 Hi everybody. I'm Ann-Marie Slaughter. I'm the very new president of the New America Foundation. I've been here a week and I've already come to appreciate the enormous work that goes into setting up an event like this one. So thanks to all of our teams. And since all of you are here, I think really to see Ambassador Rice, but since she has very kindly helped us gather you, I can't let you go without a plug for the Weekly Wonk, our new digital magazine. So sign up on your way out. It's a great pleasure to be able to introduce Ambassador Susan Rice, the National Security Advisor. She became the National Security Advisor in July, the first woman to hold that position in the Democratic Administration. She moved back to the White House after four very successful years as UN Ambassador. She was really on the front lines of what seemed like a steady series of national security and global security crises in North Korea, in Iran, in Libya, Sudan, Mali, and Syria. This is Ambassador Rice's second tour in government. She, during the Clinton administration, she was first the director for peacekeeping and international organizations of the National Security Council, then the senior director for African Affairs, then the assistant secretary of state for African Affairs. So I've written a lot about the arcs of successful careers. There's not a lot of arc to Ambassador Rice's career. It's sort of straight upward, but she did take a break between her two tours of service to be in the Brookings Administration. And she is also a mother who took her infant into her Senate hearings, a mentor, a friend, and a strong supporter of lots of foreign policy people in this town. I am personally very glad that Ambassador Rice is sitting next to the president at this particular moment. She has deep experience of many different types of conflict. She has been part of the complicated dance between force and diplomacy, deterrence, and the compulsion. She's a tough negotiator and a forceful advocate. She ensures that all sides are heard, and she also understands the law of unintended consequences. She has first-hand experience of assuming the responsibilities of leadership both at home and abroad. In many ways, I think Ambassador Rice represents the very best of a new America. She is going to speak to us today on why the United States must act in Syria, Ambassador Susan Rice. Good afternoon, everyone. Let me begin both by thanking Anne-Marie for your kind words and your invitation to be here today and apologize to all of you for the late start. If I've learned anything in my new job, it's that I'm not the master of my own schedule anymore. Anne-Marie, I want to thank you for your principled leadership both in government, where we work together so closely, and now at the New America Foundation. And I want to commend you and your colleagues here for the many contributions you make to our national security discourse, including on the challenge that brings us together today. In response to Bashar al-Assad's barbaric use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people, President Obama, after careful consideration, has decided that it is in the national security interest of the United States to conduct limited military strikes against the Syrian regime. President Obama has asked Congress for its support in this action because in a democracy, our policies are stronger, more effective, and more sustainable when they have the support of the American people and their elected leaders. Tomorrow evening, the President will address the nation and make his case for taking action. Today, I want to take this opportunity to explain why Syria's use of chemical weapons is a serious threat to our national security and why it is in our national interest to undertake limited military action to deter future use. There's no denying what happened on August 21st. Around 2.30 in the morning, while most of Damascus was still asleep, Assad's forces loaded warheads, filled with deadly chemicals, onto rockets, and launched them into suburbs controlled or contested by opposition forces. They unleashed hellish chaos and terror on a massive scale. Innocent civilians were jolted awake, choking on poison. Some never woke up at all. In the end, more than 1,400 were dead, more than 400 of them children. In recent days, we've been shocked by the videos from Ghouta and other neighborhoods near Damascus. As a parent, I cannot look at those pictures. Those little children laying on the ground, their eyes glassy, their bodies twitching, and not think of my own two kids. I can only imagine the agony of those parents in Damascus. Sarin is odorless and colorless, so victims may not even know they've been exposed until it's too late. Sarin targets the body's central nervous system, making every breath a struggle, and causing foaming at the nose and mouth, intense nausea, and uncontrollable convulsions. The death of any innocent in Syria or around the world is a tragedy, whether by bullet or landmine or poisonous gas. But chemical weapons are different. They are wholly indiscriminate. Gas plumes shift and spread without warning. The masses of people they can fell are immense. The torturous death they bring is unconscionable. Chemical weapons, like other weapons of mass destruction, kill on a scope and scale that is entirely different from conventional weapons. Opening the door to their use anywhere threatens U.S., the United States, and our personnel everywhere. There's no doubt about who is responsible for this attack. The Syrian regime possesses one of the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons in the world. Assad has been struggling to clear these very neighborhoods in Damascus and drive out the opposition, but his conventional arsenal was not working well enough or fast enough. Only the Syrian regime has the capacity to deliver chemical weapons on a scale to cause the devastation we saw in Damascus. The opposition does not. The rockets were fired from territory controlled by the regime. The rockets landed in territory controlled or contested by the opposition. And the intelligence we've gathered reveals senior officials planning the attack and then afterwards plotting to cover up the evidence by destroying the area with shelling. Of course, this is not the first time that Assad has used chemical weapons in this conflict. We assess that he's used them on a small scale multiple times since March. But August 21st was very different, whereas previous attacks each killed relatively few people. This one murdered well over a thousand in one fell swoop. Assad is lowering his threshold for use while increasing exponentially the lethality of his attacks. Assad's escalating use of chemical weapons threatens the national security of the United States and the likelihood that left unchecked. Assad will continue to use these weapons again and again takes the Syrian conflict to an entirely different level. By terrorizing civilians, creating even greater refugee flows, and raising the risk that deadly chemicals would spill across borders into neighboring Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq. And obviously the use of chemical weapons also directly threatens our closest ally in the region, Israel, where people once again have readied gas masks. Every time chemical weapons are moved, unloaded and used on the battlefield, it raises the likelihood that these weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists active in Syria, including Assad's ally Hezbollah and al-Qaeda affiliates. That prospect puts Americans at risk of chemical attacks targeted at our soldiers and diplomats in the region and even potentially our citizens at home. Equally every attack serves to unravel the long-established commitment of nations to renounce chemical weapons use. 189 countries representing 98 percent of the world's population are party to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits the development, acquisition or use of these weapons. The United States Senate approved that convention by an overwhelming bipartisan majority, binding America to the global consensus and affirming that we do not tolerate the use or possession of chemical weapons. So the Assad regime's attack is not only a direct affront to that norm, but also a threat to global security, including the security of the United States. Failing to respond to this outrage also threatens our national security. Failing to respond means more and more Syrians will die from Assad's poisonous stockpiles. Failing to respond makes our allies and partners in the region tempting targets of Assad's future attacks. Failing to respond increases the risk of violence and instability as citizens across the Middle East and North Africa continue to struggle for their universal rights. Failing to respond brings us closer to the day when terrorists might gain and use chemical weapons against Americans abroad and at home. Failing to respond damages the international principle reflected in two multilateral treaties and basic human decency that such weapons must never again be used anywhere in the world. Failing to respond to the use of chemical weapons risks opening the door to other weapons of mass destruction and emboldening the mad men who would use them. We cannot allow terrorists bent on destruction or a nuclear North Korea or an aspiring nuclear Iran to believe for one minute that we are shying away from our determination to back up our long-standing warnings. If we begin to erode the moral outrage of gassing children in their bed we open ourselves up to even more fearsome consequences. Moreover, failing to respond to this brazen attack could indicate that the United States is not prepared to use the full range of tools necessary to keep our nation secure. Any president, Republican or Democrat must have recourse to all elements of American power to design and implement our national security policy whether diplomatic, economic, or military. Rejecting the limited military action that President Obama strongly supports would raise questions around the world as to whether the United States is truly prepared to employ the full range of its power to defend our national interests. America's ability to rally coalitions and lead internationally could be undermined. Other global hot spots might flare up if belligerents believe the United States cannot be counted on to enforce the most basic and widely accepted international norms. Most disturbingly, it would send a perverse message to those who seek to use the world's worst weapons that you can use these weapons blatantly and just get away with it. Now, I know that many Americans are horrified by the images from Damascus and are concerned about the devastating broader consequences. But while they believe the world should act, they are not sure military action is the right tool at this time. Let me address this important argument. The reason President Obama decided to pursue limited strikes is that we and others have already exhausted a host of other measures aimed at changing Assad's calculus and his willingness to use chemical weapons. As the August 21st mass casualty attack makes clear these efforts have not succeeded. Since the beginning of the regime's brutal violence against its own people more than two and a half years ago we have consistently backed the United Nations diplomatic process and urged the parties to the negotiating table fully cognizant that a political solution is the best way to end the civil conflict and the Syrian regime's torment of its own people. We collaborated with our European allies to impose robust comprehensive sanctions to pressure the Assad regime. We supported the creation of the United Nations Commission of Inquiry to document atrocities and deter perpetrators in Syria. When Assad started using chemical weapons on a small scale multiple times we publicized compelling evidence of the regime's use, sharing it with Congress, the United Nations, and the American public. At our urging over months Russia and Iran repeatedly reinforced our warnings to Assad. For the last year we admonished Syria directly. We all sent the same message again and again. Don't do it. But they did it first on a small scale in a manner hard for the world to discern. In response we augmented our non-lethal assistance to the civilian opposition and expanded the nature and scope of our support to the Supreme Military Council. We pressed for more than six months to gain the United Nations investigation team unfettered access to Syria on the logic that the presence of such a team in the country might deter future attacks. Or if not at a minimum it could establish a shared evidentiary base that might finally compel Russia and Iran itself a victim of Sudan Hussein's monstrous chemical weapons attacks in 1987 and 1988 to pull the plug on a regime that gasses its own people. But then when UN investigators finally entered the country the regime launched the largest chemical weapons attack in a quarter century while the inspectors staged on the other side of town. For five days thereafter the regime stalled and shelled the affected areas to destroy critical evidence. So only after pursuing a wide range of non-military measures to prevent and halt chemical weapons use did President Obama conclude that a limited military strike is the right way to deter Assad from continuing to employ chemical weapons like any conventional weapon of war. The fact is President Obama has consistently demonstrated his commitment to multilateral diplomacy. He would much prefer the backing of the United Nations Security Council to uphold the international ban against the use of chemical weapons whether in the form of sanctions accountability or authorizing the use of force. But let's be realistic it's just not going to happen now. Believe me I know I was there for all of those UN debates and negotiations on Syria. I lived it and it was shameful. Three times the Security Council took up resolutions to condemn lesser violence by the Syrian regime. Three times we negotiated for weeks over the most watered down language imaginable. And three times Russia and China double vetoed almost meaningless resolutions. Similarly in the past two months Russia has blocked two resolutions condemning the use of chemical weapons that did not even ascribe blame to any party. Russia opposed two mere press statements expressing concern about their use. A week after the August 21st attack the United Kingdom presented a resolution that included a referral of war crimes in Syria to the international criminal court. But again the Russians opposed it as they have every form of accountability in Syria. For all these reasons the president has concluded that it is in our national security interest to conduct limited strikes against the Assad regime. I want to take this opportunity to address concerns now that even limited strikes could lead to even greater risk to the United States. So let me describe as plainly as I can what this action would be and just as importantly what it would not be. The president has been clear about our purpose. These would be limited strikes to deter the Syrian regime from using chemical weapons and to degrade their ability to do so again. What do we mean by limited? This would not be the United States launching another war. As the president has said repeatedly this would not be Iraq or Afghanistan. There will be no American boots on the ground period. Nor would it resemble Kosovo or Libya which were sustained air campaigns. This will not be an open-ended effort. As the president has said again repeatedly this action would be deliberately limited in both time and scope. Nor would this be new. The United States has engaged in limited strikes multiple times before. Recall President Reagan conducted airstrikes measured in hours against Libya in 1986. President Clinton conducted several days of cruise missile strikes against Iraq in 1998. No two military actions are identical. Each has its own costs and benefits. But these previous engagements are proof that the United States is fully capable of conducting limited defined and proportional military actions without getting enmeshed in a drawn-out conflict. What do we mean by deterring and degrading the regime's chemical weapons capabilities? Strikes could target a range of potential regime capacities to manage, deliver, or develop chemical weapons. Assad would discover that henceforth chemical weapons offer no battlefield advantage relative to their costs to use. And if Assad is so brazen as to use chemical weapons again he would know that we possess the ability to further degrade his capabilities. So in short this would not be an open-ended intervention in the Syrian civil war. These strikes would not aim to topple Assad or by themselves to affect regime change. Doing so would require a much larger and sustained military campaign putting American forces in the center of this civil conflict. And as President Obama has made clear it is neither wise nor necessary to do so. Like many I understand the public skepticism over using military force, particularly in this part of the world. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have left many Americans wary of further military action however limited. But what the president is proposing is fundamentally different. Unlike Iraq we're not betting on the existence of weapons of mass destruction. In Syria we have the undeniable proof that chemical weapons have already been unleashed with horrific results. The entire world can see the bodies. True there are always risks that accompany the use of military force. That is why we're taking a range of responsible measures to safeguard U.S. personnel and interests in the region as well as those of our allies and partners. In this event we do not assess that limited military strikes will unleash a spiral of unintended escalatory reactions in the region. Assad and his allies would be more than foolish to take on the forces of the United States or our allies. They know that President Obama throughout his presidency has amply demonstrated he will not hesitate to defend our nation, our citizens and our allies against direct threats to our security. The limited strikes that the president plans are necessary and appropriate which is why they have garnered support on both sides of the political aisle. House and senate leaders have declared their full support. Foreign policy experts from the left right and center have strongly endorsed such action. There aren't many non-partisan issues left in Washington. This is one or at least it should be. President Obama has asked Congress for their support as the elected representatives of the American people because he knows that investing the legislative branch in our policy choices helps ensure the maximum potency and sustainability of U.S. policy. This decision reflects the president's profound respect for the power of our democracy and his belief that the American people care to defend our most basic values and live up to our leadership in the world. And he knows like all Americans that we are strongest in the world when we speak clearly and stand together. At the same time the international community increasingly recognizes that this chemical weapons attack cannot be ignored. The Arab League foreign ministers have called for quote deterrent unnecessary measures. The organization of Islamic cooperation has said the regime's attack quote requires a decisive action. The NATO Council has met twice and Secretary General Rasmussen has affirmed that the allies agree on the need for a quote firm international response to avoid chemical weapons attacks in the future. Last Friday at the G20 in St. Petersburg there was unanimous agreement that chemical weapons had been used and that the international norm against their use must be upheld. We gained unequivocal public support for anticipated U.S. military action from partners in Europe Asia and the Middle East. Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States joined together in a strong statement declaring that the Assad regime is responsible for the attack and that quote those who perpetrated these crimes must be held accountable. In subsequent days Germany, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, Croatia, Estonia, Denmark, Romania and Qatar have signed on to that same statement and we expect more countries to add their support. Over the weekend the European Union High Representative Catherine Ashton issued a statement on behalf of the European Union labeling the August 21st attack a blatant violation of international law, a war crime and a crime against humanity and calling for a quote clear and strong response to ensure there is no impunity. Every day more and more nations are coming to the same conclusion. With all the attention given to the prospect of limited military strikes against Syrian regime targets, I want to underscore that such action is by no means the sum total of our policy towards Syria. On the contrary any such strikes would complement and reinforce our broader Syria strategy which we continue to pursue with allies and partners. Our overarching goal is to end the underlying conflict through a negotiated political transition in which Assad leaves power. The best way to achieve this is to keep the country and its institutions intact but all parties have to be willing to negotiate. So ours is a multifaceted strategy that puts pressure on the regime by isolating them and denying them resources, builds up the civilian and military opposition and secures diplomatic agreement with other key countries on the principles for transition while assisting those who need immediate relief. Thanks to the generosity of the American people we lead the humanitarian effort to save lives having provided the Syrian people more than one billion dollars worth of food, shelter, medical assistance, clean water and relief supplies. In fact some of the medical supplies used to treat the victims in Ghouta came from the United States. We continue to upgrade and increase our support for moderate vetted elements of the Syrian opposition in coordination with our international partners. We're building the capacity of local councils and helping civilian leaders to deliver essential services to those in need. We're helping the opposition better serve the needs of the Syrian people and we're expanding our assistance to the Supreme Military Council to strengthen its cohesion and its ability to defend against a repressive regime that kills civilians with abandon. Limited strikes that degrade Assad's capacity to use chemical weapons and thus to kill on a horrific scale with impunity can also shake his confidence in the viability of his relentless pursuit of a military solution. But ultimately the only sustainable way to end the suffering in Syria is through a negotiated political solution starting with the creation of a representative transitional authority that organizes elections and meets the needs of the Syrian people. A ceasefire and a political solution are also as a practical matter the only way to eliminate completely the Syrian chemical weapons threat. That's why we continue to increase pressure on the Assad regime to come to the table and negotiate. Notably during our discussions in St. Petersburg we sensed more urgency among key players to bring the parties to the negotiating table to jumpstart a political transition. The United States shares that sense of urgency and our intention is to renew our push for the UN sponsored Geneva process following any limited strikes. Just as limited strikes would complement our broader Syria policy so too would they reinforce our broader Middle East strategy. The United States will not take sides in sectarian struggles. We cannot and will not impose our will on the democratic development of other nations but as President Obama has made clear we can and we will stand up for certain principles in this pivotal region. We seek a Middle East where citizens can enjoy their universal rights. Live in dignity freedom and prosperity. Choose their own leaders and determine their own future free from fear violence and intimidation. Standing up to the Syrian regime's barbaric use of chemical weapons will affirm the most basic of principles that nations cannot unleash the most the world's most horrific weapons against innocent civilians especially children. And failing to stand up to these weapons could impel the Arab Spring towards an ever darker and more ominous turn. Rather we seek a Middle East where violent extremism terrorism and weapons of mass destruction do not threaten our allies partners and Americans. We seek the stability of a region that is vital to the energy that helps fuel our global economy. Countering Syria's use of chemical weapons shows that the United States will act to prevent some of the world's worst weapons in human history from becoming the new norm. It will demonstrate that America means what we say. It will make clear to Assad and his allies Hezbollah and Iran that they should not test the resolve of the United States of America. This has implications for our efforts to prevent a nuclear armed Iran. The policies the policy of the United States is clear. We will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. With allies and partners we continue to pursue a comprehensive strategy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon including diplomacy pressure and increasing sanctions. And as the president has said all options remain on the table. For our efforts to succeed however the leaders in Tehran must know that the United States means what we say. If we do not respond when Iran's close ally Syria uses weapons of mass destruction what message does that send to Iran? It risks suggesting that the international community cannot muster the will to act when necessary. It risks suggesting that serious threats to regional and global stability will be left to fester. It risks suggesting that egregious violations of international norms do not have consequences. Make no mistake the decision our nation makes in the coming days is being watched in capitals around the world especially in Tehran and Pyongyang. They are watching to see whether the United States will stand up for the world we're trying to build for our children and future generations. And if we fail to act they will be emboldened to push harder for the world that only they want. A future where more of the world's most dangerous weapons fall into the most dangerous hands. That is not the Middle East or the world that we seek. On the contrary we seek a Middle East where Israelis and Palestinians live in two states side by side in peace and security. Yet Assad's indiscriminate use of chemical weapons increases the possibility that they could someday be used against Israel and Palestinians. This only heightens the sense of vulnerability many in Israel feel about the turmoil that engulfs their nation and it might make it even harder for Israelis and Palestinians to take the risks for peace. The bottom line is that standing up to Syria's use of chemical weapons advances our broader goals in the Middle East. Conversely by allowing Assad to act with impunity everything else becomes even harder from countering terrorism to defending human rights from promoting peace to ensuring our energy security and preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In closing allow me to speak not just as the president's national security advisor but also as a parent a mother time and again we've seen what happens when the world fails to respond to horrific abuses on the scale we saw in Damascus. We've seen the even greater barbarism that can follow whether in Sebranica or Rwanda or Darfur. I've been to more than my share of war zones. Each is horrible and uniquely tragic but this most recent atrocity is particularly gut wrenching and unlike those tragedies of earlier decades we have the technology on our computers and our smartphones to see the full horrors unfold in real time. Children lined up in shrouds their voices forever silenced devastated mothers and fathers kissing their children goodbye some pulling the white sheet up tight around their beautiful faces as if tucking them in for the last time. There are no words of condemnation strong enough to capture such infinite cruelty but where words may fail us action must not. Every adult American every member of Congress should watch those videos for themselves see that suffering look at the eyes of those men and women those babies and dare to turn away and forsake them watch those videos and imagine the months and years ahead where an emboldened Assad and those who follow his example carry out more attacks forcing us to witness more and more such depravity. I believe you will come to the same conclusion as the president and so many countries around the world that this cannot stand not in the 21st century not given the values and principles that we as Americans hold dear as the one indispensable leader in the world the united states of america can and must take action carefully responsibly purposefully to reduce to reduce the chances of such an outrage happening again thank you very much. Let me thank Ambassador Rice for putting the case for action in international national and human context she's answered lots of questions that have been on the table nationally she does not have time to answer your questions here but I promise you we will debate every aspect of what she said and I frankly applaud the president for inviting us to have this debate openly and in the way that we have to have it as a nation thank you very much.