:00:00. > :00:11.It was exactly a year ago that parliament voted not to intervene
:00:12. > :00:16.militarily in Syria. Today David Cameron warned we will be fighting
:00:17. > :00:20.against Islamic State for years, but how? And he upped the terror threat
:00:21. > :00:24.to "severe". Tonight a special programme, what were the
:00:25. > :00:28.consequences of that vote? Have Britain and the west lost their
:00:29. > :00:32.appetite for foreign wars? And what has happened since? The spread of
:00:33. > :00:37.the Syrian conflict into Iraq, the rise ofcy. Of IS and three million
:00:38. > :00:40.Syrian refugees. It is clear to me that the British parliament,
:00:41. > :00:53.reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British
:00:54. > :00:57.military action, I get that. President Assad himself has now
:00:58. > :01:03.confirmed on Russian television that he does have chemical weapons and is
:01:04. > :01:06.prepared to give them up. The The war where you youngest are caught in
:01:07. > :01:16.crossfire, they are targeted, even tortured. Militants, backed by a
:01:17. > :01:20.anti-Government tribal fighters say they have taken control of Fallujah.
:01:21. > :01:22.We are not putting boots on the ground, this is
:01:23. > :01:27.We are not putting boots on the help them in their fight. After four
:01:28. > :01:33.days of this, the Jihadis are now effectively in control of Mosul,
:01:34. > :01:36.Iraq's second city. Many are from the minority Yazidi secretary,
:01:37. > :01:45.forced from their homes a week ago and are now trapped on mountains
:01:46. > :01:48.surrounded by the Jihadists. Syria's intensifying refugee crisis has
:01:49. > :01:53.surpassed today a record three million refugees. The killer, who
:01:54. > :01:59.speaks with a British accent, sends a direct message to President Obama
:02:00. > :02:01.before killing James Foley. It poses an immediate threat to the people of
:02:02. > :02:09.Iraq and the people throughout the region. We don't have a strategy
:02:10. > :02:11.yet. Good evening, David Cameron wouldn't commit to any further
:02:12. > :02:15.military involvement in the Middle East today, but he did describe the
:02:16. > :02:20.Islamic state as a greater and deeper threat to our security than
:02:21. > :02:27.we have ever known before. We are in the middle of a
:02:28. > :02:30.generational struggle against a poisonous and extremist ideology
:02:31. > :02:34.that I believe we will be fighting for years and probably decades. We
:02:35. > :02:37.will always take whatever action necessary to keep the British people
:02:38. > :02:43.safe here at home. But a year ago the Prime Minister took a very
:02:44. > :02:47.different approach after chemical takes by President Assad on his own
:02:48. > :02:51.people. Parliament was recalled to approve military action in Syria
:02:52. > :02:54.only to fail to get the backing of a majority of MPs. How did the
:02:55. > :02:59.Government misjudge that vote? What has the impact been on our foreign
:03:00. > :03:04.policy? Policy still made in the shadow of the Iraq War. Here is our
:03:05. > :03:16.special correspondent, her report contains disturbing images.
:03:17. > :03:29.How do we decide? Who we d'oh we -- do we stand up for? Tonight David
:03:30. > :03:33.Cameron's plan for punishing President Assad using chemical
:03:34. > :03:36.weapons failed. It is parliament, reflecting the views of the British
:03:37. > :03:40.people does not want to see military act, I get that and the Government
:03:41. > :03:46.will act accordingly. If we didn't strike then, what now?
:03:47. > :03:49.With dangers more complex, more intense? David Cameron became the
:03:50. > :03:54.first Prime Minister in many generations to lose a vote on
:03:55. > :03:58.foreign policy. Ministers were astonished, the consensus was
:03:59. > :04:02.smashed. But their position had been based on not one but a series of
:04:03. > :04:10.miscalculations. The biggest, perhaps, a misunderstanding of the
:04:11. > :04:14.recent past. MPs' minds were clogged with
:04:15. > :04:21.memories of their vote for shock and awe, on evidence that was wrong. We
:04:22. > :04:26.cannot ignore the lessons of the calamitous Iraq War. If we do not
:04:27. > :04:30.take action, and it probably means military action, then the
:04:31. > :04:34.credibility of the international community will be greatly damaged.
:04:35. > :04:38.We all know, I have the scars about this, how easy it is to get into
:04:39. > :04:47.military action and how difficult it is to get out of it. The legacy of
:04:48. > :04:52.going to war in Iraq on a false premise cast a large shadow. And
:04:53. > :04:57.some of us in parliament are in no mood for smoke and mirrors when it
:04:58. > :05:03.comes to these things. There wasn't doubt about Assad's brutality, by
:05:04. > :05:06.chance just as MPs voted these images of a chemical attack were
:05:07. > :05:13.shown for the first time. But the question was how to punish the
:05:14. > :05:17.crossing of the west's red line. The Government and Washington wanted to
:05:18. > :05:21.side with the rebels. Some of these rebels included ISIS, some included
:05:22. > :05:25.groups linked to Al-Qaeda. The idea of intervening on their behalf was
:05:26. > :05:29.sheer and utter madness. Even on the morning of the vote, one minister at
:05:30. > :05:34.the cabinet table suggested there would be no problem with the debate,
:05:35. > :05:38.yet party managers and others were increasingly aware. They hadn't had
:05:39. > :05:46.enough time to get the votes over the line. First time parliament, or
:05:47. > :05:50.the party, assembled as a group was just before the debate started. The
:05:51. > :05:53.whips were hampered from their usual operation, being able to move around
:05:54. > :05:57.the lobbies, ringing colleagues, speaking to individuals personally.
:05:58. > :06:02.And I think so again it goes back to the shortage of time to actually
:06:03. > :06:08.marshall the party as a cohesive group. David Cameron had banked on
:06:09. > :06:12.Ed Miliband's support though and given private concession, but to his
:06:13. > :06:17.shock Labour decided instead on their own, more cautious motion.
:06:18. > :06:23.This was a very significant political question Labour wanted to
:06:24. > :06:31.try to demonstrate its unease. But it also wanted to show that if push
:06:32. > :06:35.came to shove it was not going to baulk at making a difficult
:06:36. > :06:40.decision. On paper Labour's position was not so different to the
:06:41. > :06:44.Government's, but in practice, it killed off David Cameron's plan. By
:06:45. > :06:49.the time he entered the Commons' chamber, before the result, a member
:06:50. > :06:53.of his team had in their pocket a speech prepared to acknowledge
:06:54. > :06:59.defeat. Nothing had been written in case of a win. And at at the most
:07:00. > :07:06.senior levels of Government it was Ed Miliband's manoeuvres that sunk
:07:07. > :07:14.the vote and they saw as treachery. The ayes to the right, 272, the nos
:07:15. > :07:18.to the left 2le 5. Ed Miliband 's move did not force David Cameron to
:07:19. > :07:22.be this explicit. We have to listen to parliament, parliament spoke, and
:07:23. > :07:26.parliament, I think, made a very clear view, which it doesn't want
:07:27. > :07:29.British involvement in military action. We will proceed on that
:07:30. > :07:35.basis. Though he says the threat from the Middle East now is deeper,
:07:36. > :07:39.stronger, it is harder to act. I think it probably did limit
:07:40. > :07:42.Government power, but I'm not sure that's necessarily a bad thing,
:07:43. > :07:48.we're living in a parliamentary democracy. Parliament has a right to
:07:49. > :07:52.be heard. Parliament has raised the bar when it comes to intervention,
:07:53. > :07:55.that is a good thing, given our past errors over the last decade. The
:07:56. > :08:01.fact that Britain backed off and then America followed them just
:08:02. > :08:05.illustrated to these militia groups that hang on the west is hesitating
:08:06. > :08:09.here. Here is a real opportunity. We have seen them march straight into
:08:10. > :08:13.it. This defeat did more than prevent the UK's action. Both sides
:08:14. > :08:20.agree it gave parliament strength, but reduced the UK's power. A year
:08:21. > :08:23.on with threats, more comMOX, more dang -- complex, more dangerous, any
:08:24. > :08:29.leader must work harder for permission to intervene. Or take a
:08:30. > :08:41.bigger and frankly unlikely gamble, act now and ask later. The ironic
:08:42. > :08:47.inheritance of the vote, the sense. Reticence. When a year on threats to
:08:48. > :08:51.Middle East safety grow. Joining me is Liam Fox, former
:08:52. > :08:55.Defence Secretary, Lord Ashdown, once leader of the Liberal
:08:56. > :08:58.Democrats, and Lord West, a Home Office Minister in the last Labour
:08:59. > :09:03.Government and before that the First Sea Lord. At the time of that last
:09:04. > :09:07.vote Lord Ashdown, you said you were ashamed of parliament. Do you still
:09:08. > :09:13.think it was bad decision? Yes. Undoubtedly. For the very first time
:09:14. > :09:18.in my memory Britain refused to stand up for international law. It
:09:19. > :09:22.is not about intervening in Iraq, to provide weapons for the rebels in
:09:23. > :09:25.Iraq, in my view that wouldn't have been a wise thing. Because you
:09:26. > :09:28.wouldn't know into whose hands those weapons would have gone. And indeed
:09:29. > :09:35.events have subsequently showed that. When Assad crossed a red line,
:09:36. > :09:40.broke into international national law in existence since 1925, that
:09:41. > :09:44.had restrained Hitler and Stalin, and the British parliament decided
:09:45. > :09:48.to do nothing to stand up for international law, I think that was
:09:49. > :09:52.a shameful moment. I think what happened subsequently, the Americans
:09:53. > :09:55.sincerity to go ahead and take action, together with France but
:09:56. > :09:59.without Britain, forced Assad to come to the table to negotiate
:10:00. > :10:03.chemical weapons. They have now been removed. But elsewhere in the Middle
:10:04. > :10:08.East, as we have seen very clearly, the failure to act has encouraged
:10:09. > :10:11.others to believe that whatever the nature of the transgression we will
:10:12. > :10:16.not act. That's landed us in the position we are in now. Yes, bad
:10:17. > :10:21.move, an unwise move and for Britain a shameful one. There you are Lord
:10:22. > :10:24.West, you argued against intervention, it was shameful and
:10:25. > :10:30.has allowed the rise of IS? I don't agree. I'm delighted that almost 12
:10:31. > :10:34.months ago, minus two day, we didn't start bombing Syria with no clear
:10:35. > :10:40.aim of what the end game was, no clear aim of where we were going, we
:10:41. > :10:45.could actually in terms of what "what ifs" have a whole Syria
:10:46. > :10:48.controlled by ISIS if we did that. We don't know what would have
:10:49. > :10:52.happened. I think it was right not to jump into bombing them without a
:10:53. > :11:01.clear view of what our aim was. Far from being a shameful -- thing I
:11:02. > :11:04.think it was right. What I didn't want was the thing in parliament it
:11:05. > :11:08.was not a clear cut thing, I'm asking permission to bomb Syria in
:11:09. > :11:13.two days time, should we do it or shouldn't we? No the answer we
:11:14. > :11:21.shouldn't have. It became more fuzzy. Liam Fox you argued very
:11:22. > :11:26.strongly for intervention, do you think as a country we are diminished
:11:27. > :11:29.by the failure of that vote? I think that our influence has been
:11:30. > :11:37.diminished and I think people will wonder what our word is worth I
:11:38. > :11:41.think Paddy Ashdown is 100% correct. It wasn't about intervening in a war
:11:42. > :11:44.in Syria, it was about a breach in international law about the use of
:11:45. > :11:47.chemical weapons. What we were asking is for a limited response to
:11:48. > :11:52.send a very clear signal that the use could not be tolerated again.
:11:53. > :11:55.The fact that we didn't send that signal sent a message to those who
:11:56. > :11:59.have chemical weapons in other place that is they could use them with
:12:00. > :12:04.impunity. That is what Paddy Ashdown was saying was the shameful moment.
:12:05. > :12:09.Was it that George Osborne underestimated the shadow of Iraq?
:12:10. > :12:12.I'm not sure that was entirely true. I think there was an understanding
:12:13. > :12:15.on the part. Of the Government that the Labour Party would give the
:12:16. > :12:19.Government support until very late in the day. I think that was a
:12:20. > :12:26.really dreadful mistake by Ed Miliband. Should there be military
:12:27. > :12:29.intervention now? Would it be impossible without parliament's
:12:30. > :12:33.better mission? There should be intervention to deal with ISIS? What
:12:34. > :12:37.kind of intervention? If we believe it to be the threat we believe it to
:12:38. > :12:43.be we have to deal with it in all its facets. We have to stop the sale
:12:44. > :12:46.of oil on the black market where it derives money and the flow of money
:12:47. > :12:50.from sympathetic groups in the region. We need to interrupt the
:12:51. > :12:54.command and control and supply lines of ISIS, that will require air
:12:55. > :12:58.strikes. British air strikes? Along with the United States if we are
:12:59. > :13:02.asked to do so. It is important that the west provides air cover, close
:13:03. > :13:10.air cover for any ground offensive, counter-attack by the Iraqis or the
:13:11. > :13:12.Kurds. Paddy Ashdown, Liam Fox is saying clearly we should be
:13:13. > :13:17.militarily involved in the air strike, do you think it is possible
:13:18. > :13:21.to do this without parliament's say so, or now is every single military
:13:22. > :13:27.intervention to be run past Westminster? If we're going to
:13:28. > :13:31.engage British military forces and put them in harm's way it is proper
:13:32. > :13:36.that parliament should be consulted. I profoundly disagree with Fox, by
:13:37. > :13:39.the way. I think we have to get away from this idea which says that in
:13:40. > :13:46.response to everything in the Middle East our answer is bombs and
:13:47. > :13:49.rockets. I mean there is a use for limited forms of air support to
:13:50. > :13:54.protect for instance the Kurdish state. There is also a use for such
:13:55. > :13:58.military action as would be consistent with an integrated
:13:59. > :14:05.policy. My view of what is happening in the Middle East now is a very
:14:06. > :14:07.powerful, terrible, but probably reasonably temporary convulsion, but
:14:08. > :14:12.it will change the borders of the Middle East. What we need is an
:14:13. > :14:16.integrated policy in which diplomacy, First Minister with
:14:17. > :14:20.Turkey, Iran, for instance to put pressure on Saudi Arabia to stop
:14:21. > :14:23.supporting the Jihadis is probably as important, if not more important
:14:24. > :14:28.than the military action, but it is the co-ordination of those which
:14:29. > :14:33.will have the effect. Tell me Liam Fox, there will be a NATO meeting,
:14:34. > :14:36.what will we do, will we tell NATO we will not take any action? I think
:14:37. > :14:42.of the United States in particular it says we would like Britain to
:14:43. > :14:46.share the burden of limited air involvement to be able to reduce the
:14:47. > :14:50.military capability of ISIS and give the forces on the ground a chance to
:14:51. > :14:54.work. If we were to go to NATO summit and say we are not going to
:14:55. > :14:58.be supporting the Americans, but we are demanding that the rest of NATO
:14:59. > :15:02.pulls its weight more, that would be a very odd position for Britain to
:15:03. > :15:07.have. Lord West in your view should there be a clearly defined limited
:15:08. > :15:10.strike, after the NATO meeting next week, Liam Fox seems to be
:15:11. > :15:16.suggesting if we are asked we should go ahead with military strikes, is
:15:17. > :15:19.it possible to have a limited, clearly defined strategy in the
:15:20. > :15:22.Middle East? We need a very clear strategy and clear end game of where
:15:23. > :15:26.we want to go, and we have to employ everything at our disposal in terms
:15:27. > :15:31.of diplomatic, in terms of leaning on those within the region, for
:15:32. > :15:34.example, stopping money flows from Qatar and Saudi Arabia, more
:15:35. > :15:39.pressure on our prevent mechanism here in terms of radicalisation and
:15:40. > :15:42.people going. This needs to be much better co-ordinated. There is danger
:15:43. > :15:46.about thinking it is nice and easy, let's fire a few missiles and drop a
:15:47. > :15:49.few bombs on people, that will solve the problem, it doesn't solve the
:15:50. > :15:53.problem. But sometimes, sometimes you do have to use force. I have
:15:54. > :15:57.been involved in using force in this country, but it has to be clearly
:15:58. > :16:02.thought through and you mustn't do it in a sort of haphazard way. I do
:16:03. > :16:08.think that attack on Syria a year ago would have been haphazard, you
:16:09. > :16:11.can't rap on the knuckles here. It does have to be proportionate and I
:16:12. > :16:15.do think it has to be limited, it has to be part of a wider strategy.
:16:16. > :16:19.It has to be financial, political, but if we do require a military
:16:20. > :16:24.element to complete that strategy we should not be unwilling to do it.
:16:25. > :16:27.But in wider terms what is the shape of our possible future interventions
:16:28. > :16:31.in the Middle East and beyond look like, is it changed now? It depends
:16:32. > :16:36.on the situation that arises in the future. I do think we have to have
:16:37. > :16:38.an integrated strategy that takes foreign policy, economic policy
:16:39. > :16:42.fully into account. Is there an appetite for it do you think? The
:16:43. > :16:45.question is do Governments wait until the threat is so great that
:16:46. > :16:48.the public are demanding action, or does the Government act when the
:16:49. > :16:53.Government believes that the threat is such a severity that it warrants
:16:54. > :16:57.action. Does that look to you like intervention and the way it should
:16:58. > :17:01.be conducted? There is all sorts of intervention. When you act to
:17:02. > :17:04.support a country with aid that is intervention, why do we always put
:17:05. > :17:08.intervention only in military terms. We need an integrated strategy. Let
:17:09. > :17:13.me make a slightly different point if I may for you, since we are now
:17:14. > :17:16.facing in the day when we raised the threat level, the Government is
:17:17. > :17:20.concentrating, and I think they are unwise to do so on the threat of
:17:21. > :17:23.Jihadis coming home. By the way when they have raised the threat level
:17:24. > :17:26.they have raised it to what has existed in Northern Ireland for the
:17:27. > :17:29.last two years and what we sustained for five years in the case of the
:17:30. > :17:32.IRA terrorist. Of course this is a threat. But it is a threat that we
:17:33. > :17:35.know how to deal with it and it needs to be put into proportion. I
:17:36. > :17:40.fear it is getting out of proportion. By far the greater
:17:41. > :17:44.threat to Britain is the threat of a widening religious war which
:17:45. > :17:48.threatens to engulf the entire Middle East. Now that's the bigger
:17:49. > :17:52.threat. I wish I had heard the Government talking about tackling
:17:53. > :17:55.that. If you want to link Ukraine with what's happening in the Middle
:17:56. > :18:00.East, this is the system that will do it, because Russia supports
:18:01. > :18:05.Assad. You are talking here about something much, much bigger, much,
:18:06. > :18:08.much more dangerous than returning Jihadi, you are talking about a
:18:09. > :18:13.regional war, in the Middle East, which is religious in nature, which
:18:14. > :18:18.could engulf the Middle East which could change the borders and which
:18:19. > :18:24.could easily f we allow it to get of control engage the great powers as
:18:25. > :18:27.well. That is why complinecy has as much a part to play as does military
:18:28. > :18:32.force. Thank you very much indeed, what are the guiding principles of
:18:33. > :18:37.our policy on intervention in foreign conflict if there are any.
:18:38. > :18:40.It is 15 years since Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq. Was last
:18:41. > :18:43.year's vote not to intervene in Syria a turning point in the UK and
:18:44. > :18:45.west's approach to the rest of the world. Here is our diplomatic
:18:46. > :19:02.editor. Historians and think-tankers have
:19:03. > :19:07.Long been obsessed with the UK's global status. 50 years ago it was
:19:08. > :19:14.an American politician who said that Britain had lost an empire but not
:19:15. > :19:19.found a role. Actually Britain has had a pretty well defined role over
:19:20. > :19:23.the past half century, which is acting as America's number two or
:19:24. > :19:28.deputy in upholding international security. In the past year though
:19:29. > :19:34.even that's become highly uncertain as the British Government has
:19:35. > :19:38.stepped back from foreign wars. I for one was quite surprised at how
:19:39. > :19:42.much the rest of the world was taking notice of what happened in
:19:43. > :19:46.parliament that day. Because in the gulf and even in eastation and Japan
:19:47. > :19:49.people were saying to me is Britain serious about defence, is there a
:19:50. > :19:52.big rift between Britain and the United States. Are you guys
:19:53. > :19:57.withdrawing from your space in world affairs? And what seemed at the time
:19:58. > :20:01.to be a domestic blip, admittedly a serious blip, but a blip in our
:20:02. > :20:06.political process, was perceived by the rest of the world as a tipping
:20:07. > :20:11.point in Britain's decline as a world power. Just a few weeks back a
:20:12. > :20:16.senior Special Forces officer I met told me that the SAS were not
:20:17. > :20:21.operating in Iraq because of the parliamentary vote. If they got into
:20:22. > :20:26.combat it might be deemed illegal. So what would they be doing once the
:20:27. > :20:30.commitment in Afghanistan had wound down? Well more training missions he
:20:31. > :20:33.suggested and Britain would rely more on the soft power of the
:20:34. > :20:40.International Development Department. The forces, intelligence
:20:41. > :20:44.agencies and Foreign Office have all geared themselves to the
:20:45. > :20:48.Government's view that absent a 9/11 scale event Britain has lost its
:20:49. > :20:53.will to confront enemies overseas. It would be realistic of me to say
:20:54. > :20:57.that I would not accept in the most extreme circumstances, I would not
:20:58. > :21:04.expect to see a manifestation of great appetite for plunging into
:21:05. > :21:10.another prolonged period of ex-president decisionry engagment
:21:11. > :21:14.into -- expeditionary-type engagment any time soon. So the Government has
:21:15. > :21:18.been drawing down in Afghanistan and shunning any commitment to follow on
:21:19. > :21:25.training for the Afghan forces. We have seen a reduction in British
:21:26. > :21:31.commitment, evidenced by the British extreme reluctance to get involved
:21:32. > :21:34.with the commitment to a training, advising assisting mission in
:21:35. > :21:38.Afghanistan, when the mission concludes at the end of this year.
:21:39. > :21:43.What we have seen is countries like Germany and Italy stepping forward
:21:44. > :21:46.to fill the gap in supporting the Americans which Britain
:21:47. > :21:51.traditionally did. One year ago the result of the British vote
:21:52. > :21:55.reverberated across the Atlantic, feeding US Congress which then
:21:56. > :22:00.declined to support US strikes on Syria. Britain had gone from being
:22:01. > :22:04.the dependable partner to a more questionable ally. I think the vote
:22:05. > :22:08.in parliament did have an impact on the President. Because within a
:22:09. > :22:11.couple of days of that vote he decided to go seek a vote in
:22:12. > :22:16.Congress, which he had not planned to do here, and of course that then
:22:17. > :22:20.faded away. I don't think, I think it was little more than a ripple in
:22:21. > :22:23.our long-term relationship with Britain, I think when the President
:22:24. > :22:27.gets his strategy together he will hope, as I will, that the British
:22:28. > :22:31.will be by our side again as they have been so often. So can there be
:22:32. > :22:35.some sort of new concept about when it is right to intervene, well Tony
:22:36. > :22:40.Blair may have gone in with the Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan,
:22:41. > :22:46.but he did also take unilateral military action in Sierra Leone, and
:22:47. > :22:51.he favoured the concept of what's called humanitarian intervention, he
:22:52. > :22:54.believed in the concept of the responsibility to protect, in cases
:22:55. > :23:09.where "ethnic cleansing" Oregan side were imminent.
:23:10. > :23:12.Is the Prime Minister who marched his troughs down the hill now at the
:23:13. > :23:18.mercy of events marching them back up again. The RAF is flying over
:23:19. > :23:21.Iraq once more. It is dropping aid not bombs, for the moment any way.
:23:22. > :23:26.Government insists it has not not bombs, for the moment any way.
:23:27. > :23:30.asked yesterday to join American air strikes. The signs are that this
:23:31. > :23:34.Government doesn't want to take major military action in this crisis
:23:35. > :23:40.no matter whether that is independently or as President
:23:41. > :23:44.Obama's junior partner. Britain still wants a role in the world, it
:23:45. > :23:52.just seems less sure than ever about how to carve it.
:23:53. > :24:00.To discuss this I'm joined by the former Chief of General Staff, the
:24:01. > :24:03.author of the End of History and a Professor from the London School of
:24:04. > :24:07.Economics. Are we living in a world in which Britain is unwilling or
:24:08. > :24:14.unable to exercise our military power? No, I don't think we are.
:24:15. > :24:17.Your conversation earlier this evening on this programme quite
:24:18. > :24:21.rightly has focussed on the debate in parliament a year ago. And I was
:24:22. > :24:25.one of those who spoke against intervention on bombing at that
:24:26. > :24:32.stage, as Lord West, who you talked to earlier also did. Because the
:24:33. > :24:36.issue then was an unclear issue which would potentially have had us
:24:37. > :24:40.bombing in a complex Civil War and the consequences of what we had done
:24:41. > :24:46.were most unclear. We were right to vote against that and it caused a
:24:47. > :24:50.check on American ambitions. It also actually led the Russians to get
:24:51. > :24:54.involved and it then led to the removal of most of the Syrian
:24:55. > :24:57.chemical weapons. Now the situation today is very different. The
:24:58. > :25:01.situation is different today, but I was going to ask you, in what
:25:02. > :25:07.scenario can you see us intervening, if there was another Sierra Leone,
:25:08. > :25:11.if there was another something, when in the Middle East can you see us
:25:12. > :25:16.intervening, you heard what Liam Fox said? I'm not going to start
:25:17. > :25:19.presupposing different scenarios. Let's take the situation we have
:25:20. > :25:25.today. The issue we have in front of us today is very clear. Islamic
:25:26. > :25:29.State is a very clear and present danger. The Prime Minister has
:25:30. > :25:34.spoken about that in absolute terms. What should we be doing now? The
:25:35. > :25:37.Americans are bombing in support of the Peshmerga fighters northern
:25:38. > :25:42.Iraq. There is the issue of the Free Syrian Army in Syria. And the
:25:43. > :25:46.request, if it hasn't come will come quite soon whether whether the UK
:25:47. > :25:50.will not only take surveillance pictures from its aircrafts but drop
:25:51. > :25:54.explosive ordinance as well. I believe this is a very different
:25:55. > :25:58.issue from a year ago and we should be taking action, not just from the
:25:59. > :26:01.air but also playing our part in arming and training the Peshmerga
:26:02. > :26:10.fighters particularly in northern Iraq so that they can stand against
:26:11. > :26:14.this very person national curriculums -- pernicious regime
:26:15. > :26:19.trying to put itself in power, the Islamic State. Do you agree with the
:26:20. > :26:23.analysis? First of all I think there is such a thing as humanitarian
:26:24. > :26:27.intervention but it needs to be focussed on the suffering of the
:26:28. > :26:32.people. It needs, you know, people are going through terrible things in
:26:33. > :26:36.Syria and Iraq. Any kind of intervention has to be focussed on
:26:37. > :26:39.that, we tend to have in our minds that intervention only means war
:26:40. > :26:47.fighting, it only means defeating people. But as a country, you know,
:26:48. > :26:51.do we have, we are a huge military power, are we posturing as a
:26:52. > :26:55.military power, generally? I think both ourselves and the United States
:26:56. > :26:58.have lost a huge degree of moral credibility as a result of both the
:26:59. > :27:02.interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is not just that we
:27:03. > :27:07.have lost our appetite, we haven't come to terms with our culpability
:27:08. > :27:11.for what is happening. And the fact that we do have a much more limited
:27:12. > :27:15.role because we have lost our credibility. Until we can start
:27:16. > :27:21.coming to terms with what we were responsible for, what we did wrong,
:27:22. > :27:28.we can't start to think what's right. You know, once upon time
:27:29. > :27:35.America was the world's policeman and we no longer appear to be the
:27:36. > :27:39.Lieutenants willing to do anything. Do you agree with that analysis that
:27:40. > :27:46.until we understand the problems Iraq gave us we can't move on to a
:27:47. > :27:49.different kind of world peace? I think what Iraq and Afghanistan have
:27:50. > :27:55.demonstrated is that we don't have the knowledge and the ability to
:27:56. > :27:58.create very specific political outcomes like building democracy in
:27:59. > :28:01.either of those countries. But we still have a lot of power and we
:28:02. > :28:07.still have a lot of national interest. I actually think that the
:28:08. > :28:11.situation in both Iraq and Syria has deteriorated to the point that we
:28:12. > :28:16.have to be pretty hard headed right now about protecting some core
:28:17. > :28:20.interests. I think actually you can define a strategy fairly simply,
:28:21. > :28:27.that we, that is to say the United States, Britain and other western
:28:28. > :28:30.powers ought to at this point act as off-shore balancer, our objective
:28:31. > :28:38.should be to prevent any of these bad actors like ISIS or the Assad
:28:39. > :28:43.Government in Syria from dominating the region. That we can do. We
:28:44. > :28:50.cannot turn Syria into a democracy, but we can at least prevent the bad
:28:51. > :28:55.use of power by some extremely nasty groups there. But it is not just
:28:56. > :28:59.about air strikes in that case is it, is it about putting boots on the
:29:00. > :29:06.ground. There is no appetite for that kind of intervention? You know
:29:07. > :29:11.the one thing about ISIS right now that is that they are very much
:29:12. > :29:14.overextended. You usually cannot achieve certain political objectives
:29:15. > :29:19.just with air power, but this is a case where you can really, you can
:29:20. > :29:22.take apart a lot of their infrastructure in Syria and do it
:29:23. > :29:28.without any need for ground forces. So I think this is one case where
:29:29. > :29:33.actually a little bit of limited military power it can actually do a
:29:34. > :29:37.lot of good. If you move your gaze to somewhere else in the world and
:29:38. > :29:41.you look at what is happening now between Russia and Ukraine, and
:29:42. > :29:45.Ukraine tonight calling for full membership of NATO to come under
:29:46. > :29:51.that umbrella, is that a conflict where actually the danger to us is
:29:52. > :29:59.quite severe and actually that Putin's ambition threatens us all? I
:30:00. > :30:03.actually think that Ukraine is a much more serious threat, not just
:30:04. > :30:07.to us but to a lot of countries that are quite important to us, and
:30:08. > :30:13.anything that is going on in this spreading, Sunni-Shia war in the
:30:14. > :30:18.Middle East. And Putin has set a new precedent that's very, very similar
:30:19. > :30:22.to what Hitler did in the 1930s about supporting Russians outside of
:30:23. > :30:27.Russia that will be extremely destablising in Europe. I think NATO
:30:28. > :30:30.needs to get serious as a military alliance, it hasn't been for the
:30:31. > :30:36.last 20 years, but the time has come for it. I think it is very difficult
:30:37. > :30:41.to defeat the Islamic State just through war fighting. I just don't
:30:42. > :30:45.think that is possible nowadays. I think absolutely key you know, it
:30:46. > :30:51.may not be possible to create a democracy, but the absolute key is
:30:52. > :30:55.an inclusive political arrangement, so politic is key to dealing with
:30:56. > :30:58.these things. But when you look more at what is happening in Europe, when
:30:59. > :31:03.you look at what is happening with Putin and you look what that threat
:31:04. > :31:08.looks like, does NATO have to step up the challenge again, do we have
:31:09. > :31:11.to stand nose-to-nose and show our power? I think that is terribly
:31:12. > :31:15.dangerous to do that, but at the same time, again we are talking
:31:16. > :31:20.always in geopolitical terms, where as if you look at what's happening
:31:21. > :31:24.in eastern Ukraine, what was a democracy movement is being turned
:31:25. > :31:30.into an ethnic conflict. There is displacement, there is human rights
:31:31. > :31:34.violations and we need to shift the discourse from geopolitics to
:31:35. > :31:37.humanitarian issues. Thank you all very much, that is all we have time
:31:38. > :31:43.for, from this Newsnight special, good night.