[ applause ] i believe that we must never hesitate to act when necessary, including unilaterally when necessary, against any imminent threats to our people. But ive also insisted that it is unwise and unsustainable. To ask our military to build nations on the other side of the world or resolve their internal conflicts, particularly in places where our forces become a magnet for terrorists and insurgents. Instead, its been my conviction that even as we focus relentlessly on dismantling terrorist networks bilike al qaa and isil, we should ask allies to do their share in the fight, and we should strengthen local partners who can provide lasting security. And these convictions guided the policies we pursued both in iraq and afghanistan. When i took office, the United States was focused overwhelmingly on iraq, where nearly 150,000 american troops had spent years fighting an insurgency and helping to build a democratic government. Meanwhile, al qaeda had regrouped in the border region of afghanistan and pakistan, and was actively planning attacks against our homeland. So we brought nearly 150,000 troops home from iraq, consistent with the status of forces agreement negotiated by the previous administration, and we surged our efforts, along with our allies in afghanistan, which allowsed us to focus on dismantling al qaeda and give the Afghan Government the opportunity to succeed. And this focus on al qaeda, the most dangerous threat to the United States at the time, paid dividends. Today by any measure, core al qaeda, the organization that hit us on 9 11, is a shadow of its former self. [ applause ] plots plots directed from within afghanistan and pakistan have been consistently disrupted. Its leadership has been decimated. Dozens of terrorist leaders have been killed. Osama bin laden is dead. [ cheers and applause ] and importantly, we built a counterterrorism capability that can sustain this pressure against any terrorist network in south asia that might threaten the United States of america. There was because of the work of our Outstanding Service members. Moreover, that early decision to strengthen our efforts in afghanistan, allowed us to build the capacity of afghans to secure and defend their own country. So today, there are less than less than 10,000 american troops in afghanistan. Instead of being in the lead against the taliban, americans are now supporting 320,000 Afghan Security forces who are defending their communities, and supporting our counterterrorism efforts. Now, i dont want to paint too rosy a picture, the situation in afghanistan is still tough. War has been a part of life in afghanistan for over 30 years. And the United States cannot eliminate the taliban or end violence in that country. But what we can do is deny al qaeda a safe haven, and what we can do is support afghans who want a better future, which is why we have worked not only with their military, but weve backed a unity government in kabul, weve helped afghan girls go to school, we supported investments in health care and electricity and education. You have made a difference in afghanistan, and america is safer for it. [ applause ] of course the terrorist threat was never restricted to south asia or to afghanistan or pakistan, even as al qaedas been decimated in afghanistan and pakistan, the threat from terrorists, metastasized in other parts of the middle east and north africa. And most dangerously, we saw the emergence of isil, the successor to al qaeda in iraq. Which fights as both a terrorist network and an insurgency. Theres been a debate about isil thats focused on whether a continued u. S. Troop presence in iraq back in 2011 could have stopped the threat of isil from growing. And as a practical matter, this was not an option. By 2011, iraqis wanted our military presence to end, and they were unwilling to sign a new status of forces agreement to protect our troops from prosecution if they were trying to defend themselves in iraq. In addition, maintaining american troops in iraq at the time could not have reversed the forces that contributed to isils rise. The government in baghdad that pursued a sectarian agenda, a brutal dictator in syria who lost control of large parts of the country, social media that reached a global pool of recruits and a hallowing out of iraq Security Forces which were ultimately overrun in mosul in 2014. In fact, american troops, had they stayed there, would have lacked Legal Protections and faced a choice between remaining on bases, or being drawn back into a sectarian conflict against the will of iraqs elected government, or iraqs local populations. But circumstances changed. When isil made substantial gains, first in mosul and then in other parts of the country, then suddenly iraqis reached out once again for help. And in shaping our response, we refuse to repeat some of the mistakes of the 2003 invasion that have helped to give rise to the organization that became isil in the first place. We conditioned our help on the emergence of a new Iraqi Government and Prime Minister that was committed to national unity. And committed to working with us. We built an International Coalition of nearly 70 nations, including some of iraqs neighbors. We surged our intelligence resources so that we could better understand the enemy. And then we took the fight to isil in both iraq and syria, not with american battalions, but with local forces, backed by our equipment and our advisers and importantly, our special forces. In that campaign, we have now hit isil with over 16,000 air strikes. We have equipped and trained 10s of thousands of partners on the ground, and today the results are clear. Isil has lost more than half its territory. Isil has lost control of major population centers. Its morale is plummeting. Its recruitment is drying up. Its commanders and external plotters are being taken out, and local populations are turning against it. [ applause ] as we speak, isil faces an offensive on mosul from iraqi troops and coalition support. Thats the largest remaining city that it controls. Meanwhile, in syria, isils selfdeclared capital in raqqah is being squeezed. Weve attacked isils Financial Life line, destroying hundreds of millions of dollars of oil and cash reserves. The bottom line is, we are breaking the back of isil. We are taking away its safe havens, and we have and we [ applause ] and weve accomplished all this at a cost of 10 billion over two years, which is the same amount that we used to spend in one month at the height of the iraq war. So the campaign [ applause ] so the campaign against isil has been relentless, it has been sustainable, it has been multilateral, and it demonstrates a shift in how weve taken the fight to terrorists everywhere, from south asia to the se hel. Instead of pushing all the burden onto american ground troops, weve built a network of partners. In libya, where u. S. Air power has helped local militias dislodge a dangerous isil sell. In mali where u. S. Logistics and intelligence support helped our french allies roll back al qaeda branches there. In somalia, where u. S. Operations support an africanled union force and international peacekeepers. And in yemen, where years of targeted strikes have degraded al qaeda in the peninsula. These offensive efforts have buttressed a global effort to make it harder for terrorist networks to breach our defenses and spread their violent ideologies. Working with european allies, who suffered terrible attacks, weve strengthened intelligence sharing and cut in half the flow of foreign fighters to isil. Weve worked with our tech sector to support efforts to push back on terrorist messages on social media that motivate people to kill. A recent study shows that isils propaganda has been cut in half. Weve launched a Global Engagement center to counter voices that are promoting isils voices. This is your work. We should take great pride in the progress that weve made over the last eight years. Thats the bottom line. No Foreign Terrorist Organization has successfully planned and executed an attack on our homeland. [ applause ] and its not because they didnt try. Plots have been disrupted, terrorists have been taken off the battlefield. And weve done this even as we drew down nearly 180,000 troops in harms way in iraq and afghanistan. Today there are just 15,000. New partnerships have been built. Weve respected the rule of law. Weve enlisted our values in this fight. And all of this progress is due to the service of millions of americans like you. In intelligence and in law enforcement, in homeland security, in diplomacy, in the Armed Services of the United States of america, its thanks to you. [ applause ] thanks to you. Now, to say that weve made progress is not to say that the job is done. We know that a deadly threat persists. We know that in some form, this violent extremism will be with us for years to come. In too many parts of the world, especially in the middle east, theres been a breakdown of order thats been building for decades. And its unleashed forces that are going to take a generation to resolve. Longterm corruption has rotted too many nation states from within. Governance is collapsing. Sectarian conflicts rage. A change in climate is increasing competition for food and water. And false prophets are peddling a vision of islam that is ir rec an sileable with tolerance and modernity and basic science. And in fact, every one of these trends is at play inside of syria today. And what complicates the challenge even more is the fact that for all of our necessary focus on fighting terrorists overseas, the most deadly attacks on the homeland over the last eight years have not been carried out by operatives with sophisticated networks or equipment, directed from abroad. Theyve been carried out by homegrown and largely isolated individuals who were radicalized online. These deranged killers cant inflict the sort of mass casualties that we saw on 9 11, but the pain of those who lost loved ones in boston, in san bernardino, in ft. Hood and orlando, that pain continues to this day. And in some cases, it has stirred fear in our populations. And threatens to change how we think about ourselves and our lives. So while weve made it much more difficult, you have made it much more difficult to carry out an attack approaching the scale of 9 11, the threat will endure. We will not achieve the kind of clearly defined victory comparable to those that we won in previous wars against nations. We wont have a scene of the emperor of japan and Douglas Mcarthur in a surrender. And the reason we wont have that is because Technology Makes it impossible to completely shield impressionable minds from violent ideologies. And somebody whos trying to kill and willing to be killed is dangerous, particularly when we live in a country where its very easy for that person to buy a very powerful weapon. So rather than offer false promises, that we can eliminate terrorism by dropping more bombs, or deploying more and more troops, or fencing ourselves off from the rest of the world, we have to take a long view of the terrorist threat. And we have to pursue a smart strategy that can be sustained. The time remaining, let me just suggest what i think should guide this approach. First of all, a sustainable counterterrorism strategy depends on keeping the threat in perspective. The terrorist threat is real and it is dangerous. But these terrorists want to cast themselves as the van gard of a new world order. They are not. They are thugs, and they are murderers and they should be treated that way. [ applause ] now fascism threatened to overrun the entire world, and we had to wage total war in response. Communism threatened not only to overturn a world order, but threatened nuclear holocaust, so we had to build arm amts to contain it. They can kill people, but they dont pose an existential threat to our nation. And we must not make the mistake of elevating them as if they do. That does their job for them. It makes them more important and helps them with recruitment. A second and related point is that we cannot follow the path of previous great powers who sometimes defeated themselves through overreach. By protecting our homeland while drawing down the number of troops serving in harms way overseas, we helped save resources, but more importantly, we saved lives. I can tell you, during the course of my eight years, that i have never shied away from sending men and women into danger where necessary. Its always the hardest decision i make, but its one that i have made where the security of the American People is at stake. And ive seen the cost. Ive held the hands of our Wounded Warriors at walter reed. Ive met the caskets of the fallen at dover. And thats why i make no apologies for only sending our troops into harms way when there is a clear mission, that is achievable and when it is absolutely necessary. Number three, we need the wisdom to see that upholding our values and adhering to the rule of law is not a weakness in the longterm, it is our greatest strength. [ applause ] the whole objective of these terrorists is to scare us into changing the nature of who we are and our democracy. And the fact is, people and nations do not make good decisions when they are driven by fear. These terrorists did never directly destroy our way of life. But we can do it for them, if we lose track of who we are and the values that this nation was founded upon. [ applause ] and i always remind myself that as commander in chief, i must protect our people, but i also swore an oath to defend our constitution. And over these last eight years, weve demonstrated that staying true to our traditions as a nation of laws, advances our security as well as our values. We prohibited torture everywhere, at all times, and that includes tactics like water boarding, and at no time has anybody who has worked with me told me that doing so has cost us good intelligence. [ applause ] when we do capture terrorists, despite all the political rhetoric about the need to strip terrorists of their rights, our interrogation teams have obtained valuable information from terrorists without resorting to torture, without operating outside the law. Our article 3 courts have delivered justice faster than military trials. And our prisons have proven more than capable of holding the most dangerous terrorists. Consider the terrorists who have been captured, lawfully interrogated and prosecuted in civilian courts. Faisal shahzad, who tried to set off a car bomb in times square. Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon bomber. Farouk, the underwear bomber. American judges and juries have determined none of these people will know freedom again, but we did it lawfully, and the wheels of justice are turning for others right now, including for the accused leader of the benghazi attacks. We can get these terrorists and stay true to who we are. And in fact our success in dealing with terrorists through our Justice System reinforces why it is past time to shut down the detention facility at guantanamo. [ applause ] this is not just my opinion, its the opinion ofany military leaders. During my administration, we have responsibly transferred over 175 detainees to foreign governments with safe guards to reduce the risk of them returning to the battlefield. Weve cut the population at git mo from 242, to 159. From being transferred to prisons in the United States upon ev. Even though as we speak, we house dangerous terrorists in prisons across ourountry. Even though our allies often times will not turn over a terrorist if they think that terrorist could end up in gitmo. Even though groups like isis use gitmo in their propaganda. So were wasting hundreds of millions of dollars to keep fewer than 60 people in a detention facility in cuba. Thats not strength. Until Congress Changes course, it will be judged harshly by history, and i will continue to do all that i can to remove this blot on our national honor. [ applause ] number four, we have to fight terrorists in a way that does not create more terrorists. For example, in a dangerous world, terrorists seek out places where its often impossible to capture them, or to count on local governments to do so. And that means the best option for us to get those terrorists becos a targeted strike. So we have taken action under my command, including with drones, to remove terrorists from the battlefield, which protects our troops and has prevented real threats to the American People. [ applause ] under rules that i put in place and that i made public before any strike is taken outside of a war zone, there must be near certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured. And while nothing is certain in any strike, and we have acknowledged that there are tragic instances where innocents have been killed by our strikes, this is the highest standard that we can set. Nevertheless, we still have critics who suggest that these strikes are wrong. And i say to them, you have to weigh the alternatives. Drone strikes allow us to deny terrorists a safe haven without air strikes, which are less precise, or invasions that are much more likely to kill innocent civilians, as well as American Service members. So the actions that weve taken have saved lives at home and abroad. But the point is that we do have to be careful to make sure that when we take actions, were not alienating local populations, because that will serve as recruitment for new terrorists. Number five, transparency and accountability serve our National Security, not just in times of peace, but more importantly in times of conflict. And thats why weve made Public Information about which terrorist organizations were fighting and why were fighting them. Weve released assessments of noncombatants killed in our operations. Taken responsibility when mistakes are made. We declassified information about interrogation methods that were wrong. So we learned from past mistakes. And yesterday i directed our government for the first time to release a full description of the legal and policy frame works that guide our military operations around the world. This Public Information allows