effective if a perception takes hold that we’re conducting surveillance against ordinary citizens. (Applause.) America does not simply stand for stability or the absence of conflict, no matter what the cost; we stand for the more lasting peace that can only come through opportunity and freedom for people everywhere -- which brings me to the fourth and final element of American leadership: our willingness to act on behalf of human dignity.
America’s support for democracy and human rights goes beyond idealism; it is a matter of national security. Democracies are our closest friends and are far less likely to go to war. Economies based on free and open markets perform better and become markets for our goods. Respect for human rights is an antidote to instability and the grievances that fuel violence and terror.
A new century has brought no end to tyranny. In capitals around the globe -- including, unfortunately, some of America’s partners -- there has been a crackdown on civil society. The cancer of corruption has enriched too many governments and their cronies and enraged citizens from remote villages to iconic squares.
And watching these trends, or the violent upheavals in parts of the Arab world, it’s easy to be cynical. But remember that because of America’s efforts -- because of American diplomacy and foreign assistance, as well as the sacrifices of our military -- more people live under elected governments today than at any time in human history. Technology is empowering civil society in ways that no iron fist can control. New breakthroughs are lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. And even the upheaval of the Arab world reflects the rejection of an authoritarian order that was anything but stable, and now offers the long-term prospect of more responsive and effective governance.
In countries like Egypt, we acknowledge that our relationship is anchored in security interests, from peace treaties to Israel to shared efforts against violent extremism. So we have not cut off cooperation with the new government, but we can and will persistently press for reforms that the Egyptian people have demanded.
And meanwhile, look at a country like Burma, which only a few years ago was an intractable dictatorship and hostile to the United States. Forty million people. Thanks to the enormous courage of the people in that country, and because we took the diplomatic initiative, American leadership, we have seen political reforms opening a once- closed society; a movement by Burmese leadership away from partnership with North Korea in favor of engagement with America and our allies.
We’re now supporting reform and badly needed national reconciliation through assistance and investment, through coaxing and, at times, public criticism. And progress there could be reversed, but if Burma succeeds we will have gained a new partner without having fired a shot -- American leadership.
In each of these cases, we should not expect change to happen overnight. That’s why we form alliances -- not only with governments, but also with ordinary people. For unlike other nations, America is not afraid of individual empowerment. We are strengthened by it. We’re strengthened by civil society. We’re strengthened by a free press. We’re strengthened by striving entrepreneurs and small businesses. We’re strengthened by educational exchange and opportunity for all people and women and girls. That’s who we are. That’s what we represent. (Applause.)
I saw that through a trip to Africa last year, where American assistance has made possible the prospect of an AIDS-free generation, while helping Africans care themselves for their sick. We’re helping farmers get their products to market to feed populations once endangered by famine. We aim to double access to electricity in sub- Saharan Africa so people are connected to the promise of the global economy. And all this creates new partners and shrinks the space for terrorism and conflict.
Now, tragically, no American security operation can eradicate the threat posed by an extremist group like Boko Haram -- the group that kidnapped those girls.
And that’s we have to focus not just on rescuing those girls right away, but also on supporting Nigerian efforts to educate its youth. This should be one of the hard-earned lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan, where our military became the strongest advocate for diplomacy and development. They understood that foreign assistance is not an afterthought -- something nice to do apart from our national defense, apart from our national security. It is part of what makes us strong.
Now, ultimately, global leadership requires us to see the world as it is, with all its danger and uncertainty. We have to be prepared for the worst, prepared for every contingency, but American leadership also requires us to see the world as it should be -- a place where the aspirations of individual human beings really matters, where hopes and not just fears govern; where the truths written into our founding documents can steer the currents of history in the direction of justice. And we cannot do that without you.
Class of 2014, you have taken this time to prepare on the quiet banks of the Hudson. You leave this place to carry forward a legacy that no other military in human history can claim. You do so as part of a team that extends beyond your units or even our Armed Forces, for in the course of your service, you will work as a team with diplomats and development experts.
You’ll get to know allies and train partners. And you will embody what it means for America to lead the world.
Next week I will go to Normandy to honor the men who stormed the beaches there. And while it’s hard for many Americans to comprehend the courage and sense of duty that guided those who boarded small ships, it’s familiar to you. At West Point, you define what it means to be a patriot.
Three years ago Gavin White graduated from this academy. He then served in Afghanistan. Like the soldiers who came before him, Gavin was in a foreign land, helping people he’d never met, putting himself in harm’s way for the sake of his community and his family and the folks back home. Gavin lost one of his legs in an attack. I met him last year at Walter Reed. He was wounded but just as determined as the day that he arrived here at West Point. And he developed a simple goal. Today his sister Morgan will graduate. And true to his promise, Gavin will be there to stand and exchange salutes with her. (Cheers, applause.)
We have been through a long season of war. We have faced trials that were not foreseen and we’ve seen divisions about how to move forward. But there is something in Gavin’s character, there is something in the American character, that will always triumph.
Leaving here, you carry with you the respect of your fellow citizens. You will represent a nation with history and hope on our side. Your charge now is not only to protect our country, but to do what is right and just. As your commander in chief, I know you will. May God bless you. May God bless our men and women in uniform. And may God bless the United States of America. (Cheers, applause.)