奥巴马在2014西点军校毕业典礼上的演讲

　　But the world is changing with accelerating speed. This presents opportunity, but also newdangers. We know all too well, after 9/11, just how technology and globalization has put poweronce reserved for states in the hands of individuals, raising the capacity of terrorists to doharm. Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, whileChina’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, risingmiddle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums. Andeven as developing nations embrace democracy and market economies, 24-hour news andsocial media makes it impossible to ignore the continuation of sectarian conflicts and failingstates 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, thequestion each of you will face, is not whether America will lead, but how we will lead -- not justto 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 onour security or economic wellbeing. Today, according to self-described realists, conflicts in Syriaor Ukraine or the Central African Republic are not ours to solve. And not surprisingly, aftercostly 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 conflictsat our own peril; that America’s willingness to apply force around the world is the ultimatesafeguard against chaos, and America’s failure to act in the face of Syrian brutality or Russianprovocations 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 speaksto the demands of this moment. It is absolutely true that in the 21st century Americanisolationism is not an option. We don’t have a choice to ignore what happens beyond ourborders. If nuclear materials are not secure, that poses a danger to American cities. As theSyrian civil war spills across borders, the capacity of battle-hardened extremist groups tocome after us only increases. Regional aggression that goes unchecked -- whether insouthern Ukraine or the South China Sea, or anywhere else in the world -- will ultimatelyimpact our allies and could draw in our military. We can’t ignore what happens beyond ourboundaries.

　　And beyond these narrow rationales, I believe we have a real stake, an abiding self-interest, inmaking sure our children and our grandchildren grow up in a world where schoolgirls are notkidnapped and where individuals are not slaughtered because of tribe or faith or political belief. Ibelieve that a world of greater freedom and tolerance is not only a moral imperative, it alsohelps to keep us safe.

　　But to say that we have an interest in pursuing peace and freedom beyond our borders is notto say that every problem has a military solution. Since World War II, some of our mostcostly mistakes came not from our restraint, but from our willingness to rush into militaryadventures without thinking through the consequences -- without building international supportand legitimacy for our action; without leveling with the American people about the sacrificesrequired. Tough talk often draws headlines, but war rarely conforms to slogans. As GeneralEisenhower, someone with hard-earned knowledge on this subject, said at this ceremony in1947: “War is mankind’s most tragic and stupid folly; to seek or advise its deliberateprovocation is a black crime against all men.”

　　Like Eisenhower, this generation of men and womenin uniform know all too well the wages of war, andthat includes those of you here at West Point. Fourof the servicemembers who stood in the audiencewhen I announced the surge of our forces inAfghanistan gave their lives in that effort. A lot morewere wounded. I believe America’s securitydemanded those deployments. But I am haunted bythose deaths. I am haunted by those wounds. And Iwould betray my duty to you and to the country we love if I ever sent you into harm’s waysimply because I saw a problem somewhere in the world that needed to be fixed, or because Iwas worried about critics who think military intervention is the only way for America to avoidlooking weak.

　　Here’s my bottom line: America must always lead on the world stage. If we don’t, no one elsewill. The military that you have joined is and always will be the backbone of that leadership. ButU.S. military action cannot be the only -- or even primary -- component of our leadership inevery instance. Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is anail. And because the costs associated with military action are so high, you should expectevery civilian leader -- and especially your Commander-in-Chief -- to be clear about how thatawesome power should be used.