08/09/2011 Question Time

Ten years ago nearly 3,000 people were killed in one morning in a

terrorist attack in the United States and we're still living with

the consequences. Tonight with our audience in this special programme

we debate the aftermath of 9/11. With me here at the headquarters of

the London Scottish Regiment in London, the Defence Secretary, Liam

Fox. Labour's former Foreign Secretary, David Miliband. Richard

Perle at the heart of defence planning under President Bush, a

staunch advocate of ousting Saddam Hussein. Bonnie Greer, playwright,

born in Chicago and lives in the United Kingdom and the author and

Thank you very much. Well, let's have our first question. It is from

Kieran Falconer, please. What should America have done after

9/11? What should America have done after 9/11?

Liam Fox. It should have really he responded I think in much the same

way as the Al-Qaeda threat coming from Afghanistan. It is quite

difficult even ten years on to remember the shock that 9/11 caused.

I was actually in New York just a few days later and I can remember

very vividly how that felt and the shock that Americans felt that an

attack happened on their own soil and then of course, there was the

issue that the Taliban Government in Kabul would not hand over those

that were responsible for the planning and the execution of the

9/11 attack and then I think what happened after that was inevitable

that the international community as they did would decide to overthrow

the Government in Kabul and to ensure that it did not become again

a breeding ground for that sort of terrorist attack.

And Iraq was inevitable too? think Iraq was different. I think

that the arguments about Afghanistan were much more clear

cut. I think the reason that you ended up with 49 countries taking

part in ISAF which we have in Afghanistan.

Bonnie Greer. What should America have done? I made a film for the

BBC about two months after 9/11. We went back to my hometown of Chicago

and we went to New York City. I live not far from Ground Zero. At

that time the people I spoke to were, of course, understandably

upset, angry. A lot of people wanted revenge, but the majority of

people really wanted to understand what the United States was in the

world. They didn't understand what the United States could represent

or be to people in the world. That this kind of thing could have

happened. So this group of people that I spoke to were people who

wanted to ask questions. They weren't thinking about attacks.

They weren't thinking about going after anybody. They just wanted to

understand. But that is a reaction you got in

Chicago. But what do you think the American Government should have

done? What it did or something different? The American Government,

absolutely the American Government should have actually dealt with

this in a way, as a homicide as far as I'm concerned first of all. The

problem of New York for instance, New York I don't think even got an

investigation about this for a long, long time. There should have been

more deliberation than there was and it didn't happen.

OK, Richard Perle, was it inevitable American acted as it

did? Yes, I think we did pretty much what needed to be done in the

aftermath. We asked the Taliban Government to turn Osama Bin Laden

over, they refused. We waited a full 30 days before taking any

military action. Then we worked with the Northern Alliance, which

was the anti-Taliban group and the Taliban were quickly dispatched.

The Taliban regime had become a haven for Osama Bin Laden and other

terrorists. They had sanctuary, they had shelter, they had

facilities with which to organise and to recruit and one result of

that was 3,000 people killed in New York, including more Britons than

died on 7/7 in the terror attack here so I think what we did was

what needed to be done. OK. Tariq Ali. In my opinion and I

argued this at the time, what took place was a crime carried out by a

group of terrorists and that what the United States should have done

was to have searched and found these terrorists and tried them in

an open court of law as happens when other terrorists carry out

attacks on other country, not forgetting the IRA attacks on

Britain. The British Government, not being a large impearl country -

- imperial country did not go and bomb places in the the public. I

think that way of handling it would have been better. Instead what we

have got is a ten year long war and the group of people people you were

searching left that country two weeks before American troops

arrived in Afghanistan and fled as was expected.

APPLAUSE If this was a crime, if this was a

homicide, what does going into Iraq have to do with catching the

killer? Well, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. I think 9/11 was a

day of shock, but also of incredible international unity. I

would like to have seen the American Government lead a drive in

three areas, first of all, I think there was a possibility to rally a

new kind of coalition between the West and the Muslim world. Secondly,

I think there needed to be a regional solution in South Asia.

Anyone who knows anything about Afghanistan knows its problems can

been separated from those of Pakistan. Thirdly, it needed to

dedicate itself to use that opportunity to build the kind of

rules based international order. One other thing David which is

really important. The words, "War on terror" should never have been

uttered. That was a terrible statement.

APPLAUSE Why? Because they unified a series

of desperate grievances and under Osama Bin Laden's banner. It

glorified the people who did 9/11 as warriors and it allowed people

to argue that it was the West versus the Muslim world and that's

why it was very dangerous. APPLAUSE

I don't understand how it can be said that the best way to deal with

violence is to enforce greater violence. I mean that is not a

constructive way to deal with terrorism.

Could I go back to my homicide point? I am talking about homicide

in the early days. My brother, who was in the services at the time, on

the day of 9/11, thought that a homicide had been committed

actually in revenge for the execution of Tim McVeigh three

months before this had happened. People had all kinds of theories

and they thought homicide at first. Not war. And that was changed.

Richard Perle, David Miliband said Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Is that your view too? Yes. Iraq would have happened without

9/11? No, Iraq would not have happened under a variety of

circumstances. 9/11 made American officials responsible for the

safety of our citizens. Acutely conscious of the danger that

another attack with weapons of mass destruction could dwarf 9/11 in

terms of the casualties and so emead immediately following 9/11

they did what, I think, was a logical thing to do. They made a

list of all the places of where weapons of mass destruction might

be obtained and Iraq, of course, was on that list. It turns out that

the intelligence was wrong. We know that now, but at the time, if you

were the President and you asked yourself, "what can I do to prevent

an attack with weapons of mass destruction?" You would have gone

after the places where weapons of mass destruction could be found and

as it happens Saddam Hussein was in violation of so many United Nations

resolutions. Someone is talking, well in fact David, you were

talking about a rule-based system. How many resolutions did the UN

pass condemning Saddam Hussein? So that's your rule-based system. It

just didn't work. Well, I think that the...

APPLAUSE It is quite staggering that in this

day and age someone can still bring up weapons of mass destruction.

APPLAUSE He was saying at the the time, not

now. But even at the time there were many people within the

American intelligence agencies arguing that there were no weapons

of mass destruction. In the British intelligence like wise. People were

arguing there were no weapons of mass destruction and they were told

to find the evidence so that this war could be fought and it was a

criminal war, a breach of sovereignty, up to a million people

have died. The Iraqi, this Iraqi Government says they have five

million orphans and no one cares. We talk about casualties, but we

don't care about the number of Iraqis.

APPLAUSE A criminal war is what Tariq Ali

says. To go back to the point about violence. It would be nice if we

could resolve any conflicts in the world by conversation, but I am

afraid there are elements of violent fanaticism in the world

that we would rather were not there, but they are and they have to be

dealt with. That's unfortunate, but it is true. When you opened, David,

you mentioned the point, that was the beginning of a ten year process.

I think we get to the end of this ten years and at the beginning it

was being portrayed in parts of the Muslim world that the legitimate

aspirations of many of the world's Muslims would be achieved through

violence and Jihad and we've got to the end of the decade and we see

the legitimate as per rations are achieved in tie here square.

In Afghanistan it was a clear and legal response as to what happened

on 9/11 article 5 of NATO was in vote because the United States had

been attacked. I think that in Iraq we have to remember that at the

time as Tony Blair had said in the House of Commons and I remember

watching with great interest in the House that night that it wasn't

just that there were accusations of weapons of mass destruction, but

Saddam Hussein had refused to allow international inspectors in and had

refused to allow that to happen. It turned out not to be correct and a

lot of people will feel angry and disappointed about it, but that's

how it seemed at the time. Man in the second row.

Irregardless of the fact of weapons of mass destruction, Saddam

violated 19 different resolutions of the Security Council. How will

the United Nations remain relevant if it doesn't stand up to the

resolutions? Bonnie Greer. The reason the United

Nations exists is because it is a community of people who have

decided to come together to hold the peace and to promote that in

the world. The United States of America's job was to make sure that

coalition of that organisation were able to do that together. The

United States didn't do that. It moved and it shouldn't have.

APPLAUSE Bonnie, I really think that is

unfair. You know the United Nations came together in theory to act

against threats to the peace. The Soviet Union was a member of the

Security Council and had a veto. The Soviet Union was not interested

in stopping some threats to the peace so you could never get

unanimity with the one exception on the occasion with which... I didn't

say unanimity. The UN system you have tofu namity.

Richard Perle, you said that the war was illegal, that it was

outside international law, but the action had to be taken, it didn't

I know the quotation you're referring to. It's not accurate.

What's accurate? The lawyers argued about whether an additional United

Nations' resolution was necessary or not. Some believed it was not. I

share those - the view that it was not necessary to have yet another

resolution, and Tony Blair, who I think led this country

magnificently in that period - you should be grateful for his

leadership... We're not. BOOING

I think Tony Blair wanted another UN resolution. I think that was a

terrible tactical mistake because we really didn't need it. You, sir.

We talk about weapons of mass destruction, but who armed Saddam

with the weapons of mass destruction? It was the United

States. No, no. OK. And the gentleman up there at the back. I

come to you in the middle, yes. think Richard Perle is

contradicting himself. On one hand he's talking about a measured

approach, the fact that we made this list of countries that had

WMDs. Wasn't this about one thing and one thing only - regime change?

First of all, it would not be the first time I contradicted myself,

but in this case it was not about regime change. I was in favour of

changing the regime because Saddam Hussein was a brutal masochistic

tyrant who murdered tens of thousands - actually hundreds of

thousands of people - who had every intention of handing the regime

over to his sons who, arguably, were even worse, but we would not

have gone into Iraq if Saddam had presented convincing evidence that

he did not possess weapons of mass destruction, and he failed to do

that. You would have liked to have had him overthrown regardless - you

have been arguing since the late 'niemts. Yes, but what I'd always

argued is that we should do it by political means by working with his

internal opponents. We can't do that, so we had no option. But Paul

Wolfowitz said, who you know well, said when asked about weapons of

mass destruction said this was the only thing we could all agree on,

so it was convenient as an excuse. The woman in the centre. We go on

to another question. Would the panel agree with 9/11 that America

used what happened to hype the capabilities and the intelligence

of Al-Qaeda, as Tariq mentioned earlier, with the IRA, in

comparison, there wasn't this - as much hype and everything with the

IRA - sorry. I can't even speak. You mean Al-Qaeda wasn't the kind

of threat that it was made out to be? Exactly. Do you agree with

that? I think the lady is making an important point. You agree with

her? I don't think it was hype, but I think it's important to recognise

now that 9/11 looks like the high point of Al-Qaeda. It didn't look

like that at the time, though, and remember, 11 airliners could have

been blown up over the Atlantic in 2006. They were foiled by very

careful intelligence, so even to the present day there are people

trying to commit murder and mayhem on our streets and on the streets

throughout the Middle East, however - and in parts of Africa as well,

so I don't think it was hype. However, in retrospect, I think you

can now see - and hindsight is not something you're blessed with in

politics - but you can see as a matter of analysis that certainly

after the bombing of the Jordan wedding in 2005 when 55 Muslims

were killed by Al-Qaeda, but actually even further back than

that - the high point was probably 2001. One other point, though, it's

not the IRA. This is a bigger and more different threat than the IRA.

We had experience of the IRA, but they did not propagate a global

vision. They did not have the kind of global reach and the theological

basis that Al-Qaeda tried to engage with, and that's one further reason

why - be wary of the words like "hype". This was different. It was

dangerous. It had shown its potential in the '90s in a series

of incidents, so those who were on red alert in those days were

absolutely right to be on red alert. APPLAUSE

I thought we'd come to it later, perhaps, but it's clearly relevant

from what you have said. You talk about the 11 planes whose bombing

was prevented by information, which it's generally accepted was

obtained by torture. No. Well, by water boarding techniques. No, I'm

sorry. That - that is just not right, David. Look, there are a

million people watching this programme. Dick Cheney says that in

his book which was published today. Look, the British - unusually, the

British Government - not when I was in office, but when President Bush

said this at a book launch of his in I think Texas - the British

Government put out a statement saying that this was not the case,

and it is an absolutely fundamental principle... How do you know it

wasn't the case? You say the British Government was not involved

in torture. Correct. Fair enough, but information reaches you. You

don't know how... What I would say to you is this case has been made

by the hard right of American politics and the hard right of the

administration, and what they have said is you, in Europe, in Britain,

you'll never countence in water boarding in Britain. I think it's

right that it's abhorrent to legally torture people. They will

say, well, we got the information from Sheik Mohammed with regard to

the 2006 bombings. Right all sorts of information has come out from

all sort of sources, it's not the case that that came out as a result

of torture. Where there is reliable evidence bearing on threats, it

would not be right to reject it out of hand, however it had been

obtained? The classic ticking time bomb issue is, if you find out

there is a bomb on the tube, do you act on it or not? It's different as

far as I am concerned in national and international law never mind

morally reprehensible. One other point because I thought about this

at all - John McCain is not on my point of the political spectrum but

he said, when you start talking about torturing people, you're

actually harming us more than them, and you're putting our values and

what we stand for in grave danger, and I agree with him.

APPLAUSE We're talking tonight about the

consequences of 9/11, and clearly this issue is one of them. I'll go

to the man up there, then Dr Liam Fox and Tariq Ali. Yes, you, sir.

Yes, we have heard a lot about what Al-Qaeda have done and what the

threat is. But what we haven't heard about is why have they done

it? What are their grievances? Can we address those grievances?

Wouldn't that be the better way forward? Tariq Ali. The grievances

- look, all terrorist groups, whatever their origins, whether

they're 19th centuryar anarchists, whether they're 20th century glups

Germany and Italy in the '60s have their grievances. That is not a

problem, and this group did. Its grievances, if you read Bin Laden's

texts are very clear - that my world is occupied by your countries

and their troops. The question is many Arab people have these

grievances, but this is not the way they go and fight them. There are

other ways of doing it. It is a fact the grievences are there. It

is not even the case these grievances are recognised because

people talk about the United Nations passing resolutions against

Saddam Hussein. The United Nations has passed resolutions against

other countries as well, including Israel, including the right of the

Palestinians to self-determination. They have passed resolutions on

India and Kashmir. Which resolutions are taken up is

actually determined by the United States, which is why I say that

this form of selective vigilantism doesn't work. It ends up badly, as

we saw in Iraq, and as we're now watching in Afghanistan and

probably Libya too. Can I bring you back to the torture issue, Dr Liam

Fox? First of all, I very much agree with David on this question -

what we do says who we are, and we have to apply our own ethics and

values, but on this question of grievances, let's be very careful

about moral equivalents here. What sort of grievance and what sort of

response to any grievance is it to fly aeroplanes into heavily

populated buildings? Ing I agree. APPLAUSE

And as for this idea that the response to what was mass murder

was some sort of American hype, this was one area where the United

Nations did act together, where the United Nations came together and

sanctioned the creation of ISAF, where we have 49 countries still

there today, so let's not be misled by the rewriting of that particular

history. This was a savage, vicious murder by people who had absolutely

no reason to do so. Right. Hold on. What do we do now? It's ten years

of the war in Afghanistan as well. This is what we'll move on, to but

before I do take another question, just to say, if you're on Twitter

I would like to take a question from Rizwana Ahmed, please. I would

like to ask, what evidence is there that engaging in costly wars in

Iraq and Afghanistan has actually ensured the safety of the average

British person? Have the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ensured the

safety of the ordinary British citizen? Bonnie Greer? Well, that

was what we were sold when the Prime Minister of the day, Tony

Blair, stood up and said that we were in eminent danger from weapons

of mass destruction. I remember that vividly, and one million

people came out on the streets of this country and said, "Not in my

name", and they were completely ignored by the Government of the

day. APPLAUSE

So that is a valid question, and the question on the floor tonight

is, what is the - what is the aftermath of what happened? And we

mustn't get away from that, because what you're asking is a very

important question. What does it have to do with me? Does it make my

life safer on the street? And I believe that the former head of MI5

has said in her lectures that in fact - she said before we went in

that we wouldn't actually endanger the homeland - the United Kingdom -

if we took this action. She said that, and she's saying it and

saying it and saying it. Did you - David Miliband did, you get that

information from MI5 which Baroness bullingham Manor has made public?

Not in that way. She said the war was likely to increase the domestic

threat. No, I was the junior Education Minister at the time, so

she certainly didn't say it to me. The golden rule for this is let's

not put Iraq and Afghanistan in the same sentence. Tariq is raising a

very important point, ten years in Afghanistan. My own view is it was

essential to oppose the Taliban from Kabul. I think there was a

tragic mistake in late 2002 when in the south-east of Afghanistan those

who were many Taliban supporters had a choice - could they come into

the political system, or would they be driven out? I am afraid the new

constitution Afghanistan adopted led to them being driven out. The

peace conference of 2002 was a conference only for the victors.

That was a terrible error. They went into Pakistan. They regrouped.

In 2005, they were back attacking our troops in Helmand province, so

the Afghan story is a story in my view that should have been done by

the politics, not the military. In a counter-insurgency it's 20%

military, 80% politics. Iraq is a different story. We can come to

that and debate it. But there is a pressing issue today which is, how

is the Afghan conflict brought too a close? Hang on a second. We must

chair this. The question you were actually asked is has what you have

done in Iraq and Afghanistan in the past ten years, and I quote, "done

anything to ensure the safety of the ordinary British citizen?"

There is no question Al-Qaeda central, as it's called, is much

weaker than ten years ago. That is a fact. Al-Qaeda's core ability to

project violence around the world is less than it was ten years ago.

It is partly because of military operations, but also partly because

millions of Muslims around the world have embraced global reform

not Jihad as a way to express their interests. As a people I think

we're safe only at the cost of our soldiers that have been sent in to

do the job. I think the fact they have done a magnificent job doesn't

hide the fact they were sent in underequipped. We have to thank

them for the job the politicians talk about. I thank the soldiers

for doing it. We're safe because of them. Dr Liam Fox - the point that

they were sent in underequipped, and then do you believe that...

Body armours - PROBLEM WITH SOUND

And was what has happened - what they have done - made this place

safe? Has it made - not just us, but the world, safer? Yes, it has.

I believe point was made at the outset 2001 was in fact the high

point of Al-Qaeda. There is a reason why. That was the action we

took as a consequence. It wasn't just what happened in Manhattan on

9/11. Remember the Madrid train bombings. Remember what happened to

the USS Cole and the bombings in Kenya? All of these were a pattern.

Al-Qaeda was going to launch more attacks on the West. More innocent

people were going to die. More 9/11s were going to happen. It was

the duty of the Government at the time - it was the duty of the

United Nations to act to protect the people from what was the wider

threat. In terms of what happened in Afghanistan, you could have a

very long debate about it, but I think that you've - roughly, it

falls into three parts - 2001-2006, what happened between 2006 and 2009

and what happened after that, and I think for a long period of that we

were underequipped. There was an insufficient troop density on the

ground, and we miscalculated as a Western community through ISAF I

think exactly how creative and how resilient some of the elements of

the Taliban could be, and I think that we paid a price in the later

years for the military You, sir.

Three things. One is about the UN resolutions. Is it on record to be

the worst, the worst country to defy UN resolutions. If there is

any record to disprove that, please let me know. Secondly, the issue

was about Afghanistan, but the international community ended up

going down to Iraq first before going to Afghanistan. We remember

the Tora Bora issue involving Osama Bin Laden, if they placed more

boots on the ground in Afghanistan, by now we would not be talking

about the the Taliban at all. We would have got rid of them and

everything, but we forgot about them and went to Iraq. Why? Because

there was something personal about Iraq and the Republicans.

Can we come back to the question about safety? Do you think this

country is safer? Absolutely, not. We are not safer because of what

we've done and I would say that - Muslims are not safe because of

what has happened. To be an ordinary person, to be an ordinary

Muslim in this country and the United States is not a safe thing.

The question is who are we and we are not all safe. No, we are not.

In what way is it not a safe thing to be a Muslim in this country?

is almost a dirty word in the United States right now. One of the

problems that Barack Obama had at the beginning is that people

thought that he was a Muslim. Nobody questioned the fact that you

are using the word Muslim as a pejorative. Muslim equates violence.

The holy religion of Islam is seen as something that has some kind of

inhereant core of violence within it. That's the legacy of what has

happened. You can't be a Muslim. It is very, very difficult to be them

and that to me, when we talk about are we safer? I am asking who are

we, Muslims are not safe for one thing.

APPLAUSE Is it true about America? First on

the general question of whether we are safer, it has been said and I

think correctly that Al-Qaeda and elements associated with it are

weaker now, far weaker than they were ten years ago. We have not had

the kind of massive attack that they had in mind for us and they

were planning new attacks even as 9/11 took place and they were

planning them if I can say it again, if they could obtain them with

weapons of mass destruction so the threat was and I'm afraid remains

significant. Now every Government I know, every western Government,

every democracy has gone to enormous lengths to make it clear

that our problem with radical Islamist terrorists does not extend

to Muslims in general. Every president has said it again and

again. Every Prime Minister has said it again and again and I

really think it is unfair... Richard, you are a student of human

nature. You understand how human beings work. You can say that with

one side of your face and the other side you are sending out all kinds

of signals about it that are the opposite. I promise you on the day,

because I used to live around the area in which the World Trade

Center went down, I know people women who used to wear veils were

told to take your scarf off. Don't wear your cap. Are you surprised by

this after 3,000 people died in New York as a result of those attacks?

Yes, I am. I am. I am surprised that a whole group of people can be

sort of picked off and said this person, this person and this person

is an enemy. Yes, I am. APPLAUSE

Two responses to that, David. One did it make life more difficult for

ordinary people in say Britain or the United States? I think it did

because there is absolutely no doubt that British foreign policy

under Tony Blair in particular was such that it created a lot of anger

amongst Muslim communities in the northern part of the country and

all the reports, the Royal Institute of International Affairs

Report, private intelligence reports which were later leaked,

said it was British foreign policy that radicalised these kids, it was

not religion. That was very concrete. The second thing that

happened and this is also a consequence of 9/11 that despite

all the politicians saying, "We are not going to let the terrorists

change our way of life." They did. People were arrested without trial.

There are people in Britain still locked up for 11 years without

being tried. Guantanamo Bay, which Obama said he was going to close

dournings he release -- down, he released fewer people than Bush did.

We live in almost a post-legal State and the third thing is a big,

big increase in what is called Islamophobia, just hostility to

Muslims in general which has been stopped, not just by the wars, but

which has to a certain extent been halted, not completely, by the huge

uprisings in the Arab world for democratic rights, not just against

people like Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi. Gaddafi was a close ally

of the Blair Government, but in countries like Egypt where

dictatorships had been kept going by the United States with their

money and countries like Saudi Arabia which are still kept going

and I never believed, I never believed, I never believed that a

majority of the Muslim population ins all the Muslim world were in

anyway sympathetic to terrorism, it is a tiny, tiny minority as

terrorists always are and when given the chance they demonstrated.

Tariq, if you keep on talking about the the Arab Spring as you have,

you will be be be labelled a neoconservative.

David Miliband. Let me tell you the word that is use add lot when I

talk to Muslim constituents. The word they throw at mo is thip -- me

is hip pobg ras ci -- hypocrisy. They say you talk about Human

Rights, but what about Guantanamo Bay, they say that. They also say

you talk about UN resolutions, but what about Israel/Palestine. People

in my position have to accept that those things are said and that's

why I think it is right to be as clear as we can about the

centrality of the Human Rights challenge that we now face in the

wake of 9/11, but secondly, Israel/Palestine did not cause 9/11.

That is a really wrong thing to say, but if they are interested in

puncturing this allegation, we have to accept that the greatest

diplomatic failure in 40 years is the failure to resolve

Israel/Palestine. If we want to show our seriousness we have to

tackle the Israel/Palestine issue and make sure there is a State they

can call home. APPLAUSE

One of our audience has a question. It is Chad Davis.

My question for the panel. Is the root cause of terrorism the

Israeli/Palestine problem? If so, would Osama Bin Laden have

cancelled his 9/11 plans if plinth had been -- President Clinton had

been able to broker peace in the Middle East? No, I don't think so.

We have to be careful about playing into the Osama Bin Laden argument

that this was about religion. That this was anything to do with Islam

or the liberation or the people of the Islamic world. Osama Bin Laden

was about a violent anti-western political philosophy. It had

nothing at all to do with religion. Religion is seldom the problem. It

is when religion is used as the excuse for violence or the

oppression of people is used for political motives in the name of

religion. Henley jit mat expression is used using religion as the tool.

That is where the problem lies. It does not lie with religion itself.

Can you answer the question? don't think it would be. There is a

terribly simplistic view if you solve that one problem, everything

else will fall domino like into place. Yes, of course, it is a

problem that is used by countries in the region, most notably I would

say at the moment Iran to continue to whip up what it wants in terms

of its own foreign policy support. There is no doubt if we got a

solution to the Israeli/Palestine problem it would take away a great

propaganda tool, as well as being a major improvement. I don't think we

should be naive to believe if you take away that one problem people

like Osama Bin Laden who hate us because of who we are would

actually go away. APPLAUSE

Richard Perle. The dispute between Israelis and Palestinians is only

going to be solved when Israelis and Palestinians find a solution.

We can't do it. The United Kingdom can't do it. It has got to be done

by them and that's what the UN has mandated going back to the to the

aftermath of the 1967 war. I heard a couple of references to Israel

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 141 seconds

Jeev got a question from Iain Church, who happens to be a bomb

disposal officer. The war on terror is unwinnable. Our negotiations

with Al-Qaeda, inevitable to ensure a satisfactory end to the war on

terrorism? Dr Liam Fox? Not Al- Qaeda, but I think it's reasonable

to make the assumption that you'll not solve the problem in

Afghanistan today by military means alone. I know very few people who

believe that to be true. The question is who do you talk to and

about what? I think you therefore have to look for the people who are

reconcilable to the idea in the Afghan constitution in the way the

country is moving and how it relates to the countries in the

region and the wider world. Hopefully, events are moving in

that direction. In Helmand, just to take a tiny example where our

forces are, we have seen a big reduction in violence levels

throughout this year. We have seen a 25% reduction. It does tend to

suggest the counter-insurgency rather than a purely

counterterrorist strategy is beginning to reap some rewards.

if successive British Governments were willing to talk to the IRA are

they not willing to talk to, if they can find Al-Qaeda, whatever it

may be, to talk to Al-Qaeda? question is not whether we are. The

question is whether the Afghan Government is. It has to be an

Afghan-Government-led process. We're there. We have said we'll

support them. If they're able to find elements of, let's call them,

the former Taliban, who are willing to cooperate with the sort of

direction the people of Afghanistan and the Government want to talk,

then they should engage with them. There has always to be a political

solution to any insurgency and any conflict, but finding the people

who are willing to do that is a difficult job, and we have also to

I think accept that there will be some people who will always be

irreconcilable, and that that will continue to provide a threat to

stability... Do you want to come back on that? I think the war on

terror is broader than Afghanistan. Richard Perle made the point that

Al-Qaeda still pose a significant threat across the world. If that's

the case, then surely it's broader than Afghanistan, and therefore,

what are we going to do to talk to Al-Qaeda operatives that perhaps

aren't operating in the north-west of Pakistan or Afghanistan and

maybe somewhere else? Tariq Ali. Look, don't confuse two things -

the actual Al-Qaeda grouping itself according to virtually every report

- public and official - one hears of is reduced, greatly reduced in

size, so don't conflate that with the insurgency in Afghanistan. It's

not the same thing. The insurgency in Afghanistan now includes not

just some remnants of the old Taliban, but many, many new people,

which is why people call it the new Taliban, and, you know, this isn't

talked about much in polite society, but over the last six years, the

NATO governments, some of them, have been negotiating and

discussing with these people and asking them whether they're

prepared to join national government, to which they reply,

"We will, but only after all foreign troops have left," secondly,

you cannot have a stable government in Afghanistan, in my opinion,

unless some of the neighbouring countries are involved both

financially, economically to try to guarantee the stability, and

whether you like it or not, this includes Pakistan. This includes

Iran. This includes Russia. In includes China. These are countries

that have to be involved, and there should be a withdrawal of Western

troops. Otherwise, it's a disaster story. You have a corrupt

Government which represents nobody. Its people are targeted at will by

the insurgents regularly all over the country, and everyone knows

that militarily this war cannot be won, so a political solution is

necessary, and the political solution which should happen should

involve the neighbouring powers to create a national government. This

country has been at war now since 1979 - ten years of the Russians,

then civil war in Afghanistan between rival factions and now ten

years of NATO. Take pity on them. The woman there in the fourth row

from the back. What's just been said is basically that there needs

to be negotiations. You know, shooting terrorists and looking for

the Taliban to destroy them, you know, there's the problem of

actually increasing the problem because of the hatred and the

revengeful feelings that come from loved ones being killed. You know,

we can dismiss what they're saying - I'm not saying I agree with the

behaviour at all. I don't, but at the end of the day, this is the way

they are, and if we don't try to get past that and actually try to

get the people talking that can, like in the Middle East - what do

the Middle East want in general? You know, do they want the bringing

down of the Taliban? Do they want to come against bad Western

feelings? We've got to establish hue the Middle East feel about it

and what they feel can be done about it. Can I just first of all

thank the gentleman who spoke before you did? I'm from a service

family, and I want to thank you for the service you give to this

country. APPLAUSE

Because this is a voluntary - this is a voluntary military, and you do

what our policymakers have created the situation, so I'm very grateful

to you. I sit here and listen to all of us. The initial question was,

what is the world like after 9/11? What kind of world do we have? This

is an example of the kind of world that we have. We have a world in

which things have been conflated, convoluted, confused, and agendas

have happened, and it's a very simple thing, and I remember

something vividly. This goes back to what this lady was saying. I

remember President Bush in the early days after 9/11 using words

like "crusade", and he was stopped from doing that. I remember people

bringing God into this on the Christian side. We've created a

world in which it is against or for world. There is no middle ground.

We don't - we never, ever hear from the people in Israel who are

working for peace. We never hear from the people in Palestine

working for peace. It's the other sides who get the publicity, and

your question goes back to that. There are people who want to talk,

and they don't get the air time. It's as simple as that. Are we

realistically able to solve the problems in Afghanistan and the

growing problems in Pakistan by 2015? By the date when the troops

are withdrawn? Dr Liam Fox? You said originally there shouldn't be

any deadline, didn't you Yes, but President Karzai said he wanted to

have the security of his own country under his own forces by

2015, and if you have a sovereign government in Afghanistan, you have

to recognise and accept that they will have to ultimately have

control over what they want, and... Does that mean you're very

sceptical about the idea of a deadline? No, I think it's very

achievable for a number of reasons, and Tariq said that we should give

poor Afghanistan a chance. He's quite right. No-one under 30 in

Afghanistan can remember anything other than conflict. We have taken

a lot of things to Afghanistan, but one of the things - and if you go

to talk to people in the markets of Helmand, they'll tell you that the

one thing we have actually brought is some hope because they have a

chance to choose their own governance for the first time -

five times more children are in school than there were four years

ago, more people have access to health care. What we're actually

doing is very positive, and sometimes we should take a bit more

pride in what our country is actually doing and look at the good

things we're actually achieving for the people, and -

APPLAUSE One of the other great things that

our military has been doing is helping to train the Afghan

National Police, the Afghan National Army so that they can take

control of the security of their own country so that we can leave

without leaving behind the sort of security vacuum into which groups

like Al-Qaeda would be drawn, so just for once I think we should say

thank you to what our aid workers are doing, thank you to what our

military are doing because they're actually changing the face of that

country and giving people chance that neither their parents nor

grandparents ever had. The Russians used to say exactly that, exactly

that. The woman in the front. totally agree with what you're

saying, but the fact is thousands and millions of people have died.

It's ridiculous. What is actually being done to prevent people dying?

Innocent lives have died through the whole 9/11 procedure. What

about the people in Afghanistan, all the countries that we're

invading and totally destroying the whole families, lives, and

everything has been ruined by that? What is being done to prevent that

from happening again? I want to take a slightly different area from

Duncan Ayres. We mentioned it briefly. Could the "Arab Spring"

have happened... Fire away again. Could the "Arab Spring" have

happened without the war in Iraq? Could the "Arab Spring" have

happened without the war in Iraq, Richard Perle? I don't think so. I

think what the war in Iraq did ultimately was demonstrate that

even a figure like Saddam Hussein, who Iraqis thought was there

forever, could be removed. Did world saw, including the Arab world

- they saw people coming out of the voting booths in Iraq with purple

thumbs and in fact in the immediate aftermath of that you had an

uprising in Lebanon, which, unfortunately, ran out of steam. I

think it was an inspiration. It was a demonstration that just because

you live in an Arab country, just because you are ruled by an Arab

dictator, you don't have to accept that as your inevitable future.

And we now see the Arab world rising up against its dictators.

APPLAUSE You sounded a little sceptical

about the war in Iraq, David Miliband, in one or two things you

have said. Are you sceptical about the effect of that war, and do you

agree the "Arab Spring" could have happened without it? It's very

tempting for people in my position to say that we'll add to the

positive side of the balance sheet that the "Arab Spring" wouldn't

have happened without the Iraq war. It's tempting, but in all honesty,

I can't say that. APPLAUSE

And it - it would make life - it would make life much easier. I

voted for the war in Iraq. I read Hans Blix's report documenting the

WMD that didn't come. But I have to recognise today that the list of

positives, which include Saddam gone, which include the Kurds safe,

which include Gaddafi giving up his 3,000 chemical bombs - those

positives are outweighed by the longer list of negatives. Now,

history is still being made in Iraq, and as I say, it would make life

easy for me if I could say yes. But the truth about the "Arab Spring"

is that its seeds are deep in Arab society. They're deep among

Egyptians, above all, who have seen their nation run in a kleptocaptic

and corrupt way and national pride sunk. What should be the leader of

the Arab world has been sunk, and that is not aed Saddam Hussein

issue. It's about people demanding universal rights. That's what we

should be standing up for. Can I ask David a very straight question?

David, do you think the 31 million Iraqis who today live in a chaotic

democracy would like to go back to where they were? No-one wants to go

back to living under Saddam Hussein, but... On a balance? If - someone

is going to shout out, "What about those who are dead?" There has been

massive loss of life, but even those Iraqis today, they want a

different kind of liberation is the truth. I don't resile - I don't

rewrite the history of what I voted for and what I said. I try to

explain how I came to those judgments. Do you think you made

the right decisions? On the evidence that was in front of me at

the time, I had to make that decision. Even the Economist, not a

very radical mag, suggests that Iraq today - and I use its words -

is a vicious political police state. That's accurate. We have seen huge

ethnic cleansings taking place. General Petraeus said a few weeks

ago the war in Iraq isn't over. It's going to last a long, long

time. We can't pretend all is well. For me what the "Arab Spring"

revealed is ultimately when a people in a country have had enough

of - whether it's a dictator or a semi-democratic leader, and they

decide to rise and get rid of him - and that is the important thing,

and they got rid of him despite the fact that Mubarak was backed by the

West, as we know, and paid by the West, and who can say that the same

thing wouldn't have happened in Iraq? Who can say that? The "Arab

Spring" proves to me the opposite. If it could have happened in Egypt,

it could have happened in Iraq. APPLAUSE

All right. We're coming to the end. There are many people with their

hands still up. The man in the checked shirt, then briefly, you,

sir. I was just going do say that I think the regimes in Libya and -

where is the other place - Iraq - I think the dictators were more

ruthless than Mubarak personally. I know he was backed by the West. He

didn't try and stop the demonstrations in Egypt, but...

brief one from you, sir. I think it's mad to talk about safer Iraq

and Afghanistan and say for every British person when we have just

screwed up a whole country called Pakistan. This is not Pakistan's

war. It's not a failed state. Labelling a country as a failed

state is a self-fulfilling prophesy. That's what we have seen. The

lesson from the air "Arab Spring" is the people learn no matter how

much you protest, your government isn't going to listen to you. If

the Arabs listened to that there would be no "Arab Spring". We have

to stop there, I am afraid, because our hour is up. Thank you. Apologys

to those of you who had your hands up. Next week we're going to be in

Northern Ireland from a city whose name is the subject of controversy.

You can either call it Londonderry or Derry. The week after that we're

going to be in Birmingham. It's the Liberal Democrat conference. If you