for that introduction.

To General Trainor, General Clarke,

the 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.

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 and applause)

Let me just say that nobody ever did that

for me when I was in school.

(laughter)

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)

This is a particularly useful time for America

to reflect on those who have 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.

(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 Qaeda'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 Qaeda's leadership on the border region

between Pakistan and Afghanistan has been decimated,

and Osama bin Laden is no more.

(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 passed 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 toward 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 and 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 wellbeing.

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 cities.

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, an abiding self-interest,

in making sure our children and our grandchildren grow

up in a world where schoolgirls

are not kidnapped and where individuals

are not 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 to 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 servicemembers 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 ever 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