1994 SYLVANUS THAYER AWARD

GEORGE BUSH Speech

It is an honor to be at the shrine of “Duty, Honor, Country.” I Tonight, I know what Douglas MacArthur meant by saying, “In the evening of my memory, always I come back to West Point.” For me, we’ll call this the twilight of my life. I am proud to be an honorary member of the Long Gray Line.

I do not miss a lot of things about my past job. I don’t miss the rough and tumble of politics that I once loved. I do not miss dealing with the national press, something I used to enjoy—well, at least at times. But I do miss dealing with our great military. I really do.
For me it is very special to be back at the Point, knowing that—like the Lincoln Memorial, Statue of Liberty, or Pearl Harbor—this ground at West Point reflects what we believe ...and what we are.

Sylvanus Thayer was quite a person—soldier, educator, leader. The award presented in his name is bestowed by men and women who made a difference, not because they wished it but because they willed it. Like “The Father of this Academy,” they knew that while liberty was not accidental, the hard work of freedom could make it seem providential.

Tonight’s program lists the honor roll of Thayer recipients. Generals. Ambassadors. Two Presidents. Each knew that principle is worth fighting for, just as country is worth dying for. My generation was charged with winning a war— today’s, with preserving the peace. But our goal is the same: to achieve the lasting peace that stems from planning, patience, and sacrifice. From strength that is moral, economic, and military.

The day I graduated from school in June I942, our country had been at war for 6 months. Secretary of War Stimson gave our commencement speech. He spoke of how the American soldier should be: “brave without being brutal, self-confident without boasting, part of an irresistible might without losing faith in individual liberty.” I didn’t know it then, but he was describing the real peacemakers. To them—to all of you—I wish to dedicate this award.

I’ve been out of office about 2I months now. It’s been a time when I’ve certainly heard a lot. It’s also been a time when I’ve thought a lot—about our kids, their future; about challenges met and problems that remain. And I’ve come to a conclusion: I’m an optimist...provided that America leads.

I know there are many problems abroad: terrorism, proliferation of weapons, ancient ethnic and tribal rivalries resulting now in mortal combat. Yes, there are many problems, but look at the big picture. When I look back, I see the Fall of the Berlin Wall, the liberation of Eastern Europe, the crumbling of the Soviet Union. I see ancient enemies in the Middle East talking with one another, something no one would have dreamt of five years ago. I see an arms control deal I made with Boris Yeltsin and a world made safer through the erasing of ICBM missiles. I see a baby I was proud to father, a baby called “NAFTA,” coming of age under a new President. I see this and know it’s cause for optimism.

I also see that some times some of us lose sight of how far we’ve come. Of course, there are problems now, but recall the horrors seen by recent generations: the Soviets blockading Berlin; the Cuban Missile Crisis bringing us to the brink of nuclear destruction; tanks rolling into Prague; the death toll mounting in Viet Nam. Compare that with today: no more superpower confrontation, a democratic Germany reunified, democracy sweeping the Americas, political and economic reform in Eastern Europe. Our young must not let pessimism blind them to freedom’s light.

Think of the end of the arms race. The collapse of the Iron Curtain. The end of the Cold War. This horizon of a better world began to emerge as the United States and the Soviets ceased to be on opposite sides. One early sign of this was when Gorbachev stood with us against Saddam Hussein. We formed a huge international coalition to stand against aggression. Much of the world stood with us. As Vietnam had diminished it, Desert Storm restored our credibility. Incidentally, in Desert Storm the politicians got out of the way and let the military fight the war to win it. The USA led the way. And the key now is still American leadership, for we are the only superpower. That bequeaths to us a mandate of responsibility; it is our duty and destiny to lead.

I can’t help but reflect on the challenges our country has faced in this century and on the challenges it confronts as we near the 2Ist Century. Perhaps the greatest is to construct a role for America in the post-Cold War world that is both effective and politically sustainable. We have fought in three world wars in this century. World War I, World War II, and the Cold War. We were victorious in all three, but we have not always been as successful in “winning the peace.”

In the wake of World War I, we faced a conflict between Wilsonian idealism and traditional American isolationism. Isolationism prevailed. The U.S. withdrew from international engagement and, in doing so, squandered much of what we had won in the bloody trenches of France.

With courage and sacrifice, and at great cost in blood and treasure, we led the Allied forces to victory in World War II. We then faced a choice. On the one hand, returning to American isolationism; on the other, American leadership of the free world facing a growing Soviet menace. This time—recalling painfully learned lessons and prodded by a belligerent Soviet Union— American internationalism won out, and the seeds were planted for our victory in the Cold War.

We now find ourselves in yet another postwar period, again facing a choice between American isolationism and leadership. The choice we make will affect not only the kind of world in which we live but also American well-being and vitality.

Today, many want us to shed the burdens of international leadership we shouldered during the Cold War. They say: ’’We’ve done our part;” “turn inward;” “slash the defense budget;” “apply the so-called ‘peace dividend’ to our domestic needs and priorities.” A growing chorus urges that we let the outside world take care of itself while we take care of ourselves.

After the I992 election, I consider myself to be uniquely qualified to talk about the seductiveness of isolationism. None of the candidates were challenged during the campaign to articu¬late, much less defend, their vision of America’s role in the emerging post-Cold War world. None were asked about key foreign policy priorities or simply where they stood on key international issues. On the contrary, speaking to these issues became a sort of political liability.

But if the echoes of our post-World War I experience are undeniable, so are its lessons. Like the aftermath of the first World War, the post-Cold War world presents a chance to shape a new international order which better reflects our values and serves our interests. At the same time, it also turned out to be messier and more unstable than we had expected. We face not the end of history but, rather, the march of history. Not the end of ideology but the resurgence of intolerant nationalism, religious fanaticism, and bloody ethnic strife, fueled by the proliferation of deadly weapons and unrestrained terrorism.

It is true that this unstable world may not threaten us directly and immediately. Thus, the temptation to turn our backs on the world and concentrate on “domestic” problems. It is also true that history shows how following neo-isolationism serves neither our values nor our interests. We may be able to postpone a foreign policy day of reckoning, but we cannot avoid it.

The foreign policy I’m referring to is non-partisan and bipartisan. This century has taught Presidents of both parties that the choice between American international leadership and American isolationism is a false choice indeed.

We face only two real choices. We can either seize the W V chance presented by our victory in the Cold War to help shape a new world order, or we can squander that chance by failing to exercise leadership and accept whatever kind of world results. Much as we may wish otherwise, we do not have the option of cutting ourselves off from that world and insulating ourselves from its challenges and problems. And presidents find that, much as we might wish it otherwise, they neither are free to put foreign policy on the back burner nor insulate their domestic policy clout from their foreign policy performance.

These are lessons which each president knows or soon learns. That is, presidents have won elections and assumed office with varying mandates to be either mostly a “foreign policy president” or a “domestic policy president.” What is striking is that every president since World War II—and in many respects each president since World War I —ultimately finds himself needing to devote much time, attention, and political capital to foreign policy issues. What divides them is how well prepared they have been to fill this role, whether they welcomed or resisted it.

The same is likely to be true for post-Cold War presidents for the foreseeable future. As has been true for most of the 20th Century, U.S. leadership is and will remain indispenable to protect our interests and achieve a world order which reflects our values. Our leadership in the post-Cold War world will do much for freedom by being both noble and self-interested.

Let me be clear about what I do and do not mean by American leadership. I do not mean that America should become the world’s policeman. We should not attempt that, and would surely fail if we did. A better metaphor is to regard the U.S. as a “sheriff’ offering to organize and lead the posse against international wrongdoers, but not shouldering the burden alone or defending others’ interests for them.

Instead, we should focus on cases in which: first, important U.S. interest and values are at stake; second, U.S. participation—and especially leadership—could make the critical difference; and, yes, third, where there is a high probability of success. Success not only breeds success but also reduces the chances that U.S. commitments will be tested.

I do not mean that America must be responsible for righting every wrong or confronting each threat to world order. I do mean that if we don’t defend our interests and stand up for what we believe, no one else will. When and where we choose not to lead, no other country or institution is apt to magically appear.
In particular, it is naive to think that the U.S. can successfully evade hard choices simply by calling for the U.N.

Finally, we must accept the reality that, in exercising our post-Cold War world leadership, there is no substitute for credible, effective American power. Yes, military power. The world we face places a premium on military leaders who combine skill, professionalism, instinct, and sound judgment. General Marshall had it right. America’s are “the best damn kids in the world.” We look to you, the men and women of West Point, to give them sterling leadership. We must add a sound defense strategy, a defense budget sufficient to support it, and missions which serve important U.S. interests whose benefits clearly exceed the costs and which have realistic prospects for success.

The leadership I mean has common hallmarks. First, credibility: allies and adversaries must believe that we mean what we say and that we will finish what we start. It is impos¬sible to exaggerate not only the value of U.S. credibility but also its vulnerability to damage when our rhetoric outstrips our capability or our will. I am absolutely convinced that Saddam Hussein never felt we would use the force deployed against him. He watched the demonstrations in front of the White House. He read the editorials warning me against the use of force. He heard the dovish speeches on the Senate floor. “Give peace a chance;” “body bags;” “let sanctions work.” He remembered Viet Nam— where the politicians, not the military, called the shots in that war. In sum, he did not feel we would fight, but, if we did, he felt he could achieve some stand off in the desert. Those who went before you here and hundreds of thousands of other of the “best damn kids in the world” proved him wrong. We whipped him, and, in the process, we restored America’s credibility.

In addition to credible, we must be consistent. Nothing under¬mines our credibility more than to appear to be in a constant state of flux about our objectives, assurances, strategies, and threats.

The third hallmark of leadership is capability. The end of the Cold War has not produced some huge political and defense “peace dividend.” If we rush to spend what isn’t there, we will waste our ability to defnd our interests or exercise leadership.

Fourth, selectivity. We may be the world’s only superpower, but even we must learn how to be selective lest we maim our capacity for leadership.

Let me end where I began. America can again pick up the L baton of leadership and mold a troublesome world into one more compatible with our values. Or we can turn inward. History teaches us that if we do that we will surely, as night follows day, wake up to face a nasty surprise.

We must make the right choice. I pray that we have the wisdom, foresight, and imagination to make that choice America’s instrument of freedom. I believe that the American Revolution is a beginning, never a consummation. We can strike a blow for liberty by choosing to engage and to lead anew.
In the darkest days of the Civil War, Lincoln was asked whether God was on his side. He replied: “The question is not whether God is on our side, but whether we are on God’s side.” It is not too much to say—history records it—that for two centuries West Point has been on honor’s side.

For that I thank you, and for showing that ours is the land of the free because it is the home of the brave. Thank you for tonight. I am truly grateful for this award. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.